<div dir="ltr">Dear colleagues.<div>Especially Arend and Ilja.</div><div><br></div><div>The text in blue is copy/paste from Arends respond on December 15.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8px">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=9EPlyiW-xGI</a><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-size:12.8px">This is such an important video, that I encourage everyone to take an</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">hour and watch this video from beginning to end.</span></font><br></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The video’s from David Lapoint are indeed
very interesting and very professional. It’s a pity he stopped after the first
three parts and not finished the last 4 parts as announced.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Do you know what happened to David Lapoint?
On this websitepage short info and further only a sales of a Primer Cube product ( <a href="http://www.primercube.com/">http://www.primercube.com/</a> )<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://aetherforce.com/the-primer-cube-by-david-lapoint/">http://aetherforce.com/the-primer-cube-by-david-lapoint/</a>
:<br>
</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(116,116,116)">A few years ago a series called the<span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk"><span style="line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">Primer fields</span></a></span><span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(116,116,116)"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(116,116,116)">came out of nowhere and gave us all spectacular new insight into
how magnetic fields and sacred geometry work together.<span></span></span></i></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(116,116,116)"><i>The series stopped suddenly and the
author David Lapoint said that he was receiving far too much abuse to continue.
He is back now with a device he has built off what he has learned. You be the
judge.</i><span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">The other video about
the vortices in water (</span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8&authuser=0"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnbJEg9r1o8&authuser=0</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> ) is very interesting and important.
It confirms my opinion that our macro physic world has much to tell us about
the micro physic world both for physic laws in fluid dynamics and for the image
that we get from our solar system, galaxy and universe. I am glad that Stavros Tassos also wants to participate in the topic about mass increase. He is geologist (but does not have much time left because he is also parliamentarion for Greece) and supports theory about expanding (growing) earth. See the separate Email-exchange.<br>I would like also if some chemists would participate on this forum. As for water: there are mainly
very interesting discoveries. Have a look at: </span><a href="https://youtu.be/i-T7tCMUDXU?t=5m19s"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://youtu.be/i-T7tCMUDXU?t=5m19s</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> about the Z-fase of water. As Arend indicated: water dynamics can provide important keys to understand the aether.<span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">This "disc"
area is flat, like a pancake, when considering the solar</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">system to be "isolated" in space and
in "rest". However, when</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">considered in a situation whereby the structure
"moves" through space</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">in a direction aligned with the rotation axis of
the "disc", the</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">orbits would become "helical" and thus
form a "tornado" type vortex<span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Yes indeed. So, the
provided velocities of the planets and the equation v^2 x D ( velocity squared times Distance to the Sun) being constant are
only valid if we consider our solar system isolated and at rest.<span></span></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">First of all, the Lorentz transformation should *not* be used, because<br>
it fundamentally mixes the concepts of "time" and "space"
in an<br>
unwarranted manner because of it's inclusion of the speed of light, c</span><br></div><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">I read several opinions
about the way Lorentz Transformation of mass-energy is useful or not. That’s
why I put a question on Quora (and gave also an answer): </span><a href="https://www.quora.com/Was-Julian-Schwinger-wrong-when-he-stated-that-increasing-speed-leads-to-increasing-Mass-in-accordance-with-Lorentz-transformation-of-mass-energy/answer/Ruud-Loeffen" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">Was Julian Schwinger wrong
when he stated that increasing speed leads to increasing Mass in accordance
with Lorentz transformation of mass-energy?</span></a><span class="gmail-MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span><span class="gmail-renderedqtext"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(43,109,173)"><br>
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If the Lorentz
Transformation can’t be used than all equations in Mind-blowing that are based
on LT must be dismissed. However the factor gamma still can be used as the
Expansion Constant 8,38689562243644E-10 because it is EQUAL to the <b>Gravitational Constant
(6,67407947753269E-11) times 4 PI</b>. The factor gamma just makes
calculations about the change that is caused by Gravitation or Expansion more
easy: "(gamma- 1)" gives the CHANGE that is caused in one second per second: an
acceleration towards the surface or an acceleration from the surface to
surrounding space. Pulling Gravity, Pushing Gravity or Expansion.<span></span></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">The LHC CERN has a website :</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> <a href="https://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-machine-outreach-faq.htm"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-machine-outreach-faq.htm</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> About mass increase there is a faq: </span><br clear="all"><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">I read several opinions
about the way Lorentz Transformation of mass-energy is useful or not. That’s
why I put a question on Quora (and gave also an answer): </span><a href="https://www.quora.com/Was-Julian-Schwinger-wrong-when-he-stated-that-increasing-speed-leads-to-increasing-Mass-in-accordance-with-Lorentz-transformation-of-mass-energy/answer/Ruud-Loeffen" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif">Was Julian Schwinger wrong
when he stated that increasing speed leads to increasing Mass in accordance
with Lorentz transformation of mass-energy?</span></a><span class="gmail-MsoHyperlink"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> </span></span><span class="gmail-renderedqtext"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.5pt;font-family:helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(43,109,173)"><br>
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If the Lorentz
Transformation can’t be used than all equations in Mind-blowing that are based
on LT must be dismissed. However the factor gamma still can be used as the
Expansion Constant 8,38689562243644E-10 because it is EQUAL to the Gravitational Constant
(6,67407947753269E-11) times 4 PI. The factor gamma just makes
calculations about the change that is caused by Gravitation or Expansion more
easy: gamma- 1 gives the CHANGE that is caused in one second per second. An
acceleration towards the surface or an acceleration from the surface to
surrounding space. Pulling Gravity, Pushing Gravity or Expansion.<span></span></span></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">The LHC CERN has a website :</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"> <a href="https://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-machine-outreach-faq.htm"><span style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-machine-outreach-faq.htm</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> About mass increase there is a faq: </span><br></div><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><img src="cid:ii_1591a6697382cb7f" alt="Inline image 1" width="412" height="222"><br></span></div><div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Yes I calculated this:
I find 7460,52 as gamma. That means: The accelerated proton is increased by7460,52 times the rest-mass of the photon. The velocity is just a few meters less than the speed of
light. Is this mass increase in the LHC an "Emperor with new clothes"? Here is an overview of Julian Schwinger:<br><img src="cid:ii_1591a6763d736691" alt="Inline image 2" width="412" height="301"><br><span></span></span></p></div><p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Now looking over your
book, I noticed that you use the Lorentz factor</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">and consider that to be a constant:</span><br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">_That_ is a problem!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Consider how c is defined in terms of
electromagnetic parameters:</span><br>
<br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">c = sqrt( 1/(</span></span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">ε</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">0</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">μ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">0) ) = 1/sqrt(</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">ε</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">0</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">μ</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">0)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">IIRC, Epsilon_0, the electric constant, is one
and the same as the</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">mass density of the medium (check in Stowe's
work). And since that is</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">not constant in a "spinning disc" but
varies along the radius of the</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">rotating disc, one cannot consider c to be
constant and therefore one</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">cannot consider the Lorentz factor to be
constant when considering</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">planetary orbits and other phenomena at a solar
system scale!<span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Your remark could be interesting. I pointed to the problem that [ v ] in
the Lorentz Transformation derived from the Gravitational Constant must be:
12278 m/s being very close to the velocity of Jupiter (with its 62 moons) being
the biggest Mass in our solar system. I wrote: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">In "Mind-blowing Gravitation" I predicted that the
velocity [v] is 12278 m/s or in v^2: </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%;font-family:"adobe devanagari",serif">1,5075532E+08 m<sup>2</sup>/s<sup>2 </sup></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> <br>
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,0,0)">v^2/c^2 equals: <b><span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">1,67737912E-09</span></b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span></span></span></b></p>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_constant"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Einstein's constant </span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,37,37);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">or<span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Einstein's
gravitational constant</b>, denoted κ (</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kappa" title="Kappa"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">kappa</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,37,37);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">), is
the coupling<span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant" title="Physical constant"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">constant</span></a></span><span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,37,37);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,37,37);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">appearing in the<span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations" title="Einstein field equations"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Einstein
field equation</span></a></span><span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(37,37,37);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></span></div><div><img src="cid:ii_1591a681dae893bc" alt="Inline image 3" width="284" height="56"><br></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If we multiply 1,866*10^-26 with c^2 we get: </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,0,0);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">1,67737912E-09 being exactly v^2/c^2 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">if v = 122787 m/s.<span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Kappa times c^2
