On Tuesday, November 24, 2020, 12:20:24 AM PST, Jean de Climont <jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca> wrote [to me studyofoahspe.com
author]:
Dear
Sir,
Many
recent scientific reports, including several doctoral theses, state that electron has zero dimension.
The
result now is that the electron rotation on itself cannot be the cause of its intrinsic magnetic field: it is a physical
property of electrons. Several experimental situations question also this idea strongly rooted in the deepest part of our
mind that motion of charges would be the cause of magnetic fields.
They are presented
in a short video, but you may prefer read the text attached.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:51 AM, Jean de Climont <jeandeclimont@yahoo.ca> wrote
[to me studyofoahspe.com author]:
Dear Sir,
Fluids with spin have been proposed by M. Mathisson
in 1937 then by J.P. Vigier in 1958, among others, to explain the Barnett effect. The spin density was assumed to be related
to the orbital angular momentum in a rotating fluid such as a gas. As a consequence that spin was not randomly distributed.
However, it is possible to envisage
a fluid composed of tiny particles with an angular momentum in addition to their linear momentum, both being randomly distributed
in intensity as well as in direction. This kind of fluid has some very specific properties that cannot be found in gases and
liquid. But if such a fluid is assumed to fill Space, the galaxy curves could be explained very simply.
The orbital speeds of stars in galaxies
do not conform to Kepler's laws. A first theory to solve the problem was based on the existence of an invisible mass in the
halo of galaxies: the dark matter. Another proposal was the MOND theory involving a modification of Newton's law at large
distances. These theories are essentially dedicated to the problem of galaxies.
The curves of galaxies are only a special case of
the fluid flow that explains gravitation. This very same fluid with angular moments has thus a transversal property and can
be used for light and for all waves of the same celerity, as in the Cartesian approach.
The
existence of spirit life and spirit humans: "Unfortunately, most folks are still religious and retain vestiges of
immaterialism in hypothesizing some future immaterial existence in an immaterial realm for which there is no material evidence.
This is typical of paralogists, who tend to replace logic with emotion. They might even realize their logic is fallacious,
but they still want to believe it. Who doesn’t want to live forever?" - Paralogists and Immaterialism By Glenn
Borchardt on Apr 12, 2021.
Is
it possible there is a human spirit body made of non baryonic
aether particles smaller than an electron? Just as aetheric particles have not been detected by our physical
instruments can a spirit body and mind exist inside a living human that also has not been detected by physical instruments?
Can both (the spirit body and mind and aether particles) be
based on the assumption of infinity? infinity = eternal and everlasting life.
astral = relating to a supposed nonphysical realm of existence to which various psychic and paranormal phenomena are ascribed, and in which the physical human body is said to have a counterpart.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 2:09 PM, <eprdebates.org> wrote to
James M <etherealization2004>:
Dear Colleague,
This is our last invitation to participate as a speaker or as an
auditor to the
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
HADRONIC MATHEMATICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
to be held at SIPS 2023, Panama, from Nov. 27 to
Dec. 1, 2023
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:36 PM, The Pub Knight wrote:
ive been studying the grandfather paradox...i think based on what i know from
quantum mechanics and the oasphe..i think the multiverse is just ethereal planets, ethereal heavens...im sure there's
more than a few whats your thoughts on it?
On
Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:04 PM James M wrote:
I don't believe in Einstein's objectification of time. I don't believe in time
travel. I believe in one individual you, not many individual variants of you living simultaneously in different dimensions
and time lines. I do believe in the corporeal, atmospherean, and etherean worlds as described by Oahspe. See my page
called Ether Vortex physics.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:32 PM, The Pub Knight wrote:
I agree with you. ill definately do that thank you
- Oahspe Book of Cosmology
and Prophecy Chapter III: 12. Vortexya can be charged, as before mentioned, into iron and other substances.
When it is charged in iron it is called magnetism; .... ...vortexya, in fact, is no substance or
thing as such ; but is the vortex in axial and orbitic motion, or, in other words, corpor
in an etheic solution. Vortexya = sub-atomic matter in axial and orbitic motion. Vortex'ya = energy
= matter in motion, "no substance or thing as such". Glenn Borchardt said energy or motion is not an object, does not exist, it occurs. Energy is matter in motion. Time does not exist, no substance
or thing, time occurs, time is motion. Time is not an object [objectification with dimensions].
There is no going back to a PLACE IN TIME, or no going forward to a PLACE IN TIME. The only
TIME is NOW. You can have a VISUAL RECORD [colors are RECORDS OF VORTEXIAN CURRENTS] of a past event
or occurance.
The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics
PSI Blog 20200622 The Aether: Against the biggest mistake in the history of physics
Thanks
to Bill Howell for this heads up on Jean de Climont’s
latest. In many respects he is on the same page we are, though he seems a bit reluctant to say the word “aether,”
instead calling it the “medium,” just like Newton did in his push theory.
Here
are just a few things he gets right:
1.Light is a wave in the aether.
2.Photons do not exist.
3.Aether is entrained aroundbaryonic objects, including electrons.
Oahspe Book of Cosmogony and Prophecy CH. I: "30.
What is called corporeal substance, which has
length, breadth and thickness, remaineth so by no power of its own, but by vortexya
external thereto.
4.Sagnac proved the existence of aether.
5.Gravitation is a push; not a pull.
OAHSPE BOOK OF COSMOGONY AND PROPHECY CHAPTER I. 34. ...As
the lines of vortexya are in currents from the outer toward the interior, Oahspe Book of Cosmogony I:"7.
