There is a magnetic ether

 

"GRAVITY" PUSHES !!.

 

Motion in this ether creates electric charge.

 

Degrading rotating ether fields have a resultant towards the centre of rotation.

 

In the case of a spinning system such as Earth, these lines of force are precessional. These helical vorticle field lines are photographed.

 

Objects within this field are pushed to the ground.

 

Clouds therefore are satellites to this Earth.

 

Discuss

So, the experiments using an interferometer we wrong when they concluded that either there was no ether or the earth wasn't moving?

No not wrong, just incorrectly interpreted.

 

We an the ether, our spin field are moving together!

To view these helical precessional lines of force just go to this address.

 

http://www.dromo.com/fusionanomaly/

 

teslacoildoubleheliximage.html

 

This image is generated by a Tesla high voltage coil, pointed vertical so that the rising heated charged air plasma defines the vortex.

 

This vortex can be demonstrated in falling water, and vortex movement over wood fires, and in many other places, such as the Coriolus circulation of clouds etc. This later effect is an enhancement of the amplitude of the vortex.

So it has nothing to do with the tendency of an object to remain in its current state (an object at rest tends to remain at rest, an object in motion tends to remain in motion)?

All objects stay in a state of rest or constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force , yes.

 

General relativity denies this fact. In that theory (and I am being polite to it) there is talk of falling/rising accelerating inertial frames....total fantasy.

bump

Blike check your PM, please

- ZARKOVIAN SPIN GRAVITY -

 

 

 

ASSUMPTIONS

 

1. Motion is linear or curved, and is time linked.

 

2. Matter is based upon the hydrogen magnetic vortex and it's nuclear additions.

 

3. All physical forces on an object are due to direct contact with another object ie there are no "forces at a distance". There is no pull only PUSH.

 

4. The universe is full of particles ie there are no empty spaces (because nearby particles will immediately be pushed into any spaces that are created).

 

5. Because of 3. and 4., the only kind of perpetual motion possible in the Universe is a vortex. In order for a particle to move, it has to push on another particle, which pushs another, etc. Unless that push goes around in a closed circle, it will eventually dissipate.

 

6. Energy is manifest as a magnetic ether, which can not be screened, and is efficient over large distances. The source of this energy is the neutron's magnetic field.

 

6a. Electric forces are produced when an object moves in this magnetic ether. Positive charges and negative charges are pushed to each other, but similar charges are pushed apart. Electric forces keep the atoms together (" bind " the electrons to the nucleus). At large distances electric forces are usually not so important because of a screening effect. For example, a positive charge has negative charges pushed to its neighborhood so that they screen off the field from positive charges.

 

7. Nuclear forces keep the nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in the atomic nucleus. They are the dominating forces in the nucleus, but of no importance at large distances from it. This force is a consequence of modified neutron to proton interaction.

what are your assumptions based on?

The assumptions are the basics in physics that have to be true for spin gravity to be considered a true physical mechanism to describe "gravity" and planertary formation and behaviour.

 

If these assumptions are wrong then spin gravity would have to be appraised >

In order for a particle to move, it has to push on another particle, which pushs another, etc. Unless that push goes around in a closed circle, it will eventually dissipate.

 

what stops the particles from just carrying on in a straight line?

Because they all engender a magnetic field which contains and has a tendency to push particles together.

 

Spin came about by some particles hitting other particles, and once spin was extant then spin gravity was a collecting force, pushing numerous particles towards the centre.

what about momentum conservation then?

Spinning systems concerve momentum.

not the one you describe, which is particles pushing one another round in a circle.

No, the push around in the vortex is field generated, and the push to the centre is energy degradation.

any maths?

Still working on them. What I will do soon is post the complete theory for discussion.

 

I am open to help with the maths >

NEWTONIAN and RELATIVITY, necessary assumptions for gravity :-

 

Force at a distance, or attractive pull, is possible.

 

Inertial objects move in the first instant because of force at a distance.

 

The speed of gravity has to be magnitudes above the speed of light to prevent complicating angular momentum consequences, when applying calculations.

 

Gravitational lines of force are not precessional.

 

Equitorial planet/moon allignments have to invoke spin.

 

Neither theory explains how Suns maintain their shape.

 

Gravity propagation is instaneous.

 

There is no explanation in conventional gravitational systems that explain how a system with more than two orbiting bodies is stable.

 

To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, dark matter or dark energy has to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for this.

 

To maintain the integritity of both Newtonian and Relativity theories, gravity waves (gravitons) have to be invoked, when there is absolutly no evidence for this.

wrong wrong wrong wrong

 

 

There is evidence for dark matter (but not dark energy yet)

There's a very simple and logical explanation for multiplanetary systems staying in orbit.

There's also evidence for gravitons

The sun maintains its shape because of gravity.

 

Try taking a basic astrophysics class, you obviously never have.

Mr Fafalone ( better get it correct), the explanations you hang onto are simply incorrect. If I give you a heart attack, I am truely sorry, either wait for the whole story to unfold or leave me to my PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Personally I would prefer the later. Thanks for you correcting and informative critism.

 

It is comming like a bombshell.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Period.

When you wish to discuss the theories I will help you understand until then I welcome all constructive criticism

Math has always been true for me. In construction, chemistry, biology, and daily life. I can sit here on my hill and measure every tower in the distance with a few simple tools and never touch the tower. Then just for the hell of it I can go physically measure the tower and find out my calculations were true.

There are mathematical models for each of the examples you point to and if I had to I could produce the math, even though I'm and an old fart and it's not right on the top of my head at the moment because I thought this was all moot and we would discuss beyond that.

These don't seem like logical arguments yet. I can't wait for the bombshell.

Just aman:cool: