Do you think gravity or ether controles if we stay on the ground? Here is something to munch on, correct me if I'm wrong but isnt the theory of gravity based on the earth rotating? Wouldn't we be flung into space if the Earth rotated? Please Be Kind.

Interesting indeed.

Go to the moon and what happens there, you jump but you don't come down quite as hard. It is the ether. But, that would reverse the law of gravity. It is just the ether is not quite so thick here, so the spinning of the earth would throw us in all directions but the heavy metals in our diet along with the change in our pocket and the filling in our teeth sort of keeps us locked down to this magnet underneath us.

you don't come "back down quite as hard" because there is less gravity on the moon

There is something about Oxygen and Nitrogen that really is interesting.

99% of our atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen. That is the ether. What is the atmosphere of the moon? Negligable? Not much? Well, you know, there is a little carbon for weight here too. And we have a magnetic core, I think. It does attract things. And thoughts; they have a tendency to rise without any problem.

This "ether" must be that stuff I prefer to term "aether", because "ether" is a chemical, while "aether" is the Dirac sea. The difference in spelling was used more than a century ago, before it became vogue to deny its existence, and now it's supposedly ZPE, or Zero Point Energy. All the same stuff.

The Newton theory of gravitation belongs more to mass attraction than any other theory. The aether pressure theory was forwarded by a physicist named Richard LeFlors Clark, whose residence was San Diego, on Point Loma, when I knew him. Newton's theory is, of course, the most widely accepted, but also has the greatest number of holes in it, as Newton himself stated in "Principia". Henry Ford's reply to the explanation of "Principia" was "Nuts". Ford, of course, was a much greater visionary (though relatively uneducated) than Newton, who can arguably be considered a "stick in the mud".

Back to the subject. Clark's equations imply that, since everything is energy and mass doesn't really exist except as a form of energy (sticky energy, if you will), the 'balance' of a body must be maintained in compliance with conservation of energy. It goes like this: if energy is lost from the earth, it must be replaced somehow to maintain the balance. Simplistically, the sun pulls on the earth, the earth resists, and the summation must be equal, so the earth sucks in more energy from the Dirac sea (as does the sun). When the earth does this, those items on the surface act as resistance to the influx of the energy, and since the flow is towards the earth, we are forced to the surface, where the 'sticky energy' stops us. Gravity.
The whole thing becomes quite complex, and there really isn't room to expand upon Clark's theory here. Suffice it to say that Clark has forwarded a reasonably good case: in a short sentence, Clark says that gravity doesn't exist, but that the earth sucks. Frankly, most living things probably think the same thing.
Clark can connect the gravitic influence of a permanent magnet, while Newton cannot. Clark can explain the party lift, Newton cannot. And a myriad of other items. San Diego sits on top of a 'gravity well', as Clark thinks; it is no accident that the major submarine base is there, with the Undersea Center on Point Loma, and the major ELF communications center there as well.
Clark may have a point or two. Time will tell, I guess.

Rabid, good points and I haven't read Clark's theory on aether pressure so I can't really debate his conclusions. However, I have browsed this link of some of his work and , while I do not dispute his intelligence and education, I find some of his conclusions rather a leap of faith, as if he was predisposed to make his findings fit his beliefs.

Still makes for interesting reading though.

Gravitation is the mutual attraction of mass, therefore it is not necessarily the rotation of the Earth, that just increases the adhesion. Sometimes this is mistaken with gravity, which is the measurement unit of gravitation.

I'm not sure what the great debate here is. Gravity keeps you on the ground, because gravity is what we call the thing that keeps you on the ground. It doesn't matter if you view it as a force, as Newton did, or as not a force at all, as Einstein did. You're stuck to the ground because there's something going on. That "something" is gravitation. Rotation lessens the effective gravity a little because it has a tendency to throw you outward, instead of holding you down. But other than that, rotation has nothing to do with gravitation.

I agree, in principle.

My problem with general science is that the same (as you state) is true with all of science. In my own field (electronics), there are two specifics: one in which all engineering is done according to the accepted rules, which works almost always; the other, there are anomalies that exist, and even within standard practice, those anomalies must be dealt with, and doing that is truly a pain in the rear.

The other areas of the sciences are essentially the same.

I think that at some point we'll find that a marriage of mentalism (vs. spiritualism) will occur, and we'll find that the laws pertain to one part and not the other, and one will override the other, such that the more or less "pure" sciences will be forced to comply with the other. As we progress, we find more and more anomalistic phenomena, and we invent more and more rather ludicrous proposals to explain these phenomena. At some point, science will be forced to admit to something other than itself as a primal force in the universe, and will no longer be able to "explain" this force using mathematics (assuming that math explanations are, in fact, valid now). There have been some people on this site that make the claim, for instance, that particle physics cannot be applied to macro (or classical) physics because they are two different things; I say that it is impossible to separate the two, as one is the builder of the other. To really progress, science absolutely must keep an open mind, rather than to cling irresponsibly to old and outmoded laws that aren't really laws, but theory.

Clark may or may not be right; he may also be partially correct, and that means that some portion of his theories must be accepted. He is, after all, dealing with a virtual unknown, and no physics theory fits altogether either.

It's sort of like Bernoulli's theorem. Experimentally, it works, but it can be reasonably argued that not all of the phenomena associated with the theorem quite fits, and therefore there needs to be an addendum to it. I have (somewhere) a paper disclaiming a large part of said theorem, written by a couple physicists over in Germany. That paper reads well, and so perhaps modifications are in order. This is one 'for instance', and there are many others.

It's interesting that you'd say that about math in science, yet refer to a theory of gravitation that seems to rely heavily on a mathematical device like the Dirac sea. Anyway, the transition from the micro to the macro isn't all that difficult a jump to make. There is a theorem in quantum mechanics called Ehrenfest's theorem, which essentially shows that quantum expectation values (key players in QM) obey classical laws. All the equations you see in freshman physics actually begin to appear in quantum mechanics (in a slightly different but easily recognizable form).

It seems you didn't quite understand my post, and since I'm very short on time, I'll elucidate another time. Suffice it to say that I seldom, if ever, use mathematics to prove or disprove anything.

I responded to two points you made:

(1) Math can't do everything. I don't know if that's correct or not but it is odd to voice a suspicion of mathematics in physics alongside talk of aether, the Dirac sea, quantum zero point energy and statements like "Clark's equations imply that...". We're neck deep in math right now.

(2) People claiming the physics governing the large and small scales are different are wrong. That's correct, you're right when you say "it is impossible to separate the two, as one is the builder of the other." The equations of one turn out to be largely the same as those of the other for that very reason.

All right. That's acceptable to me. The math portion of Clark's stuff is from Clark. I can neither confirm nor deny that his equations are accurate for everything. However, as applied to his examples, they do fit.
I can certainly claim little knowledge of gravitic legalities. I know the acceleration of gravity, and I know that a strong permanent magnet expels gravitic waves from the Bloch wall (I've set experiments to see same). I know also that it's likely that e-, h- and gravity are somehow intertwined. I know that there is no known explanation of a good many things in electronics, and frankly, to try and explain things with math is an exercise in futility.
An example of that would be a switching supply powering floating electronics driving a large motor (inductive load). There is so much forward and backward reflection in this type of system that any analysis would take years, and then it would likely be incorrect; therefore, we engineers tend to fix the problems we encounter via "rules of thumb" simply because by the time we analyzed the crap, somebody else would have taken the contract and we would lose the money and our time and effort. I can say this: there are things floating around in power systems that nobody likes to talk about, mainly because those things get off into realms that are "impossible". Further commentary is not, at this time, warranted.
However, I can build a car that uses no known energy, never has to be charged, and never has to be filled at the local gas station.

That ought to peel some skins back! And no, I'm not kidding.

You haven't peeled my skin back! My masters degree is in Aeronautical Engineering with a strong bias to electronics and avionics. You are talking nonsense!! Gravitic waves? Even more absurd, because you are claiming knowledge of something that means "Anti-Gravity". So... Just what are these things "floating around" in power systems that nobody likes to talk about? Complete, self - boosting hogwash!! Come here with facts and figures otherwise you WILL be fried!! At UM you will find REAL scientists, nobody just accepts the crap that you are spilling unless you can back it up.
You also do NOT know "Gravitic Legalities", is Gravity a constant? Answer that if you will!

Frankly, based upon your obvious lack of reading comprehension, your lack of knowledge of power electronics, and your knee-jerk reaction to that post, I seriously doubt you have a degree at all. If so, it must be an AS in BS.

If you were serious in entertaining some somewhat extracurricular knowledge, I'm certainly willing to do an exchange, but only if you can maintain civility, which I doubt.

So, sir, if you must act as a spoiled brat, then you do so outside my attention; I will not respond to your inane commentary.

As is usual... you cannot back up your ludicrous claims, you can build a car that uses no known energy? You wont talk about these "things floating around in power systems" - how mysterious... and your coup de grace:


Congratulations for totally confusing Gravity with Magnetism!

The only inane commentary here is in your unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiable posts.

... I wont be hiring you as a engineer I think!

No.



Yes... If it werent for gravity.