Why we are not any the wiser on Gravity

originally posted by: AnodeOrCathode
a reply to: andy06shake

No. Light curves.

No such thing as a spiral galaxy. Its just that the light spirals,as all waves do, including antigravity waves. Looking into space is like looking down the length of a coil spring.

You do realize that makes no sense. You might as well said pixies cause it by flying around galaxies

a reply to: AnodeOrCathode

How do you imagine it travels around the stars if not bent by gravity?

Maybe it’s consciousness represented in the form of matter *brain explodes*

a reply to: Hyperboles

a reply to: Hyperboles

You could be right.

I'm still drawn to my string theory, though.

originally posted by: Rob808
Maybe it’s consciousness represented in the form of matter *brain explodes*

a reply to: Hyperboles

I thought that dark matter was all the matter waiting to be formed , sort of like a holding document for all the content yet to come from the creative teams . Its potential matter

non matter waiting to become matter , once it has been acted upon by consciuosness
its like the manifestation pool

ready to be used

a reply to: sapien82

The total mass-energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, of which we are part of and can observe.

The rest is apparently 27% dark matter and 68% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.

Essentially 95% of the universe could be teeming with life and/or consciousness, and we would be none the less any wiser.

It might be us thats in the dark, so to speak.

a reply to: booyakasha

Yeah you realize that Dark Matter has all to do with observational evidence and not at all to do with the experiment you posted. It kind of shows really that your knowledge on the subject is basically non-existant and you calling it BS, is in fact in itself a rather worthless opinion based purely in ignorance.

There is quite a lot of motivation for the existence of dark matter, in which there is evidence across a wide range of measurements which are in agreement with each other, both on the smaller scale, and larger.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Its 2020 and for the most part our understanding of Gravity is Still primitive. Nothing can bend space so gravity is not

result of bent space. Then if you hang two spheres of 20 kilogram weight from the ceiling and about 1 centimetre apart the Spears will gravitate towards each other so what causes this attraction what I can think of is the binding energy that causes Gravity inside the sphere there are forces of Cohesion and edition and this do not proper get into space to some extent but I think gravity is caused by the binding energy please excuse the spelling as I am using the talking version

Prove this statement wrong: gravity is an artifact of acceleration.

a reply to: ErosA433

yes the experiment i posted is what scientists used to debunk the existence of the ether. It is wrong.

This video explains how little we know about "dark energy" and "dark matter".





In Tesla's understanding of the Universe the Ether is responsible for the observations that modern science is trying to pawn off on dark matter and energy.

a reply to: dragonridr

Here this video explains how its powered. They are called Birkeland Currents. NASA found them a long time ago and astronomers are very reluctant to admit that they exist.



The universe is connected with Birkeland Currents.

a reply to: booyakasha

Tesla did not have modern radio, optical, orbital telescopes, mass spectrographs, spacecraft, cameras, and computers of all shapes and size, to help with his observations understanding and experimentation, even if he did indeed help pave the way to there creation.

Have to wonder what old Nikola would surmise regarding reality and our universe, given access to some of the tools he helped shape, in this day of age?

He might not be singing the same tune regarding the ether, that's all I'm saying.

a reply to: booyakasha

You are speaking to someone in Particle Physics research who built (among others in a collaboration) one of the current largest dark matter searches. So i know what we know, what we dont know etc, but my point was, your call for it to be simple 'bs' is extremely short sighted and if all you will do is post youtube videos at me, then, that is quite unfortunate.

You speak as though the Dark Matter solution was simple accepted, with no evidence... that isn't the history, and that isn't what happened either.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: booyakasha

You do realize electric universe has been disproved with observations of our own sun. Biggest problem with EU is it tries to claim many aspects of plasma physics but ultimately provides no source for the energy.

EU cannot explain neutrinos being generated by the sun....

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?

Solar neutrino puzzle is solved

The Physics World article opened confidently with the above heading and the assertion, “New evidence that solar neutrinos can change ‘flavour’ confirms that our understanding of the Sun is correct and that neutrinos have mass.” It continued:

“The first results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory [SNO] in Canada have finally solved a problem that has puzzled astrophysicists for 30 years: why do experiments detect less than half the number of solar neutrinos predicted by models of the Sun? The results confirm that electron neutrinos produced by nuclear reactions inside the Sun ‘oscillate’ or change flavour on their journey to Earth. Neutrino oscillations are only possible if the three flavours of neutrino [electron, muon and tau] have mass. The SNO result therefore has important implications for cosmology and particle physics.

The headline underscores a cultural problem in reporting science that leads to bald statements of “fact” when a conclusion is in fact conjectural. The detection of neutrino oscillations cannot confirm the Standard Solar model. It merely offers a possible solution to one of a number of serious observational problems with the Standard Solar model. There can be no confirmation of oscillation of neutrino flavours between the Sun and the Earth without simultaneous neutrino measurements being made near the Sun.

What if the neutrino discovery is correct?
It says nothing about the correctness of the Standard Solar model. However, it does have “important implications for cosmology and particle physics”. If neutrinos do have mass it will tend to confirm the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® model. In it, neutrinos are not fundamental particles but are comprised of the same charged sub-particles that make up all matter. They are the most collapsed form of matter known. When a positron and an electron “annihilate”, the orbital energy in both is radiated as a gamma ray and the sub-particles that comprised them both assume a new stable orbital configuration of very low energy, or mass. Matter cannot be created from a vacuum nor annihilated in this model. The differences between the neutrino “flavours” is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: booyakasha

.....However plasma physics can and does. Also the suns spectrum if the sun was powered by electricity discontinuous spectrum of bright lines. Yet we found the opposite it is continuous and shows we are dealing with a fusion reaction. Finally we have probes that indeed measure currents around our sun. For the EU to be correct we would need a positive and negative current flowing into the sun. Well it doesnt exist what we have shown is that with amazing uniformity solar wind expands out in all directions. Which again brings up another issue electric universe...

If we can't even detect the massive birkeland currents in space how do we suddenly detect them around the sun? I had also believed that plasma physics was part of the EU model as they state the sun is lit by electrically excited plasma?

Neutrino Oscillation has been measured and ignored by your sources using exactly what they want to use as a technicality as to how well we understand the source of neutrinos from the Sun. So the EU model claims that the sun is not a nuclear furnace, but still discusses neutrinos coming from the sun. Logic break?

Neutrino beams have been produced at several accelerator facilities around the world. In these experiments they measure the beam components near the source, and then further away. This has also been done at nuclear power plants in a few places around the world.

What is observed clearly is the neutrino flavour changing. That for a muon neutrino beam of near purity, there have been observation of both muon neutrino disappearance and electron neutrino appearance. An experiment has also managed to observe even rarer, tau neutrino appearance.

SO what you also need to understand is that the Standard Model of Particle Physics, doesn't predict oscillation. So your claims and the claims of the sources cited are not really 'in the know' enough to understand that Neutrino oscillation is still considered physics beyond the standard model.

On the SNO experiment, the interesting part is that it has directionality and is able to track the incident direction of its neutrino detections... the Sun is a clear source of the signal observed.

a reply to: ErosA433



Eugene Bagashov answers that at about 1.40 in this video.

a reply to: booyakasha

yeah except he answered no such thing

Donald E. Scott shows in this short video how science is starting to accept the idea of electrical currents in space but fail to let go of the black hole myth.



Sorry im just posting these videos but it is explained a lot better with visuals and people who have actually studied to make this their career rather than just a hobby like myself.

a reply to: ErosA433

oh # that reply was supposed to be to Clovensky. not you. my bad

a reply to: ErosA433

Here I'll let Wallace Thornhill reply to your question about Neutrinos.



anything else?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: booyakasha

You are speaking to someone in Particle Physics research who built (among others in a collaboration) one of the current largest dark matter searches. So i know what we know, what we dont know etc, but my point was, your call for it to be simple 'bs' is extremely short sighted and if all you will do is post youtube videos at me, then, that is quite unfortunate.

You speak as though the Dark Matter solution was simple accepted, with no evidence... that isn't the history, and that isn't what happened either.

no I'm not saying it was simply accepted with no evidence. I'm saying the evidence that it is wrong far out weighs the evidence that it is correct.
They have been looking for dark matter for 85 years. They have found nothing. There is absolutely no need for dark matter when you understand Birkeland currents.

Sorry again for just posting videos from youtube, but i'd rather source my information and give visuals because people seem to learn better that way.
This is short 7 minute video that debunks dark matter and the scientists that have been looking for it for 85 years.