Ether Paradox?
Lloyd
Posts: 35
Paradox?
I just noticed this seeming paradox.
If gravity is a push from outside from all directions by the ether, due to matter consuming the ether,
And if planets drag ether to form whirlpools (like in a bucket of water that is stirred) that cause circular orbits, instead of elliptical,
And if the planets are then drifting in the ether in conformity with the Michaelson/Morley experiment,
Then how can the ether around the planets push matter, such as meteors or skyjumpers, onto planets or planetoids?
If a bug is floating in the bucket of stirred water next to a piece of wood, the bug is not pushed toward the piece of wood, like gravity pushes meteors to the Earth. Instead, the bug and the wood remain about the same distance apart indefinitely.
Solution?
I suppose Robert could say that the planets should be thought of as being like trash compactors, i.e. they're ether compactors, so, if the driftwood in the bucket of water were a sponge, the bug would get drawn into it, like with gravity
I just noticed this seeming paradox.
If gravity is a push from outside from all directions by the ether, due to matter consuming the ether,
And if planets drag ether to form whirlpools (like in a bucket of water that is stirred) that cause circular orbits, instead of elliptical,
And if the planets are then drifting in the ether in conformity with the Michaelson/Morley experiment,
Then how can the ether around the planets push matter, such as meteors or skyjumpers, onto planets or planetoids?
If a bug is floating in the bucket of stirred water next to a piece of wood, the bug is not pushed toward the piece of wood, like gravity pushes meteors to the Earth. Instead, the bug and the wood remain about the same distance apart indefinitely.
Solution?
I suppose Robert could say that the planets should be thought of as being like trash compactors, i.e. they're ether compactors, so, if the driftwood in the bucket of water were a sponge, the bug would get drawn into it, like with gravity
Comments
But the coupling of the velocity and ether is very weak, so the whirlpool velocity has no measurable effect on matter.
Robert created video about the Michelson-Morley experiment:
emv046: Michelson-Morley and the absolute reference frame
Excellent!!!!
There is an Errata video in the works to correct some of the inconsistencies. This was one of them (the others are listed below)
Here is what happened:
Early in ethereal mechanics I knew that the whirlpool existed and that the motion of the planets is nearly the same.
The question was, what cause the whirlpool?
My first assumption is that the motion of the planets (through very week drag interaction) spun up the ether -- that was in an early video with the confetti swirling in a pot of water.
That never felt right with me because due to ethereal friction, the orbital energy of planets would be drained and the planets would be sucked into the sun. At that time I was hoping the ethereal friction was so slight that it would be materially immeasurable. But then there were further questions like: What would happen if there were counter orbiting objects? -- why are there no counter orbiting objects? But the killer question was: How do planets get their whirlpool flow (this was needed to provide an EM explanation of stellar aberration).
In order to answer these questions I developed the electrical analog. From the work it became clear that I had it backwards, the irrotational vortex (whirlpool) of the ether about a massive object is normal occurrence to any object consuming a viscous fluid (like water going down a drain).
This means that the whirlpool about a massive objects is "fueled" by the object's consumption of ether. Thus the planets (and asteroids) about the sun are coming to rest with respect to the sun's whirlpool as they loose their velocity relative to the whirlpool due to viscous interaction. This resolved all of the questions above and it even provides a better explanation of the precession of mercury than does relativity.
WITH THAT SAID, if a massive body can lose its velocity relative to the ether due to viscous interaction with the ether, then reciprocally, the ether must be able to GAIN velocity as a massive body passes through it -- so the video with the confetti in the water is not wrong, it is just not the cause of the sun's whirlpool. It is however, the cause of the shapes of spiral galaxies-- one of the early videos
Note: If I had the time, I would go look up the video numbers for you.
Thanks for being thorough
The Known inconstancies are
1) Cause of suns whirlpool
2) Speed of pretons -- not always speed of light
3) Consumption of ether being the cause of electric fields
Number 3 has been an interesting conundrum that has bothered me for years, here is the inconsistency:
If ether consumption causes the coulomb field, then the consumption of ether for electrons and protons would have to be the same.
According to the ether models developed for the whirlpool model, ether consumption is proportional to the mass (inertia) of an object.
Protons and electrons do not have the same inertia (mass) -- so how is this resolved?
There were many ways it could be resolved as a consumption effect -- thats why I felt ok to release it; however, I'm warming up to the Q-Algebra solution which was release in Q_u1_04 which shows an electric field is cause by the motion of pretons locked in tonic structures (protons and electrons). I will explain more of where we are in a new behind the scenes video which should be out in a few days.
Thank you all
Have you looked into Thomas Townsend Brown's Electrogravitics experiments done in the 50's? It's basically just really high voltages applied to metal disks causing them to accelerate. These experiments were also done in a vacuum so it is not an ionization effect.
Cheers
we know:
diameter proton: 0.8775e-15 [m] radius = 4.3875e-16 [m]
mass proton: 1.6726231e-27 [kg]
mass neutron 1.674927351e-27 [kg]
diameter electron:2.8179e-15 [m] radius = 1.40895e-15 [m]
mass electron: 9.10938291e−31
There is a proprotion of about 3.205 if you divide the radius of an electron by the radius of a proton.(2.8179/0.8775)
The ratio in mass however is 1836, mass proton divided by mass electron (1.6726231e-27 / 9.10938291e-31)
But there is something special on this number...
If we take the square root of it , and divide it by a spherical area (with radius 1) we get:
sqrt(1836)/(4 * pi * r^2) = 3.409
So we can say there is "something special" on this number...
Thanks to Robert we know the mass is equal to:
mass = (Km * Qs * Qt )/ r
But I can't take the root of it without affecting the radius.
When taking the force of induction
We can get a little bit closer...
F=m*a with the speed of the charges equal to c we have an acceleration of c^2/r
F = (Km.Qs.Qt)/r * c^2/r (this gives us two times the radius )
because of the equal charges (Qs = Qt) and with the use of km= sqrt(Km) we can separate two parts:
F = (km.Q.c/r)(km.Q.c/r) (This looks very nice.....)
If you try to find the units of km, the answer is [m]. and give for ke (the root of Coulombs constant) as units [m^2/s]
I did not manage to get further but since the amount of consumed ethons should be the same, at a certain distance...
As I see it, the negative ethons should be between 3.4 and 3.2 times smaller than the positive ones,
Or if there is a kind of viscosity you can say, the negative ethons are a between 3.4 and 3.2 times faster than the positive ethons..
The second one seems to satisfy more otherwise a neutron (I think it should consist of two positive charges and two negative charges) can not comply...
Like I said, it is keeping me busy for already some weeks...