Things... are driven toward the centre of the
vortex, by the power of the vortex." drive SYNONYMS power, propel, move, pushhttps://www.lexico.com/synonyms/drive
6.The LIGO experiment
proved the detected motion was transmitted as a wave through the aether at the velocity of light.
7.The cosmological redshift is a function of distance—not galactic recession.
8.The universe is not expanding.
9.There was no Big Bang.
The 30-minute video is a bit technical and covers a lot of ground pretty fast, but it is worth looking into, for
the history, if nothing else:
Page 11 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY: Aether, aether refers to all the forms of
matter too small to be easily detected by humans. To designate this we label matter smaller than an electron (undetectable
matter) as aether.
-
Our latest
book: Universal Cycle Theory . "In short, we propose that vortex motion brings aether particles together, forming the less mobile complexes that we call ordinary matter.
What we observe as universal gravitation is produced by the still-active aether particles that exist wherever ordinary
matter does not. With celestial bodies, complexification is a function of the velocity of vortex rotation, with the density
of ordinary matter decreasing with distance from the center. At the same time, the density and activity of aether increases
with distance from the center. This produces a “gravitational pressure gradient,” which acts like our own atmospheric
pressure gradient—only in reverse." http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/11/our-latest-book-universal-cycle-theory.html -
Maxwell"s Molecular Vortex Model - Scottish physicist James
Clerk Maxwell hypothesized that magnets contain molecules rotating as synchronized vortices, and these vortices created
a directional flow of small magnetic particles. In 1861, Maxwell summarized his vortex theory as follows:"I have shown
how the forces acting between magnets, electric currents, and matter capable of magnetic induction may be accounted for on
the hypothesis of the magnetic field being occupied with innumerable vortices of revolving matter, ...However, Maxwell never
felt satisfied with his molecular vortex model. Eventually, he panned the idea - pages 229-230 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY
NEOMECHANICS OF HIERARCHICALLY INFINITE UNIVERSE (2011) by Stephan J. Puetz and Glenn Borchardt, PH.D (Geology-Geophysics).
Glenn Borchardt
I have over 50 years of theoretical,
experimental, and observational experience as a scientist especially interested in scientific philosophy. Although I have
produced over 500 scientific reports, including journal articles, chapters, books, consulting reports, and computer programs,
the best by far is my book, "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein."
-
after Newton formulated his law of gravity, aether theories suffered a slow, agonizing
death. Einstein's theory of general relativity put the final nail in aether's coffin. Nonetheless, aether theories still occasionally
resurrect for one simple reason. They offer the mechanical explanation that field theories cannot.- page 230
-
The last highly regarded aether proponent, British physicist Paul Dirac, helped
develop quantum mechanics. In 1933, he won the Nobel Prize for his efforts. In 1951, he explained his reasoning in a Nature
article entitled IS THERE AN AETHER? ...Yet, Dirac's attempts to revive aether theories failed for the same reason that befell
other mechanical ideas. Even though he advocated aether, Dirac remained loyal to quantum mechanics and field theory.
The contradictions inherent in the simultaneous beliefs prevented the development of his aether ideas. - page 230-231.
-
Many attempts by Cartesian natural philosphers to test Descartes' various ideas
on the dynamics of circularly moving particles (e.g., by using large spinning barrels filled with small particles) did not
meet the predictions advanced in the Priciples." [Stanford: Descartes, 2009]
However, a spinning barrel of small particles falls short of replicating the environment of an aethereal vortex,
while a bowl of spinning water comes closer to the desired effect. That is, circulating water follows the laws of rotational
dynamics and fluid dynamics better than small particles. A few common items placed in a container of water simulate gravitational
motion, from this point forward, called the water vortex experiment.
Water at the center of the circulation sinks (similar
to a low-pressure weather system), while the water along the outer radius of the circulation rises. In spite of its simplicity,
this experiment reveals a wealth of information about gravity modeled as a fluid.
The results closely match the known laws of planetary motion because the experiment shows that the periods increase
with distance from the center. While exact velocities are difficult to determine for this crude experiment, the periods roughly
appear to coincide with Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion. The conformity between the motions in the water vortex experiment
and the gravitational motions in the Solar System suggests a connection between the rotation of a vortex and gravitation -
just as Descartes had suspected.
Even though the experiment shows many aspects
of gravity. It falls short of being a perfect simulation. nevertheless, the experiment indicates that circulation plays a
role in gravitation. This is important because, even though the equations from Kepler and Newton describe planetary motions
very well mathematically, they fail to explain why these motions occur. Rotational dynamics and fluid dynamics also match
gravitational characteristics.
Some say The Universal cycle Theory is "Bigger than Principia",
"more revolutionary than
Newton's Principia." "All of science fits into this framework
and the paradoxes, fantasies, unicorns, and the illogical thought of modern physics are swept away for what will be known
for hundreds of years as a sentinel work in human history and scientific knowledge. Step aside Principia. You have been
replaced." http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3ILEGDN9H6ZTG/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp?ie=UTF8
-
As for the vortex motion
of the planets was proven wrong by Sir Isaac Newton: "Based
upon the assumptions Newton made, his arguments clearly refuted Descartes theory [aether vortex theory]. However Newton's criticism falls apart ...in neomechanics, that aether consists of infinitely divisible matter distributed
heterogeneously. That is, heterogeneously divisible aether interacts with baryonic matter differently than the homogeneous
elementary aether assumed by Newton and Descartes. Newton
assumed that the "solid sphere" at the center of the vortex caused the spiral motion, Hence Newton
argued that without an external source of energy to sustain the spiral, the vortex would quickly die. However, as already
discussed in Chapter 6, the core does not cause a vortex.
Instead, collisions of matter with other forms of matter cause
a vortex. A vortex develops from the combined spinning from all the matter involved in the original collision.
Once formed, the inertia from all the matter within the vortex keep it circulating - until friction finally stops the spiral.
Newton was correct in the sense that friction eventually causes a vortex to die. However, he was incorrect about the sphere
at the center being the sole source of its momentum. A vortex behaves as a collection of matter (aethers and baryons) moving
in harmony. The movements within the vortex sustain its circulation. In the process, the circulation causes accretion, excretion,
and gravitation... Newton incorrectly assumed that the
aether circulates in a perfect circle. Hence, he concluded several things. First, he noted that the planets
orbit the Sun in ellipses which is inconsistent with circular motion. Second, he noted that natural satellites orbit
the planets. This is inconsistent with a single circular vortex. Third, he argued that comets move in extremely eccentric
orbits. In combination these three independent motions were highly inconsistent with perfectly circular rotation. However,
the concept of a simple uniform vortex clouded Newton's platonic view of reality...every vortex contains sub-vortices [as
Oahspe said in the book of Cosmogony], just as every microcosm contains sub-microcosms...aether particles and baryonic matter
influence each other univironmentally as they circulate together. Likewise, eccentric and irregular orbits develop in all
vortices. Collisions happen continuously - occasionally being significant. When that happens, the new motion may send the
object flying out beyond the far edges of the Solar system; or it may cause a subsequent collision with another celestial
body; or it could cause an unstable eccentric orbit similar to a comet's...Again, it bears repeating that the motions of
a vortex are never perfectly circular, like Newton assumed....In
summary, Newton based his arguments against Descartes' vortex theory on idealistic views of aether. Newton easily won the debate because the proponents of vortex theory agreed with Newton's
indeterministic assumptions. Conversely,the neomechanical model describes
aether in different terms than those envisioned by Newton and his peers.
Simple observations of motion reveal the direction of the vortex's
primary circulation. Kepler's orbital laws and Newton's gravitational law approximate these motions quite well.
- pages 235-236 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY (2011) by Stephen J. Puetz (mathematician, statistician)
and Glenn Borchardt, PH.D.(Geology-Geophysics).
Page 239 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY: ...gravitation
results from interactions of matter-in-motion. This eliminates the need for the attractive force postulated by Newton and
the curved empty space suggested by Einstein.
The neomechanical model of gravity involves
new concepts such as total-mass, solid-accretion, gaseous-accretion, and layered distribution.
Page 240 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY:
Kepler devised the
equations that describe orbital motions and periods.
Newton provided the inverse-square
law that describes gravitational intensity.
-
Wrong conclusions from correct mathematics. Oahspe
Book of Cosmology and Prophecy: Chapter III: 17.. A man may prophesy by a traveling wagon what time it will reach town;
but the correctness of his prophecy does not prove that the
wagon pushed the horse to town.
-
Newton's equations and calculations are accurate and they helped man get to the moon (space program). Newton's equations and calculations work because as Oahspe said "it
is a trifling difference whether a man prophesy [calculate] by a vortex or by a planet".
Oahspe Book of Cosmology and Prophecy: Chapter III: 19. It is not the intention, in these revelations, to give new calculations in regard to occurrences on the
planets; it is a trifling difference whether a man prophesy
by a vortex or by a planet. Wherein he erreth
in regard to judging the cause of things, he should be put on the right road. Oahspe Book of Cosmology
and Prophecy: Chapter III: 18. Planetary disturbances are not caused by any power or effect of one planet on another;
the cause of the disturbances lieth in the vortices wherein they float. Mortals can not see the vortices; their only means of prophesying lieth in corpor. A man may prophesy of the moon by calculations of the disturbances
of the tides. But to attribute to the tides the CAUSE of the moon's position would be no more erroneous than to attribute
the cause of tides to the moon.
Kepler
and Newton describe planetary motions very well mathematically, they fail to explain why these motions occur.
- page 239 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY.
"For every spheriod, its current mass determines
the magnitude of its gravitation. Newton correctly identified
mass as the primary contributor to gravitational intensity, and he developed a great equation for the Solar System's gravity."
- Page 254 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY. Mathematical gravitationl equivalence statements of vortex and planet: Spheriod = globular vortex or planet or star. Mass determines magnitude of gravitation = more mass = more gravitational
magnitude = greater gravitational influence. More massive
planet = more gravitational magnitude. More
massive vortex = more gravitational magnitude. More
massive planet = more massive vortex.
-------
There
has been an unseen anonymous 3rd party (using the internet)
in my life that has helped me going back to the early
2000s up to February,
2018 and maybe to this day. - I got a Linkedln request that appeared to come from Professor and Geophysicist Glenn
Borchardt But when I asked Glenn Borchardt about it he says it did not come from him. Glenn Bochardt has a Ether Vortex theory of physics that agrees with Oahspe and my
research writings. The unseen anonymous
3rd party arranged for me to connect with and communicate with Glenn Borchardt
PSI Blog 20201207 Big Bang Theory Fail—Imagined Universe Expanding Too Fast
“The universe is expanding too fast, and that could rewrite cosmology
Different measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of space-time expansion,
refuse to agree – meaning we may have to look beyond Einstein’s theories to explain the universe”
“Are we missing something about how galaxies and galaxy clusters shape the universe?" NASA, ESA/Hubble,
HST Frontier Fields
It is really too bad to have to see cosmogonists suffer so much. When cosmological
redshifts at great distances indicated their imagined galactic recession was greater than the velocity of light, they had
to claim that perfectly empty space was expanding. This resulted in Guth’s Inflationary Universe Theory, with its expansion
rates fast enough to make your head spin at greater than the speed of light.
Now, the naïve cosmogonists have been working on solving the Hubble constant
contradiction for a long time without success. Bet you won’t see any of the employed regressives going “beyond
Einstein’s theories” any time soon. https://go.glennborchardt.com/BBT-exp-too-fast
Here are some juicy quotes from Stuart Clark’s
recent article in New Scientist illustrating the regressive nonsense:
“AT FIRST, it was a whisper. Now it has become a shout: there is something
seriously wrong with our understanding of the cosmos. When we measure the rate at which the universe is expanding, we get
different results depending on whether we extrapolate from the early universe or look at exploding stars in nearby galaxies.
The discrepancy means that everything is speeding apart more quickly than we expect.”
“Cosmologists have been scrabbling for answers. They have played
around with the properties of dark energy and dark matter, those two well-known, yet still mysterious, components of our
standard model of cosmology. They have imagined all manner of new exotic ingredients – all to no avail.”
Note that dark energy is indeed mysterious, since it cannot possibly
exist. Readers know that “energy” is neither a thing, nor an occurrence—it is a calculation. Cosmogonists:
Better luck next time in imagining a proxy creator that propels your imagined explosion of your imagined finite universe out of nothing.
“The conclusion could hardly be starker. Our best model of the cosmos, a seemingly serenely
sailing ship, might be holed beneath the water line. That has led some researchers to suggest taking the ultimate step:
abandoning that ship and building a new standard model from the ground up, based on a revised understanding of gravity.”
Duh? Think so?
They did get one thing right:
“By this time, astronomers who observed the rotations of galaxies and clusters
of galaxies had also noted that they are whirling around far faster than they should be for the amount of visible matter
they contain. The astronomers' solution was to update the model yet again, incorporating a new, invisible dark
matter that far outweighs the normal stuff we see.”
Could it be this dark matter is simply the decelerated aether responsible for the
acceleration we observe as gravitation per Aether Deceleration Theory?
-
Gravitation follows the inverse-square
law, just as Newton said. Newton's Radial "Force" of Gravity The radial portion of the
spiral vortex is Newton's gravitational force. It is explained by the following equation: F=Gm1m2/r2 (The Universal
Law of Gravitation) F is the force between the masses; G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11
N · (m/kg)2); m1 is the first mass; m2 is the second mass; r is the distance between
the centers of the masses. Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena. Inverse square law of vortex: In most vortices, the fluid flow velocity is greatest next to its axis and decreases
in inverse proportion to the distance from the axis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex gravity is a centripetal force, and can
be envisaged clearly as such in Newtonian mechanics. Centripetal just means a force that is "radially inwards" ("directed towards the centre").
The electric force, for example, is also clearly centripetal. (It's slightly harder to define "centripetal" for
the magnetic force.) http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/321/planet-orbits-whats-the-difference-between-gravity-and-centripetal-force Does a vortex demonstrate centripetal or centrifugal
force? Indeed the best answer is yes and
yes. a parcel of fluid pursuing vortex, or other curved or rotary motion is no different from any other
particle in mechanics. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74794-does-a-vortex-demonstrate-centripetal-or-centrifugal-force/ the gravitational force is perpendicular to the velocity. the gravitational force is perpendicular to the direction
of motion. per·pen·dic·u·lar: a straight line at an angle of 90° to a given line, plane, or surface. OAHSPE: Book
of Cosmogony and Prophecy Chapter 1: "9. The name of the force
of the vortex is called vortexya, that is, positive force, because it is arbitrary and exerteth east and west.
As in the case of a wheel turning on its axis, its force will
be at right angles with its axis, the extreme center of which will be no force. " A line is said
to be perpendicular to another line if the two
lines intersect at a right angle. A right angle is equal to 90 degrees.
Page 240 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY:
gaseous-matter - The portion of a microcosm containing
free floating submicrocosms. From the human perspective, gaseous-matter
can be thought of as aether. [gaseous-matter = fluid or solution]. ...aether particles are microcosms smaller
than nucleons and electrons.
OAHSPE BOOK OF JEHOVIH IV:15 "First as vapor the vortex carrieth it forth, and as it condenseth, its friction
engendereth heat, and it is molten, becoming as a globe of fire in heaven."
Page
241 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY:
gaseous-mass
- unlike solid-matter, gaseous-matter is not fixed to the microcosm
[like the magnetic field of a magnet] instead, gaseous matter flows freely through it.
OAHSPE (1881): Book of Cosmogony and Prophecy CHAPTER I: 48. The power of a magnet ...vortexya floweth through the magnet, even as water floweth through a tube.
- Page 13 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY says Field: redefined as a circulation of matter. Rather than being matterless, think of a field as a circulation of aether particles. When a vortex forms, aether particles circulate
around the center of the vortex. The circulating aether causes an effect described as a field. [Field =
electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum, etc ...]
Page 242 of THE UNIVERSAL CYCLE THEORY:
Neomechanical gravity results from simple processes.
As pushing theorists correctly surmised, it results
from interactions other than magical attraction [Newton] or curved empty space [Einstein].
In
reality, gravitation occurs because microcosms push other microcosms
in predictable directions. ...atoms tend to be pushed
toward the core [positive vortex'ya - Oahspe], while aether particles tend to be pushed away from the center [negative vortex'ya - Oahspe] - including molecular
gases, atomic gases, and the aethers.
