Hawking's final science study released

[darkbeaver]

All matter in the local universe is connected by the electric force instantly. (Machs Principle). the origin of mass and quantum spooky connection.

 

[darkbeaver]

That universal spooky connection has to be instantaneous or the whole thing falls apart, and it would never have gotten together to fall apart.

 

[darkbeaver]

Simultaneity mean classic universal time and three dimensional space.

 

[darkbeaver]

I be more than pleased to entertain any thoughts you might have about these above statements of observable facts while we are both proveably bound by them every micro second of life.

 

[Cliffy]

 

[DaSleeper]

Another nothing post...
Thanks firefox..........

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Plasma physics is real...

Yes I know, I've never suggested otherwise.

... and it commands the cosmos...

No, that's where you go wrong, all evidence indicates it's gravity that dominates the large scale structure of the cosmos.

 

[coldstream]

Subjectivism brought to its ultimate nexus of absurdity, with all of its corollary postulates of moral relativism, radical individualism, atheistic humanism.

There is no reality, simply personally perceived appearance. There is no Truth, just points of view.. in a doomed universe and futile existence.

More gems from the Gospel of Cliffy.
Sacred Text of the Church of Cliffyanity
World Wide membership.. 1 (at last count).

 

[darkbeaver]

repeat 2.4 days

Lubrication, if any leaked out youy shop would follow gravity all the way till it was a boat. The mail is not the way to get it to you that anyway.

If anti-gravity starts at absolute zero it would seem to run of the same principle that static electricity runs on, with temps providing the variable that sets the amps in what always seems to he in the 'high' range before molecules are being altered permanently. O2 become O3 and in that time it is killing things that are harmful things that are out to kill things that are naturally harmful to living things that use O2.

The temp we call 'zero' is taken in a mass that has many stars and starts share one commonality, they are hot spots. Cold is when the universe is so old that when a start sheds most of it's mass and goes 'cold', that mass never finds enough other mass to clump together so it sheds light (radiated heat at a certain level). When there is no light is when it is colder so the effects that begin at what we call absolute is the start of a new level of 'cold'. The charge that comes from friction is missing and a 'fly-by' still sees heat pass from the hot to the cold side and never in the other direction. What happened at the big bang was either masses merging at high speed or something. The Asteroid Belt and the rings are the end result of planers colliding after they have been forming for a billion years. Conditions cannot be replicated so the 'merging' sees both becoming smaller chunks of mass. They seem be almost collision free now.

If the expansion we see was caused by that the future would have a fate that is already predictable. If the two bodies collapsed even further then there is something called 'absolute mass' that is a bigger version of our galaxy. All should operate the same way and in this case the stars in the arms are flying off into the cold of deep space and probably staying black after that unless picked up in another gravity well. The few pics of galaxies that have plasma jets streaming off them is a gravity well that is vacuuming up debris from between the galaxies including us at some point. The jets are feeding new mass to a 'star making machine'. If they all turn in the 'same direction' more is going on, if it is random a variance in where stars first coming out might determine direction.
Magnetism at the core was transferred to the magma and the crust and that follows the radiation belt so there is another relationship that exists.
IMO if it would fry people it would also fry anything 'electric'. Putting some into orbit through the holes at the pole might not only get then away from 'space junk' and safe from attack because of the radiation.

The gravity topic is weighing on me but I'm fully charged if there is more you need.

Static might be the original attraction but something else created the 'spin'.

Accretion has been demonstrated to not be in operation, it does not work, it has never worked.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yes I know, I've never suggested otherwise. No, that's where you go wrong, all evidence indicates it's gravity that dominates the large scale structure of the cosmos.

Gravity will not produce a planet. Why did the bits and pieces purported to have produced the Sun and planets by gravitation not accrete into one lump then?

Oct 25, 2018
Stars are electrical entities.
The explosion of a star, otherwise known as a supernova, is a terminal event in stellar evolution—the star used up its fuel, collapsed under its own gravity, and then ejected most of its gaseous envelope because of “core rebound”. At least, that is how astronomers think stars with certain characteristics should behave.
According to a recent press release, iPTF14hls seemed identical to a familiar class of supernova. Until it dimmed and then brightened again. In fact, it did the same thing several times. Lead researcher Iair Arcavi from the University of California Santa Barbara and Las Cumbres Observatory said:
“This supernova breaks everything we thought we knew about how they work. It’s the biggest puzzle I’ve encountered in almost a decade of studying stellar explosions.”

 

[darkbeaver]

Neat isn,t it. see Rupert Sheldrake and morphic fields. Geese, dogs, fish, plants all morphic connections,

 

[MHz]

RichPlanetTV is supposed to come out with a vid on the electric aspect. I'll post a link when it comes out.
Later.

 

[darkbeaver]

http://mileswmathis.com/hawk4.pdf

 

[darkbeaver]

The Fallacy of Gravitational Accretion

Posted on November 29, 2018 by 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]

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]

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:

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.

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.

...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.

...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.

...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.

...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]

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]

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]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+7]C[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+3]OSMOS[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+7]W[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+3]ITHOUT [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+7]G[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+3]RAVITATION[/SIZE][/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Synopsis[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]BY[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]IMMANUEL VELIKOVSKY[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]1946[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]CONTENTS[/FONT]​

1. 
   [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Phenomena Not in Accord with the Theory of Gravitation [/FONT]
2. 
   [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] 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 [/FONT]
3. 
   [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System [/FONT]
4. 
   [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The Anomaly of Mercury and OtherPhenomena Explained [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm[/FONT]