Hawking's final science study released


darkbeaver
+1
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post


Neat isn,t it. see Rupert Sheldrake and morphic fields. Geese, dogs, fish, plants all morphic connections,
 
MHz
#92
RichPlanetTV is supposed to come out with a vid on the electric aspect. I'll post a link when it comes out.
Later.
 
darkbeaver
#93
http://mileswmathis.com/hawk4.pdf
 
darkbeaver
#94
The Fallacy of Gravitational Accretion

Posted on November 29, 2018by Louis Hissink
Newtonian physics describes the motion of objects affected by the presence of other objects. Objects are bounded volumes of condensed crystalline and solid matter capable of independent motion. (This is actually nonsense because if gravity is the motion of objects in the presence of other objects, all of which affect each other, then independent motion is not possible, and the objects thus not objects in the Newtonian sense). But we carry on regardless.
Imagine two identical cubes of matter separated by a distance D which is a real number. According to Newton’s equations each cubic object experiences a force due to the presence of the other cubic object, and they are attracted to each other.
If D becomes zero, everything else being equal, and the two cubes join up at their flat opposing surfaces, we then end with one object and thus no gravitational attraction, since two separated objects are needed to be gravitationally attracted towards each other.
And here’s a distraction – gravity is supposed to operate instantaneously, but calculating the motion among objects is an operation in the time domain, and the calculations have to be ranked in order. Electronic computers are linear machines and computer code is written as a series of sequential instructions, with a start and an end. If gravity only theory was used in the particle in cell simulations used in plasma universe modelling, the result would be chaos, as the simpler 3-body experiment attests. That restricting the simulation to electromagnetic forces and being able to closely model real spiral galaxies, shows that gravity seems to play no role in the physics of the cosmos.
Which makes me a gravity denier, and I wonder if this position is any different to that of climate change denial. If gravity is physically omnipotent and climate change real, wouldn’t that make it and climate change belief a religion? The behaviour of the devout seems to confirm
 
MHz
#95
Those 2 cubes would have to be the only things in existence and speed changes as fast as time does so gravity is constantly increasing, as such there is no 'constant' other that there is 'no constant'. there is also no such thing as two bodies under the influence if gravity gently coming together . The bowling ball in air or a vacuum was breaking apart what it was bring attracted to, the feather would have been damaged. That makes gravity part of the energy matrix, the broken object goes through some 'anti-gravity' moves that may/may not be 'escape velocity'.
 
Dexter Sinister
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

The Fallacy of Gravitational Accretion

Posted on November 29, 2018 by Louis Hissink

Jeez Beave, if you think this stuff makes sense, no wonder you bought Velikovsky's nonsense. For instance:
Quote:

Objects are bounded volumes of condensed crystalline and solid matter capable of independent motion. (This is actually nonsense because...

He's right about that last point but not for the reasons he offers. The objects might be liquid or gaseous too, as several nearby planets seem to be, and they're not capable of independent motion. They'll respond to forces acting on them, but in the absence of those their state of motion will not change.
Quote:

Imagine two identical cubes of matter separated by a distance D... If D becomes zero...

D won't become zero, it's the distance between the centres of the bodies, not their surfaces.
Quote:

...the two cubes join up at their flat opposing surfaces, we then end with one object and thus no gravitational attraction, since two separated objects are needed to be gravitationally attracted towards each other.

I know the thunderbolt crowd has no use for any physics more recent than the late 19th century, but this guy can't even get 17th century physics right. Gravity doesn't disappear when objects come together, all the particles in the two objects continue to attract each other. That's in fact why bodies larger than a certain size (depending on what they're made of) are round, it's the shape of minimal energy.
Quote:

...gravity is supposed to operate instantaneously...

No, gravity propagates at light speed. Newton didn't know that, and in fact conceded he had no idea what it really is or how it works, and explicitly refused to speculate on it, but we know things he didn't.
Quote:

...calculating the motion among objects is an operation in the time domain, and the calculations have to be ranked in order.

I don't know what he means by ranking them in order, that's nonsense, and the first claim is trivially true; so what? That's not a criticism of anything or an argument against gravity. Simulating electromagnetic forces in modelling the plasma universe must also involve calculations in the time domain, because whatever forces are presumed to be involved, the objects evolve in time.
Quote:

...restricting the simulation to electromagnetic forces and being able to closely model real spiral galaxies, shows that gravity seems to play no role in the physics of the cosmos.

It shows nothing of the sort, it shows only that it's possible to model a spiral galaxy by supposing only electromagnetic forces are involved. You can model galaxies using gravity too and get just as good a result. You can also model the solar system to any arbitrary degree of accuracy by assuming the earth is stationary at the centre and everything revolves around it, but that doesn't mean that's necessarily the way it really is, especially when plenty of other evidence strongly indicates it's not.
 
darkbeaver
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Jeez Beave, if you think this stuff makes sense, no wonder you bought Velikovsky's nonsense. For instance: He's right about that last point but not for the reasons he offers. The objects might be liquid or gaseous too, as several nearby planets seem to be, and they're not capable of independent motion. They'll respond to forces acting on them, but in the absence of those their state of motion will not change. D won't become zero, it's the distance between the centres of the bodies, not their surfaces. I know the thunderbolt crowd has no use for any physics more recent than the late 19th century, but this guy can't even get 17th century physics right. Gravity doesn't disappear when objects come together, all the particles in the two objects continue to attract each other. That's in fact why bodies larger than a certain size (depending on what they're made of) are round, it's the shape of minimal energy. No, gravity propagates at light speed. Newton didn't know that, and in fact conceded he had no idea what it really is or how it works, and explicitly refused to speculate on it, but we know things he didn't. I don't know what he means by ranking them in order, that's nonsense, and the first claim is trivially true; so what? That's not a criticism of anything or an argument against gravity. Simulating electromagnetic forces in modelling the plasma universe must also involve calculations in the time domain, because whatever forces are presumed to be involved, the objects evolve in time. It shows nothing of the sort, it shows only that it's possible to model a spiral galaxy by supposing only electromagnetic forces are involved. You can model galaxies using gravity too and get just as good a result. You can also model the solar system to any arbitrary degree of accuracy by assuming the earth is stationary at the centre and everything revolves around it, but that doesn't mean that's necessarily the way it really is, especially when plenty of other evidence strongly indicates it's not.


The electric science has defined gravity, at last. You are an intelligent educated and articulate person however with respect to your unfavourable attitude toward the newly defined plasma universe you are more than reluctant to embrace the advance of and into the electric aspects of the universe, medicine, geology etc, etc. There is no science today that is not exploring the electric nature of life and matter. If gravity propagated at the speed of light the universe certainly would not have formed and this solar system would not and could not possibly cling together in harmony, gravity is instantaneous at all points in the universe.

This would be a good time for you to provide an explanation of gravity without using the electromagnetic force. Thankyou for your intelligent comments.
 
darkbeaver
#98
Wal Thornhill: Blockbuster – Saturn/Earth Connection Confirmed | Space News

10,086 views





982 18 Share

ThunderboltsProject
Published on Dec 19, 2018







A new scientific paper provides stunning affirmation of one of the most striking predictions of the Electric Universe/catastrophist hypothesis. The paper, published in the Journal Icarus, reports that the water on Saturn’s moons and in its rings is remarkably similar to water on our own planet, a completely unexpected finding for planetary scientists. As surprising as this connection between Saturn and Earth is for planetary scientists, the connection was in fact explicitly predicted by one of the great scientific heretics of the 20th century. Nearly three-quarters of a century ago, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky proposed that within human memory, a period of chaos reigned in the inner solar system. In this scenario, one of the migrating planets was Saturn, and it was Velikovsky’s seemingly outrageous thesis that the water in Earth’s oceans came from the gas giant. In part one of this two part presentation, physicist Wal Thornhill outlines the incredible and ongoing predictive success of the electric universe/catastrophist paradigm. Source story: http://phys.org/news/2018-12-saturn-... Thornhill EU Workshop Presentation, "The Star 'Proto-Saturn'": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kff_y...
 
darkbeaver
#99


C OSMOS W ITHOUT G RAVITATION

ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM


Synopsis


BY
IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY
1946
CONTENTS


  1. Phenomena Not in Accord with the Theory of Gravitation

  2. Attraction Between Two Atoms. - Inertia. - Attraction of Bodies Toward the Earth. - The Time of Descent and of Ascent of a Pendulum. - The Effect of Charge on the Weight of a Body

  3. Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System

  4. The Anomaly of Mercury and OtherPhenomena Explained
I
THE FUNDAMENTAL theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction(1) govern their movements.


http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm