Member John-Erik
MemberForum Replies Created
-
Jerry
Yes, I meant Sun’s contribution to gravity. Matter causes gravity by absorbing ether particles, so, manifestation by lack of particles. Reduced flow towards the second body means that the contribution from the second body also is reduced and we get an effect of second order (small) when they become aligned. Less gravity. It is better to use a pendulum at rest.
No, this is not causing the wobbling. Instead, this reduction should cause parts of Earth to move away from the Sun/Moon system to a very small amount.
No, I do not know any links either.
John-Erik
-
Marco
The ether tells matter how to move. So matter is also dragged by the ether. So, on Earth we see only the contribution from Earth to be looking dragged. Sum of other contributions become zero. Partly dragged is more or less an illusion. I regard ether particles to be absorbed by matter (not colliding) and thereby generate gravity. So, gravity emerges inside matter and does not move. Therefore no aberration in gravity. This means that Fatio’s 300 years old gravity model works.
With best regards from _____________ John-Erik
-
Jerry
This phenomenon is explained easily, since gravity contribution from the Sun has to pass through the Moon. The Sun contribution is therefore slightly reduced in parts of our planet of the size of the Moon. However, we cannot detect this reduction, since the effect becomes converted to motion of these parts of our planet a very small distance away from our Sun. So, our planet becomes slightly deformed.
The very small motion away from the Sun is not exactly the same in a point (pendulum) as in the average value in surrounding Earth. A long pendulum should therefore be able to detect this effect. Best is to use a pendulum at rest.
Regards from ________________________ John-Erik
-
Marco
Electrons absorption in a crystal can generate radiation – not heating.
Perhaps absorption of ether particles can do the same.
John-Erik
-
Marco
No, assuming ether particles to behave like electrons does not necessarily demand a new kind of energy. Instead it is you that increases complexity by introducing vortices.
John-Erik
-
-
Marco and all
Newton disregarded a particle based ether by Fatio 300 years ago and it is still disregarded, since particles were assumed to collide with matter. Instead, particles can be assumed to be absorbed by matter, like how electron absorption can cause X-rays. Absorption instead of collisions means that Fatio’s idea becomes a realistic explanation to gravity.
Newton’s mistake is the reason to the fact that we cannot explain gravity today.
Regards _________ John-Erik
-
David
No. Fatio’s model (causing a radial ether wind) is an ether and this ether is the cause of gravity.
Regards from _______________ John-Erik
-
Marco
I have described my ether model here many times. It is Fatio’s model with small and fast particles moving in all directions.
John-Erik
-
Marco
No, it is also possible that energy is interchanged with the ether and only information can be transmitted. You cannot know.
John-Erik
-
Marco @ing.mm
I do not have these answers.
We are using the law of energy conservation in error, since we all the time disregard energy to and from the ether. There are lots of energy in the ether. Light must not move energy.
John-Erik
-
Marco
I think there is an important difference in our opinions. Gravity is a product mxM of two values in different positions, not knowing of each other. So, they cannot define mxM. Gravity cannot be moving and transferred by collisions. Instead gravity is caused by absorption of ether particles. This means that gravity in m is caused by those particles that are absent in m due to absorption in M. Therefore, gravity does not move at all. So, absorption in m causes a change in ether around M and that change forces ether to emerge a force of gravity inside M. (And vice versa). Gravity does not move. Since gravity does not move we cannot expect aberration in gravity.
So, gravity is an ether-based (not magic) action at a distance. So, gravity demands an ether.
This brilliant idea was presented by Fatio 300 years ago. At that time only collisions were regarded and abolished due to the lack of aberration, but shifting to absorption solves the problem.
With best regards from _____________ John-Erik
-
Jerry
I said that light did NOT take a longer way and you ask: WHY it takes a longer way. This debate goes in meaningless circles.
-
Jerry
Time dilation with multiple time concepts will ruin physics as Harald Nordenson said in 1922. The problem started when Potier said that light takes a longer way in the reference arm in MMX. However, light takes the same way in the ether frame.
John-Erik
-
Jerry
Light is moving and infinite speed is absurd magic.
However, gravity can be without aberration, since gravity does not move.
John-Erik