If everyone is so sure that gravity as it is explained exists, then surely they should be able to define it? Of course no one is denying the phenomenon of things falling down, but they all fail to adequately explain it.
First it was mass attracting mass proposed by Newton, but that didn't work on a larger scale, so relativity was proposed - an explanation that applies physical properties to space and time. Space and time are privations, they have no physical properties. How does one 'bend and warp' that which does not have any physical properties? It is completely illogical.
Secondly, there is no way to independently test and verify the hypothesis. It is entirely theoretical and belief based, and the theory itself is flawed based on the reasons I provided.
".. because the force itself, whatever it is, when acting in 3d space, must tend to create spheres. "
Based on what? Fields only have two geometric patterns - toroidal and hyperboloidal. We can observe these fields using ferrocells. There is no such thing as a spherical field.
"Why would it only act downwards on a plane rather than towards the centre of mass or charge or whatever the relevant quantity is."
Because the Earth has a downward bias towards the inertial plane, or the ground. The higher you get off the ground, the stronger the electrical charge in the air is, and the more downward bias there is due to the increase in charge.
If you examine a magnetic field, it is works in the same way. Magnetic fields are toroidal. Dielectric fields are hyperboloidal. If you take a cross section of this, you have two vortices - one above and one below the plane of inertial, which is the neutral point. We can observe the same behaviour manifest in nature too. A tornado is a vortex, it has the same pattern as a magnetic field, and the 'eye of the storm' is completely calm, because it has the same null point as a magnet does, where all the energy converges into a null point.
From my perspective, one hypothesis cannot be tested or verified and is applying illogical descriptions to immaterial things.
The other hypothesis can be tested, observed and used to manipulate objects. If you flip the polarity, you can cause objects to 'ignore' gravity and have upward movement. This is because magnetism is a much stronger force than what we call gravity.
This video is basically using the work on Ken Wheeler to briefly demonstrate it - Ken himself thinks FE is stupid but he explains what magnetism is far better than anyone I have come across.
The idea of gravity is challenged by many, independent of FE. It doesn't make far-fetched claims that one has to believe in because we can all test it for ourselves.
On one hand, you can have a helium filled balloon escape the pull of gravity, but it is supposedly a force strong enough to keep water clinging to the Earth while keeping the moon and celestial bodies in orbit. On the other, if the Earth is inherently magnetic, then this field is what would keep these bodies in motion.
I think the Earth and everything on it is inherently electrical and magnetic, and this would serve to explain the phenomenon very well. The most prominent physicists couldn't even define what magnetism is, let alone explain it, and I find that rather interesting. I think they simply engage in impressive mental masturbation that wows us because very few people really understand what they are talking about.
https://youtu.be/Q1lL-hXO27Q
sovereignbull / Sovereign Bull
npub180…jmehq
2024-08-20 16:59:34
in reply to nevent1q…cz79
Author Public Key
npub180x9vv4yuagf2w3qzmuertvv46ccee6n0wp0yh3zcz7nhyqrmzuqzjmehqPublished at
2024-08-20 16:59:34Event JSON
{
"id": "7e7939841043c164a5ca6013edabfc82088fc280771bb54612f54c103b252934",
"pubkey": "3bcc5632a4e750953a2016f991ad8caeb18ce7537b82f25e22c0bd3b9003d8b8",
"created_at": 1724173174,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d2bb5ee49ff9234c1c76f7eb13071c4e5d40a67c29633d74af999c1636780db1",
"wss://relay.primal.net",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d5a30b1fcdb743cfbc3ef327ccaede17b59fd8b9176ef4fcafec1eda9082f17b",
"wss://relay.primal.net",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"3bcc5632a4e750953a2016f991ad8caeb18ce7537b82f25e22c0bd3b9003d8b8"
],
[
"p",
"7f1b2d20466fd5ff836c6bca1a0849f9c77162cfc00b7e708a9142763c021673"
],
[
"p",
"3bcc5632a4e750953a2016f991ad8caeb18ce7537b82f25e22c0bd3b9003d8b8"
],
[
"p",
"95c33bfbb96b0f463cb80f6f2e229ded74f36e9694e6b04dec5124e4ef6bde66"
]
],
"content": "If everyone is so sure that gravity as it is explained exists, then surely they should be able to define it? Of course no one is denying the phenomenon of things falling down, but they all fail to adequately explain it. \n\nFirst it was mass attracting mass proposed by Newton, but that didn't work on a larger scale, so relativity was proposed - an explanation that applies physical properties to space and time. Space and time are privations, they have no physical properties. How does one 'bend and warp' that which does not have any physical properties? It is completely illogical.\n\nSecondly, there is no way to independently test and verify the hypothesis. It is entirely theoretical and belief based, and the theory itself is flawed based on the reasons I provided.\n\n\".. because the force itself, whatever it is, when acting in 3d space, must tend to create spheres. \"\n\nBased on what? Fields only have two geometric patterns - toroidal and hyperboloidal. We can observe these fields using ferrocells. There is no such thing as a spherical field.\n\n\"Why would it only act downwards on a plane rather than towards the centre of mass or charge or whatever the relevant quantity is.\"\n\nBecause the Earth has a downward bias towards the inertial plane, or the ground. The higher you get off the ground, the stronger the electrical charge in the air is, and the more downward bias there is due to the increase in charge.\n\nIf you examine a magnetic field, it is works in the same way. Magnetic fields are toroidal. Dielectric fields are hyperboloidal. If you take a cross section of this, you have two vortices - one above and one below the plane of inertial, which is the neutral point. We can observe the same behaviour manifest in nature too. A tornado is a vortex, it has the same pattern as a magnetic field, and the 'eye of the storm' is completely calm, because it has the same null point as a magnet does, where all the energy converges into a null point.\n\nFrom my perspective, one hypothesis cannot be tested or verified and is applying illogical descriptions to immaterial things.\n\nThe other hypothesis can be tested, observed and used to manipulate objects. If you flip the polarity, you can cause objects to 'ignore' gravity and have upward movement. This is because magnetism is a much stronger force than what we call gravity.\n\nThis video is basically using the work on Ken Wheeler to briefly demonstrate it - Ken himself thinks FE is stupid but he explains what magnetism is far better than anyone I have come across.\n\nhttps://video.nostr.build/eb0efe0cb1c48fcd93674bdcb44c50af4f816b887fd525ad40460fa7c91e3df1.mp4\n\nThe idea of gravity is challenged by many, independent of FE. It doesn't make far-fetched claims that one has to believe in because we can all test it for ourselves.\n\nOn one hand, you can have a helium filled balloon escape the pull of gravity, but it is supposedly a force strong enough to keep water clinging to the Earth while keeping the moon and celestial bodies in orbit. On the other, if the Earth is inherently magnetic, then this field is what would keep these bodies in motion.\n\nI think the Earth and everything on it is inherently electrical and magnetic, and this would serve to explain the phenomenon very well. The most prominent physicists couldn't even define what magnetism is, let alone explain it, and I find that rather interesting. I think they simply engage in impressive mental masturbation that wows us because very few people really understand what they are talking about.\n\nhttps://youtu.be/Q1lL-hXO27Q",
"sig": "b5581bea991d3b82026c22168ea3b98dbf2867b07c301eac7ac237f894671ada6d3fefd4edaa494771316416335e795ce1489d9e8d84a73ceb2d249ddbac4d0e"
}