in units is: m/kg *m^2/s^2 = m^3/kg.s^2 So </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,0,0);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">1,67737912E-09 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">seems to indicate a change in m^3 per kg in an accelerated
way (s^2) </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span></span></span></p>
<div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">In the
Lorentz Transformation this generates the Expansion Constant
8,38689562243644E-10 which is equal to the Gravitational Constant
(6,67407947753269E-11) times 4 PI (appendix 3 Mind-blowing Gravitation) also
indicating </span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">a change in m^3 per kg in an
accelerated way (s^2)</span></b></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"adobe devanagari",serif;color:rgb(204,0,0)">The exact velocity point 12278 m/s lies between Jupiter and
Saturn. <br>
</span></b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(33,33,33)">The<span class="gmail-apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Trojans</b> share Jupiter’s
orbit, and are always about 60 degrees ahead of, or behind, Jupiter. These are
the Lagrangian points L4 and L5. At these points, the gravity of Jupiter and
the Sun balance out, forming a sort of gravity island. L4 and L5 are stable,
meaning that an asteroid that strays from the precise balance point will tend
to return to that point. </span></i><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://plus.google.com/collection/07wZf" target="_blank"><i><span style="font-size:7.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:helvetica,sans-serif">https://plus.google.com/collection/07wZf</span></i></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Did you read the
"Prediction" in Mind-blowing Gravitation page 68: <br>
Could it be possible, that the result of 1,5075532E+08 m2/s2 (being v^2) is the
result of the velocity of the planet (vp) times an unknown parameter, called
vx. In the last column, I calculated what magnitude would be left for vx<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Vx varies also along the Distance
from planet to sun.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> <br>
So if it’s correct that the c-velocity (speed of light) differs related to the Distance
(and the density of the vacuum) it’s
possible to calculate again with a
variable speed c.<sub> <br>
</sub>The <b>result</b> of v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup> must be: <b>1,67737912E-09 </b>If
we calculate v^2 with the velocity<b> of the planet, </b>then the velocity<b> is not a
constant (as 12,278 was) but would be varying with the velocity of the planet: v<sub>p</sub>.
So, c^2 must also be varying with the position of the planet in the solar
system (related to the Distance D). <span></span></b></span></p>
<b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">What would the variable speed c<sub>v</sub> be: <br>
</span></b><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></b><br></p><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">
<img src="cid:ii_1591a695612544cd" alt="Inline image 4" width="220" height="147"><br>
</span></b></div><p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">This seems to be a weird result. <br>
But the multiplication v<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup>/c<sub>v</sub><sup>2 </sup>shows indeed 1,67737912E-09
<span></span></span></b></p>
<p style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Anyway: It seems not useful to initiate a variable </span><span style="font-size:12.6667px">light-speed</span><span style="font-size:9.5pt"> and I
still wonder what is the base of v^2 (</span></span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif">1,5075532E+08 m2/s2) as <span style="font-size:small"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">multiplication</span></span> of 12278 m/s or is it just all
coincidence or result of circular mathematics?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Note: To
the velocity of the planets must be added to the velocity of the sun. So the
earth’s velocity is not 30 km/s but 230000 + 30 km/s However the calculations
with v^2/c^2 velocity 12,278 km/s are related to the sun (the sun as reference
system). So <span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">v^2/c^2 resulting in: <b>1,67737912E-09
</b></span> is <b>in reference</b> to the Sun.
How can this be related to kappa: <b><span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Kappa times
c^2 = </span></b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(192,0,0);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">1,67737912E-09 </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">m^3/kg.s^2
</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">If the Lorentz Transformation
of mass-energy can be applied here than it seems that the velocity 12278 m/s is
valuable for the visible part of our universe and that the velocities of our
planets around the sun are “regulated” by that velocity. </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><br></span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0cm 0cm 15pt;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192);background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">It would not surprise
me if we were to consider the galaxy plane as a</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">"spinning disc" in the aether, with a
certain angular velocity, we</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">could gain further insight into this.<span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Yes. I think so. You mentioned in your
Emails: </span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">From there, we
can re-derive Maxwell's equations by application of the Laplacian / Helmhotz
decomposition of the aether flow velocity field [v</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;line-height:107%">]. </span><span lang="EN-US"><br>
I wonder:</span><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"> </span></i><span lang="EN-US"> do you (or somebody else on
this forum) have some indications about that velocity [v]? <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I found some data : <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background</a>
“<i>From the CMB data it is seen that the </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group" title="Local Group"><i><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Local Group</span></i></a><i> (the </i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_group" title="Galaxy group"><i><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">galaxy group</span></i></a><i> that
includes the Milky Way galaxy) appears to be moving
at 627±22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also
called the CMB rest frame, or the frame of reference in which there is no
motion through the CMB) in the direction of galactic
longitude l = 276°±3°, b = 30°±3°”</i><br>
The velocity of the sun seems to be about 370 km/s <span></span></span>relative to the reference frame of the CMB</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I would like to know if Arend or Ilja or other members
here around have some calculations about the CMB velocity (like Ilja Schmelzer with his GLET and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408">“The background as a quantum observable:
Einstein's hole argument in a quasiclassical context”</a> “<i>The aim of this
paper is to show that the problem is not only difficult – a background-free
theory of quantum gravity is impossible.”</i> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For me Ilja’s work is too complex
and for me quite impossible to understand. But I still like to know: do we have
some indication what the velocity is from our solar system in relation to this
CMB? And where is that reference point?<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,112,192)"><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">Intuitively, I would say that because the
velocity you calculated is</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">based on the assumption of a constant speed of
light, the value you</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">calculated is at best a
"characteristic" velocity, related to the</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">angular velocity of the galaxy disc, and at
worst pretty much</span><br>
<span style="background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial">arbitrarily.<span></span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I don’t know if you read in <i>Mind-blowing</i>
<a name="_Toc469557341">Appendix 3: derivation of velocity 12278 m/s.</a><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I derived the velocity directly
from the gravitational constant. So it is NOT restricted to our galaxy but it
is valuable for the observable part of our universe as far as the Gravitational
Constant is valid. I was amazed to see
that this velocity 12278 m/s -as used in the LT-formula- fits so close in the
velocities of the orbits of our planets. <b>In essence we don’t really need the
Lorentz Transformation: we got already the Gravitational Constant for
calculations.</b> It’s just that the outcome of the “v” in the gamma factor is so
close to the mean velocities of our planets and to that of the biggest mas in
the solar system: Jupiter with his 62 moons and Trojans and Hilda’s.<span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt">I was
also impressed that I can use the Lorentz Transformation to calculate the
acceleration (a) on the surface of our planets.<br><img src="cid:ii_1591a6b37a291eef" alt="Inline image 6" width="390" height="231" style="margin-right: 0px;"><br></span></div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><span style="top: 14pt;"><span id="gmail-_x0000_t75">
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span>
<span>
</span></span></span></span><span id="gmail-_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style="width:201pt;height:56.25pt">
<span>
</span></span></span></span><div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14pt;line-height:107%;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><span style="top: 14pt;"><span id="gmail-_x0000_t75">
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
<span>
</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span>
<span>
</span></span></span></span><span id="gmail-_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style="width:201pt;height:56.25pt">
<span>
</span></span></span></span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">But if you saw the derivation in Appendix 3,
it’s not surprising at all. Because in essence the factor gamma is another form
of the Gravitational Constant</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">.<span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt">The
Gravitational Constant points to a </span><b style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt"><i>diminishing space</i></b><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt"> around the
mass causing a fall-acceleration to the surface; the Expansion constant points
to </span><b style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt"><i>a growing mass</i></b><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:9.5pt"> that causes acceleration at the surface. It is
a difference in a minus sign and a plus sign; but leading to big differences in
physic reality.<br><img src="cid:ii_1591a6c00f49ee7c" alt="Inline image 7" width="345" height="257"><br></span></div><div><img src="cid:ii_1591a6c415a9487f" alt="Inline image 8" width="304" height="233"><br></div><div><img src="cid:ii_1591a6c791b3881f" alt="Inline image 9" width="250" height="256"><br><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">But besides the plus and minus
sign there is one big difference: compared to the Newtonian Gravitational
Constant: the constant "(gamma- 1)" with the built in Lorentz Transformation of
mass-energy is based on General relativity because it includes the relativity of
the velocity relative to the speed of light (v^2/c^2) and a independent
absolute reference frame (as CMB could be).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">I am not sure about it, but it’s
still mind-blowing. I will go on calculating and reading. I hope that members
of the forum also will go on to develop ideas and calculations about the aether
and gravitation. Some members here are already very convinced about the own
theory. I am not about mine and would like to develop a new theory together:
mixing some parts, leaving out some details, calculating each other products
and for all: FIND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that nobody can deny. It must be
compact, easy to understand, intuitively understood and cause a AHA-Erlebnis.
It should be formulated in two sentences of twenty words and two enlightening pictures.
We can do that if we put our knowledge together and if we refrain to stand
still with the own theory. It must be understood by laymen, by journalists and
it must be recognized in daily life. It will be great news if one day we reach
that goal.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">That’s why I am here on this
forum of dissidents.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Best regards and a </span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font size="4" color="#38761d"><i>merry Christmas and a happy successful New Year.</i></font></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></p></div><div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>