The Michelson-Morley experiment ruled out a stationary ether,
does it mean that light and EM waves propagate through a dynamic ether?
First, if we accept the math and mechanics
of relativity which was created by Lorentz to describe an earth that is, in fact, moving through the aether, then it is
necessary to accept that we have not ruled out that the earth moves through the aether.
So, your initial assertion, while widely stated, is not factually correct.
While you may be speaking of complete aether entrainment theAether drag hypothesismay be preferable.
To rule out either of these would require modern experimentation with satellites. The older
arguments against partial drag are based upon some very flimsy and unfounded assumptions about the nature, quality, and
behavior of aether.
For instance, it was assumed that light of different
colors would have a different velocity with respect to bodies which are moving with respect to the aether but this requires
certain assumptions about aether that are irrational with respect to the evidence for it. (which points to superfluid behavior)
Very little thought is put into assertions that stellar aberration would not occur in aether
or in an aether drag situation. That phenomena was one of the first evidences for the aether and what works in a telescope
works just as well for a bubble of aether around the planet. (concurrent with the magnetosphere)
And there is, however, evidence for partial drag. Fresnel’s coefficient of aether drag was proven very directly
by the Fizeau experiment and is still the math we use today to describe the index of refraction, it’s simply been
renamed. The idea, however, came from aether drag and is basically Fresnel’s description of theHot chocolate effectin motion.
Furthermore, other arguments against aether drag were based upon classical ideas which
ignore the relativistic effects which Lorentz first described and Einstein later used.
Additionally, phenomena like “frame-dragging” and many other fluid-like behaviors of “spacetime”
all point to an aether as described by Lorentz.
And finally, the kicker…
The Michelson experiment in 1887 was not random data but precisely the dual sine wave of
data points one would expect of a wind. He misreported the maximal readings because he presumed an east-west wind instead
of a local wind that rotated with the magnetosphere. He reported on only east-west readings instead of the reliable maximal
readings which were much more northerly.
Only Michelson and a later
colleague, Dayton Miller, ever used white light interferometry to detect the aether wind and both of them got clear non-null
signals that were of the same magnitude and direction. Only white light is capable of eliminating a huge variety of problems
with this experiment which is why Michelson who designed it used sodium light to calibrate but used white light to test.
(instead of just continuing to use the sodium lamp)
Dayton Miller did tens
of thousands of Michelson experiments with specially designed “double-blinding” procedures, over many years,
which showed areliablevariance
of the aether wind which was dependent upon the sidereal day and the proximity of the earth to the sun.
He won an award in 1925 from the AAAS for discovering the aether wind and directly blocked Einstein’s consideration
for a Nobel for relativity.
That history
was swept under the rug by his successor in academia (Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics at Case) who no longer wanted
to live under his shadow: Robert S Shankland, someone who was well known for attempting
to gain/maintain the friendship of, the then world-famous, Albert Einstein.
The Newcomb Cleveland
Prize of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) is annually awarded to author(s) of outstanding
scientific paper published in the Research Articles or Reports sections of Science. Established in 1923, funded
by Newcomb Cleveland who remained anonymous until his death in 1951, and for this period it was known as the AAAS Thousand
Dollar Prize. "The prize was inspired by Mr. Cleveland's belief that it was the scientist who counted and who needed
the encouragement an unexpected monetary award could give."[1] Recipients, List of winners[2][4] 1925 Dayton C. Miller
The Michelson-Morley Ether Drift Experiment, its History and Significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb_Cleveland_Prize
Dark Matter and the ether basically describe the same thing, the
“Quantum Field”. So no, there's no difference, but if you consider the ether as being a soup of particles, you
still must understand that the space and the particles are both aspects of the Quantum field scaffolding that encompasses
everything.What is the difference between ether and dark matter? - Quora
John Ballou Newbrough drew a PICTURE OF THE INVISIBLE COSMIC WEB
AND FILAMENTS OF DARK MATTER IN 1881
long before it was detected indirectly using gravitational lensing and
51 years BEFORE it was first postulated and its existense and properties were first inferred by any man on earth and 133
years before it was seen for first time via intense radiation from a quasar.
Dark
matter's cosmic web revealed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16474951 UCSC Scientists Capture First Cosmic
Web Filaments at Keck Observatory January 19, 2014 Computer simulations suggest that matter in
the universe is distributed in a "cosmic web" of filaments, as seen in the image above from a large-scale dark-matter
simulation (Bolshoi simulation, by Anatoly Klypin and Joel Primack). The inset is a zoomed-in, high-resolution image of a
smaller part of the cosmic web, 10 million light-years across, from a simulation that includes gas as well as dark matter
(credit: S. Cantalupo). The intense radiation from a quasar can, like a flashlight, illuminate part of the surrounding cosmic
web (highlighted in the image) and make a filament of gas glow, as was observed in the case of quasar UM287.
-- This information (connecting dark matter filaments and Oahspe images showing the Earth
in Etherian worlds, swamps, mountains and roadways) goes back to 2009 or 2010 at this website (link below) by Ruth and
Vernon (who put together the Oahspe Standard Edition). http://web.archive.org/web/20100126010807/http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/pp0/plasma.html
Above: Etherean worlds and roadways courtesy of Oahspe and Dark matter visualization courtesy
of SDSC and NPACI Visualization Services.
John Bell, interviewed by Paul Davies in "The Ghost in the Atom" has suggested
that an aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light.
He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory
perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical
grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p.49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant,
but Bell suggests that doesn't rule it out. Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell
also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily
by imagining the existence of an aether.
Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being "bitty"
at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly. Instead
of being "smooth", the vacuum is described as looking like "quantum foam". It has been suggested that
this seething mass of virtual particles may be the equivalent in modern physics of a particulate aether.
Dark energy is sometimes called quintessence due to its similarity to the
classical aether. Modern physics is full of concepts such as free space, spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state
(QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, and vacuum energy.
-
The
19th century had the ether, the 20th century had the quantum wave state, quantum foam and the EPR Effect (inseparabilty).
PSI Blog 20210322 Why Clock Speed Increases
at High Altitude.
A
question from Bill Howell:
“Hi Glenn- Per your request, I have a question:
In IUT on pages 260-261 you describe (and depict in Figure 51) a halo of decelerated aether enveloping
the Earth to explain the stable orbit of geosynchronous satellites and why gravity does not exhibit aberration. I’ve
read that without the proper application Einstein’s general theory of relativity, GPS satellites would produce inaccurate
results of one’s location on Earth. One description states: “The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds
per day.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1] Assuming that’s true, and given your model,
couldn’t this time correction be re-interpreted to be indicative of the aether pressure gradient in the halo at the
distance above the Earth that geosynchronous satellites orbit? If so, an alternate question is could
it be indicative of an aether density gradient rather than a pressure gradient?”
[GB:
Great questions! The answer to the first is yes.
To the second, an equivocal no. According to my Aether Deceleration
Theory (ADT), aether pressure increases with distance from Earth, while its density decreases. This is because highly active
distal aether particles have high short-range velocities, which decrease when they collide with ordinary matter. That means,
of course, that these decelerated aether particles will have decreased velocities, which will decrease their potential for
leaving whatever they collided with. This is where Newton made his greatest blunder regarding his push theory
of gravitation. He proposed that the pushing medium increased in density with distance from Earth. He had entirely
forgotten his Second Law of Motion. He should have known gravitation was an acceleration. An accelerator was called for and
its deceleration was inevitable. I say the answer to your second question is equivocal only because, in this case, pressure
and density are inversely related.
The beauty of ADT is that it shows how gravitation
fosters creation by pushing things together, with its own perpetrators first doing the pushing and then sticking around
to add to the creation. The deceleration produces a sort of aether vacuum around ordinary objects. That is the reason aether
particles tend to travel toward those objects. Like Newton’s failed hypothesis, other push theories lack the reason
for gravitational motion to be directed at baryonic matter. It is simple: particles in areas of high pressure tend to move
toward areas of low pressure. So, the real actor in gravitation is pressure, not density. Pressure is the initiator; density
is the result.
Now, with regard to your GPS question. The answer fits right in with
ADT. As I mentioned, aether pressure increases with distance
from Earth. That means any clock will receive more aetherial impacts at high altitude than at low altitude. Being a time
piece, the clock is like any other microcosm containing submicrocosms in motion. Collisions from supermicrocosms (aether
particles) in the macrocosm (environment) will increase the velocities of those submicrocosms within the clock.
Think of it this way: When we reheat a cup of coffee in the microwave, those aetherial waves impact the cup, accelerating
the water molecules within. Thus, whatever cyclic reactions are within a particular clock will be speeded up as a result
of increased aetherial pressure.
Although the General Relativity Theory based explanation is just another einsteinism (right for the wrong reason), that theory
is not used by engineers who developed GPS. They simply use a correction for altitude. They don’t need 4-dimensions
or any other Einsteinian hocus-opus to do that.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->]
<!--[if
!supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->
Hatch, Ronald R., 1995, Relativity and GPS, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,
AZ, p. 1-26 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Hatch-GPS].
PSI Blog 20220801 Why the Big Bang Universe Can Never be Older
than 13.8 Billion Years
Before the Webb Space Telescope, astronomersestimated there was evidence for over two
trillion galaxies in the observed universe. The recent Webb
photo confirms that estimate, with its clarity showing ten times as many. It takes billions of years
for a spiral galaxy to form. Our own Milky Way is thought to be 13.61 billion years old. One intensely studied “elderly galaxy” has a cosmological redshift
of z
= 9.1. The record is z
= 11.1, which corresponds to only 400 million years after the supposed Big Bang. It is not possible for
a galaxy to form that fast. Even our tiny little Sun took 4.6 billion years to form.
As I have pointed out many
times, these elderly galaxies provide evidence for Infinite Universe Theory, disproving the Big Bang Theory
in the process. So, why do cosmogonists adhere to the 13.8-billion-year age of the universe in the face of so much data indicating
it is much older?
It all comes down to the interpretation
of cosmological redshifts. When Hubble first observed galactic redshifts, he was apparently enamored of the doppler effect,
jumping to the premature conclusion all the redshifts of the galaxies he was seeing indicated they were traveling away from
us. In consequence, his biggest mistake was his 1929 title: “A
relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.” In 1931, the good Abbé Lemaître, a priest as well as a physicist, always ready
to justify creationism and science, jumped right on it, writing a paper entitled: “A
Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ.” Hubble could never live that one down, ever since being blamed for the notion the universe
was expanding. He objected many times to no avail. Lastly, in 1953 Hubble said: "When no recession factors are included,
the law will represent approximately a linear relation between red-shifts and distance."
So that was the choice cosmologists had to make concerning cosmological redshifts:
1) galactic recession or
2) a
distance effect.
Easily becoming cosmogonists (those who assume the universe had a beginning), they chose the doppler effect to wide
acclaim. Of course, that was not the end of it. Numerous contradictions always have plagued the Big Bang Theory. For instance,
once the cosmological redshift exceeded z = 1.5, traditional calculations implied distant galaxies were traveling away from
us at greater than the speed of light. By then, however, cosmogonists and their cosmological brethren were too deep into the
paradigm. Something drastic had to be done.
In following Einstein, cosmogonists assumed the universal speed limit to be the velocity of light, c.
That something drastic was to assume empty space itself was expanding. Of course, that perfectly empty space also had to expand
at velocities greater c. Never no mind about that, or about how the equally imaginary culprit,
dark energy, could do that. One reason theoretical physics has been in crisis ever since 1905 is the failure to actually involve
physics: the collision of one thing with another to produce an effect. Since neither perfectly empty space nor energy exists
(energy is a calculation), that is a fundamental problem for the Big Bang Theory.
As you might surmise, none of that reality stuff is of particular importance for cosmogony.
After all, if you can believe in perfectly empty space and Einstein’s Untired Light Theory, for which there is no real
evidence, then you can go about your mathematical business. You can grasp at any bit of real evidence, interpreting it to
suit your theory.
Now to that question at hand:
Why can the Big Bang Universe Never
be Older than 13.8 Billion Years?
In the analysis below, remember these unprovable fundamental assumptions must be used to adhere to the Big Bang Theory:
1.The universe had a beginning and will have an ending.
2.The universe is finite.
3.The cosmological redshift is a measure of galactic recessional velocity.
4.The universe is expanding.
5.Gravitation is an attractive force.
6.Einstein’s 4-dimensional
space-time theory allows for curvature of the universe.
While none of these are correct in Infinite Universe Theory, we need to understand a bit about them to understand the 13.8-billion-year age.
Wikipedia on 20220728:
“If there is just enough matter in the universe for its gravitational force to bring the expansion associated
with the big bang to a stop in an infinitely long time, the universe is said to be flat. The flat universe is the dividing
line between an open universe and a closed universe.”
“An important parameter determining the future evolution of the universe theory is the density
parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value
of that density. This selects one of three possible geometries depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively,
the flat, open and closed universes.”
Cosmogonists don’t really know which of these models pertain, so I have included a link you can use to see the
effect of changes in the cosmological redshift (z), the Hubble constant (Ho), and the Omega values. As mentioned, redshifts range up to 11.1. The Hubble constant
is the subject of much debate, ranging between 73.8 and 69.6, with 70.2 producing the 13.8-billion-year age.
Here you can see the contradictions
that arise when galactic velocity instead of distance is calculated from redshift values. Obviously, cosmogonists must have
been shocked when so-called recessional velocities exceeded those of light, c.
They assumed rightly, that nothing could exceed the velocity of light. This meant, however, that cosmological redshifts greater
than about 10 would have no effect on the so-called “age of the universe. Of course, the invention of the incongruous
expansion of perfectly empty space allowed for greater recessional velocities and perhaps greater ages. Those have not been
popular assumptions, and so we are stuck with the 13.8-billion-year age. Below I have a link to a calculator in which you
can put in various estimates for cosmological parameters. You can change the z value all you want, but the recipe below will
give you nothing but 13.8 billion years.
Here is an example you can do yourself. Put these values in the calculator:
Ho = 70.2
OmegaM= 0
z
= 11.1
Omegavac= 0
Click on “Open”
Note
the Omega values use General Relativity Theory’s space-time to imagine the universe is curved positively or negatively.
I don’t think GRT is valid, but you might wish to use them as explained in the link.
Here
is an interesting graph showing the straight-line relationship between the assumed recessional velocity and distance, which
was favored by the younger Hubble (Figure 2).
Figure
2. Recessional velocity
versus distance. Credit: Prof. Brad Snowder.
Now, if one chooses the
distance assumption (#2 above) instead, then one can replace “recessional velocity” with the cosmological redshift
(z), which is generally assumed by cosmogonists to be a measure of galactic distance (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Cosmological
redshift versus distance (modification of Figure 2 from Prof. Brad Snowder). Note that this figure is only for illustrative
purposes. The z values actually are used with c to calculate velocity with a different equation.
Note that I have not been able to
locate a graph plotting z versus distance like the one above. No one inside or outside the Big Bang paradigm seems to have done so, although the elder Hubble recanted his early recessional
velocity interpretation implying it actually was a distance function. By 1942, he had rejected the expanding universe idea. Cosmogonists ignored Hubble, ironically naming the red shift/distance relation
and the Space Station after him. In the meantime, we are stuck with the imagined 13.8-billion-year age of the universe.
Many of those seeking to reform relativity and cosmogony are shocked to have
their papers rejected outright by mainstream publishers. This happened three times to my paper “The physical cause of gravitation.” The thesis of that paper was rather simple: If gravitation is an acceleration, then there must be a physical accelerator.
These rejections were in spite of my having had hundreds of abstracts, reports, papers, chapters, and books having gone through peer review and getting published forthwith.
------------
The pandemic got me to think more about this. It
turns out that anti-Einstein papers are rejected because they are founded on fundamental assumptions contrary to the religious
suppositions upon which relativity is founded. Acceptance would be as rare as an atheist getting the chance to give a sermon
in your former church.
Here is the description of the book as it appears on Amazon:
“Religious Roots of Relativity shows that, unlike other scientific theories, relativity is founded on religious
assumptions. Glenn Borchardt, author of The Ten Assumptions of Science, elaborates on the opposing indeterministic assumptions
to present “The Ten Assumptions of Religion” as the framework for this new book. Each fundamental religious assumption
is shown to have much in common with the fundamental assumptions Einstein subconsciously used in devising Special and General
Relativity Theory. One theme runs through the entire book: Einstein’s erroneous assumption that space was perfectly
empty. That was critical for his popular Untired Light Theory, as it has been for popular biblical creation stories, and for
popular Big Bang Theory. There is no evidence, however, for perfectly empty space; it is only an idealization akin to the
dreams and imaginings of religion. It cannot possibly exist. Nonexistence, nothingness, therefore is impossible. The universe
exists everywhere and for all time. Without relativity and its foundation in religion, the book predicts Big Bang Theory will
be victim to the Last Cosmological Revolution: Infinite Universe Theory.
This is the book for
you if you have wondered why relativity has remained lucrative and popular despite its weird paradoxes, contradictions, and
interpretations. This is the book showing the intimate, necessary connection between relativity and religion, which has led
to relativity’s longevity and indubitable veracity among those who still hold fast to religious assumptions.
“Wow! I finished reading your book in one day! I just couldn’t stop scrolling the
pages. It was an enjoyable read and very well written. You have a great writing style that is easy to
read. Nice final sentence too.” -Bill Howell
“Borchardt’s
new book is ultimately a fast read, because (like all his books) once you start reading it, you can’t put it down. And,
literally, you can’t put it down physically, and you can’t put it down argumentatively. Some may disagree with
it. But that would only reveal the indeterminist within. Borchardt ends his masterpiece with a look forward to the inevitable
paradigm shift, and how mankind will be better off for it.” -Fred Frees
“Glenn
Borchardt’s book “Religious Roots of Relativity” is not just about relativity and religion, it’s not
only about physics, it’s much more, about science which is under a siege by everything what is not science. If I had
to review Borchardt’s book: “Religious Roots of Relativity” in only once sentence, I would say: We need
more books like this one!” -Rudolf Vrnoga
“Impressive piece of work! Very much in line
with Collingwood and my essay on the subject. I had never realized these assumptions were of religious origin, though, besides
the priest's obvious motivations.” -Pierre Berrigan
Glenn Borchardt's book uses the hammer of Infinity
to explain and destroy the junk theories that plague 'Official' physics today. This is a book that should be used in college
courses, to give students a basic understanding of how physics is done. Physics has 'gone off the rails' for a century and
it is books like Borchardt's that will return physics from its current unscientific and anti-materialist base and back on
to a scientific and materialist road." -Mike Gimbel”
In the YouTube video above titled jehovih chronicles #60 science of earth, air,
and spirit on the Kosmon Cal tv channel, Darryl Kosmon gives
a excellent presentation. At the 3 hour 21 minutes and 17 seconds mark he shows and tells who came up with the Big Bang Theory. It was a Catholic Priest (Catholics were under the inspiration of Looeamong or his successor) who came
up with the Big Bang Theory.
At the 3 hours 22 minutes and 10 seconds of the video above Darryl Kosmon also tells us that the
Bib Bang theory is supported by JUDAIST's (Jews). The Big
Bang theory is used both by Christians and Jews to support the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
At the 3 hours 26 minutes and 46 seconds of the video above Darryl Kosmon shows and tells us that in 1921 Einstein was given a hero's welcome by America's Jews. Einstein was a Jew (the world's most
famous Jew). Maybe Einstein's status as a Jewish hero is the reason "articles critical
of relativity could not be published" and "to criticize Einstein's theory of special relativity has become a scientific heresy of the
highest order" (see Walter Russell Cosmogony Einstein
...page of this website about 1/2 to 2/3 down from top). Back
in 2013 when I told a Faithist from Jewish ancestry that I held Walter Russell above Albert Einstein in science
that person got upset and said I didn't know what I was talking about.
The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph Alpherin 1948 in connection with his
research on Big Bang Nucleosynthesi …
The editor of the American
Journal of Physics said that articles critical of relativity could not be published "given the current situation in physics
in the late 1970s". ..the American Journal of Physics had "an editorial policy which explicitly forbade any criticism
of special relativity within its pages". This policy continues to the present day, ...Page 171 of Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories (2005) by Al Kelly.
- Essen, the inventor of the atomic caesium clock, wrote several articles critical of SR. The renowned
Essen was warned by his employers that “to persist in his criticism of relativity may affect his career and hence pension
prospects, and he was told to use his private address on all correspondence on the subject of relativity”. - Page
170 of Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories (2005) By Al Kelly. -
To even begin to criticize Einstein's theory of special relativity has become a scientific heresy of the highest
order. The prevailing attitude of the physical establishment is that anyone who doubts the validity of this "bedrock
of modern physics" is insane, and that trying to refute it is a symptom of "psychosis".
- "Only a HIGHLY delusional person would believe that
they have disproved relativity and quantum
mechanics. Period." - January, 2012 from a physicist reviewing The Universal Cycle Theory book by Sephen J. Puetz
and Glenn Borchardt, PH.D. on Amazon.
Unfortunately for the progress of physics,
when opinions like these reach a critical mass, they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dissent is no longer respected, or
even tolerated. Evidence to the contrary can no longer be communicated, for journals will refuse to publish it (23). Mathematically
and logically, the notion that a theory that has made many correct predictions or leads to engineering applications must necessarily
be true is untenable. Wrong models can make correct predictions.
Scientific models may produce arbitrarily many, arbitrarily good predictions and still be flawed, as the historical example
of the Ptolemaic (geocentric) model of the solar system shows. It does not matter how many observations are consistent with
a theory if there is only one observation that is not.
<--Marvel Cinematic Universe Multiverse 
