Gravitational Potential Energy

[tachyon]

The greatest trick that Einstein ever pulled was convincing people that the rate of the flow of time is related to the rate of motion through space. +1

[Aaron Murakami]

The relative density of the aether in relation to a mass determines exactly how fast light will move through that region.

That density determines the motion of all mass through it and also determines how fast the clock will tick in that region.

Einstein was wrong, but you are stating the wrong thing(s) that he is wrong about and having time linked to motion of mass through space is not one of them.

I know it's en vogue to smash Einstein lol, but at least do it with things he was actually wrong about.

If you understand what I posted, you'll see I'm not saying what Einstein said.

By virtue of being able to calculate Power, P = W/t, the rate that time flows is absolutely relative to the local Aetheric density.

And when you know that inertia is a back emf equivelant (mass is the inductor), it's indisputable - it's common sense.

If you have a bowl of water and let a rubber band powered propeller loose, it will spin fast. That is like low density aether, low gravity or low inertia. The motion of this propeller in the water analogy is the movement of mass through the Aether. The rate at which this motion can happen is limited by the aetheric density. Light travels faster in this space compared to an absolute benchmark reference point.

If you have a bowl of gelatin and let the propeller go, it will spin slower. That is high density aether, high gravity or high inertia. The rate at which this motion can happen is reduced and in this area of space, light will travel slower compared to the absolute reference point.

If there is an observer in both areas, it will look like time is normal to that person in their own area, because since light is also at a speed that the aetheric density will permit, their conscious awareness is also subject to the same density and will be proportionately slower as well. So, it will simply look normal.

This is NOT Einstein's relativity - E does not equal mc2. MASS IN AN INDUCTOR and mass has zero energy stored - what is being inducted when the mass is accelerated? When you know what that means, you know what time is.

When you charge a battery with Bedini's circuits, it is a TIME CHARGE. What do you think that means? The inductive spike is POTENTIAL, which is a TIME CHARGE. Why? You are charging the battery with time potential or POTENTIAL TIME. It is a POTENTIAL for time to exist! When you force that potential to perform work, motion is enabled.

The greatest trick Einstein ever pulled was to convince others that Dayton Miller's experiments were flawed. What I explained overturns Einstein's manipulation - it does not agree with it. Again, if you dispute Einstein, at least do it for what he was actually wrong about - otherwise, it just looks like your opposing Einstein just for the sake of disagreeing with him.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)

[tachyon]

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ.. Aristotele was right? And I dont mean what they learn you in physics courses but the true meaning of his words... I personaly think that newtonian mechanics are correct for macroscopic phenomena but some people are saying the aristotele has hidden words inside his writings .

I seriously don't think aristotele was so dumb to think that because a ball on a moving boat with steady speed would fall on the same spot he made the assumption that this applies to every other phenomena.. the algebra that ancient Greeks made up were incredibly HARD to invent.. they needed superminds to make that happen. There must be a double meaning of his words..

For me aether is a vogue word.. with the same logic there might be a lot of types of aethers.. or aether might be a dimension we may be missing that explains gravity..

I also believe that it's useful to have an intuitive mind because math is very abstract and tends to confuse people but nevertheless science without math is like sea without water.

I thought of an experiment , let's say you have a conical shape the has a tiny hole in it's top center then you place base at the surface of water and you vibrate it, will water squirt out of the hole? Will the repetition rate of the oscillation make a difference? What if you submerged the conic section? How do plants and trees suck up the water thousands of feet high? It cannot be due to evaporation of water from the leaves and hydrodynamic differences.

[Aaron Murakami]

ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ.. Aristotele was right? And I dont mean what they learn you in physics courses but the true meaning of his words... I personaly think that newtonian mechanics are correct for macroscopic phenomena but some people are saying the aristotele has hidden words inside his writings .

I seriously don't think aristotele was so dumb to think that because a ball on a moving boat with steady speed would fall on the same spot he made the assumption that this applies to every other phenomena.. the algebra that ancient Greeks made up were incredibly HARD to invent.. they needed superminds to make that happen. There must be a double meaning of his words..

For me aether is a vogue word.. with the same logic there might be a lot of types of aethers.. or aether might be a dimension we may be missing that explains gravity..

I also believe that it's useful to have an intuitive mind because math is very abstract and tends to confuse people but nevertheless science without math is like sea without water.

I thought of an experiment , let's say you have a conical shape the has a tiny hole in it's top center then you place base at the surface of water and you vibrate it, will water squirt out of the hole? Will the repetition rate of the oscillation make a difference? What if you submerged the conic section? How do plants and trees suck up the water thousands of feet high? It cannot be due to evaporation of water from the leaves and hydrodynamic differences.

Yes, Aether is a vague word, originally it was the "air" that the Olympians breathed in the upper atmosphere.

As a tribute to this ancient concept, Aether is still in use as this "primordial" substance but in recent times, it is a general reference to the sub-atomic "stuff" that everything comes from.

For some, they believe it is neutrinos, some say it is virtual photons (bi-polar), to me it is like a 1-dimensional bi-polar massless electrostatic charge that is in a constant flux.

Intuition always has to be a part of any real science because not everything has an explanation that can be realized at the intellectual level - much of it you have to simply grok.

All the water movement in a plant has its roots in electrical activity - but trees also pull water from the air and put it in the ground.

Aether is gravity - mass does displace it and the Aether rebounds back in the direction where it was displaced from. I have never seen an experiment, electrical, gravitational, etc... that cannot be explained by this model.

For example, a very interesting experiment is DePalma's spinning ball experiment. A spinning ball will go up faster and higher and will fall faster than a ball that is not spinning if the same force is used to launch them into the air. Therefore, Einstein is wrong.

DePalma has his own explanation for it, but my model predicts the experimental end result perfectly and is completely different from DePalma.

As the mass is rotating around an axis that is perpendicular to the ground, the mass of the object is moving into the Aether at 90 degrees to the direction of the gravitational Aether. Therefore, some of the Aether is pushed or deflected towards the outer edge of the mass and that means that there is less Aether that can push on the mass in the middle of the object. Therefore - the inertia is reduced on the inside of the mass. That is one thing happening. The second is that by virtue of having a smaller diameter towards the middle, it is traveling less distance per unit of time encountering less Aether. So both of these effects together reduce the inertia of the mass.

So when the spinning ball is thrown up into the air, it is deflecting gravitational potential away from it meaning there is less of a gravitational push on the mass and it can move up with with less gravitational resistance. Therefore, for the same input, it will be able to go higher, faster. Then on the way down, the same deflection is happening as it "parts" the Aether it is falling through meaning it can and will fall faster - faster than any free fall speed limit.

The ball that is not spinning will be launched up and the Aether is moving through all the mass giving the normal full gravitational resistance so it will go up slower and not as high and on the way down, it is limited to normal falling speeds.

This Aetheric gravitational model consistently predicts, with accuracy, all these kinds of experimental outcomes more than any other model and that is why I stick with it. If I see something that advanced it, then great but I have yet to see anything that contradicts it. It perfectly explains light bending towards large objects, gravitational attraction between 2 large bodies, gravitational waves, etc... and it even explains all the energy gains in the Velijko mechanical oscillator and all other mechanical amplifiers. It describes why you can generate electricity from a spinning magnet with contacts between the axle and the edge of the magnet, etc...

SpiningBall(Understanding)

That is DePalma's explanation of what causes the spinning ball results, but I respectfully disagree with analysis.

[tachyon]

Ok.. a note for the trees is that "dead" trees don't suck up water the same as living trees while all other functions work the same, if you point down a branch of a plant you have submerged it's roots in water this plant will die faster compared to a plant that has it's branch vertical to the ground and pointing up contrary to common hydrodynamics.. finally barotropism is something of admire since seeds don't have enough energy in them to always grow up straight from the ground and no solid explanation has been given yet. Also a/c current promotes plant growth with other types of EM waves having better results than others.. I believe now that this is why the silly experiment with heavy metal and classical music worked it's because classical music has more suitable harmonics. So plants are electrical in a sense.. as we are.

The first UFO's in earth are the plants and trees.

[Marc Hamen]

hello all,

Aaron, I like this thread of Einstein, I'm lol, because you completely reason , yes Einstein considering the Ether differently, in the book " Ether and theorie of relativity" 1920 , transcription of the conference in Leyde ( Germany) , in French transcription sorry by M. Solovine, your explanation is clear. Einstein say : "This ether should not be conceived as being endowed with the property that characterizes the environment ponderable, ie as consisting of parts which may be tracked over time: the notion of movement must not be applied to him. " But Einstein have no known the Photophorese experiment and why is a vortex.

On my works with the gravity, I'm utilizing 2 different gravitational mechanics potential , one is Earth and others is Moon. Have the same on my circuit, JB have the best simple oscillator radio circuit, Raymond Kromrey have a good paper, but not full :
http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&...Eh-HRupu3uI4ZA


The time reference, is different, the Ether have a big problem. the virtual particle ( vortex in the matter ) have a problem. Andrei Sakharavov say the " The Metric Elasticity of the space governs the action of vacuum fluctuations" and he have a good explanation.

If you have 3 points in the space, in a linear system, not effects. But in a no linear, its curved the space time, and the time have not the same reference with this 2 first metric and the stress tensor of energy.

Your works is very good Aaron, best regards for all.



MH