## Demystifying Electromagnetism

The same centrifuge or whirlpool model of ether, that I have proposed earlier to explain gravity also explains the other two mystical phenomena in Nature i.e. electricity and magnetism. It appears that gravity represents the sum effect of the electric and magnetic ‘fields’ generated by a spinning body.

Electric charge: Imagine a ballI spinning in a pool of still water. The ball generates circular water currents around itself and drags objects in its vicinity towards its equator (see page Gravity and Bernoulli Effect). This effect is what probably manifests as electric charge.

Ether currents around a spinning body (Equatorial plane)

The so called positive and negative charges could just represent particles spinning in opposite direction in the Ether medium.

Magnetism: The physical basis for this mysterious phenomenon can be inferred by observing the water currents generated by a spinning body inside a pool of water. In addition to the circular currents (which form the basis of ‘electric charge’ as explained above), we can observe the following currents:

Ether currents around a spinning body (Vertical section through poles)

1. Water from ‘far field’ flow towards the poles (centripetal flow)
2. Water in the ‘near field’ flow from the poles towards the equator and from there it flows outward (centrifugal flow)

Magnetic field lines probably represent the direction of ether currents generated by a spinning body (earth). The centripetal currents explain the gravity/ dragging force near the poles. (Despite the outward flow of water from the equator, objects still get dragged towards the equator because of Bernoulli Effect)

So while ‘electric charge’ phenomenon explains the gravitational force near the equator, the phenomenon of magnetism explains the gravitational force near the poles.

The above model explains why magnets always exist as ‘dipoles’ unlike the electric charges and also explains the perpendicular orientation of electric and magnetic fields to each other.

Some questions:

So the earth acts like a magnet because it spins. But how does a bar magnet which is stationary acts like a magnet? Well, we could explain its magnetic behaviour by the sum effect of the spin of all the particles/ atoms that make up the magnet.

Why doesn’t a magnet attract all kinds of objects? It could be that the internal configuration of some materials is such that they generate an ‘ether milieu’ which doesn’t ‘yield’ so easily and hence stay uninfluenced unless the external influence is much stronger. We can offer a similar explanation for why a charged particle doesn’t attract every massive body unlike the earth.

Moving charge and magnetic field: When the charges (electrons) in a conductor are not flowing (i.e. when there is no current), they probably exist in a state of random distribution/ random configuration in the conductor and may not produce strong ether currents in the neighbourhood of the conductor. But when the charges start flowing (i.e. when there is current), they all probably get configured and spin in the same direction as they flow through the conductor. The sum effect of all these flowing and uniformly spinning electrons generates ether currents (in spiral motion) around the conductor. That explains why moving charges generate magnetic field and not stationary charges.

• Dr Adam Leinweber  On January 3, 2016 at 8:07 pm

I agree with almost everything you have said on this blog and thank you for exposing the stupidity that is relativity and quantum mechanics. Your explanation of the forces as whirlpools in the ether is particularly well thought out and much more logical than the stupidity preached to blind students of “science”.

However, my question is this: how can these forces affect particles unless they themselves are PART OF the ether? To me the answer seems clear, every single phenomenon we see can be explained easily by admitting that all small particles are knots in the ether, and each element (carbon, oxygen, etc.) can be explained as a knot of a different size and shape.

I believe that science lost its way long before Einstein even began to spread his lies. Lord Kelvin himself was investigating the elegantly simple knot theory of matter, before he was shut down by followers of Dalton and his atomic theory. They soon realised what a mess they are making of their new theory, so began to make up phenomena which defy common sense and which have never been observed. (Sound like a familiar story?) The problems of atomic theory could not be fully explained by scientists, so they decided to invent smaller and smaller particles until they ended up with the mess that is quantum mechanics. I say that by rejecting quantum mechanics, you are not going far enough. When you pull a plant out, you take the roots with it or else it will regrow. So too with this, we must return to simple and common sense ether theories that explain so much, including (as I have argued) all of matter itself.

If only people could see this common sense solution rather than using weird mathematics to justify completely ridiculous ideas. As Galacar has pointed out elsewhere, there have been ABSOLUTELY NO new inventions that have arisen from any framework other than those based on the ether (Tesla comes to mind), and I believe this must logically include atoms as knots in the ether, in order to be consistent. Would love to know what you all think.

Regards,

Like

• drgsrinivas  On January 7, 2016 at 10:38 am

Yes, I do believe that different objects/ elements/particles are all ultimately made from the same Ether/ ‘Photonic’ ocean. And I agree that each of them can be imagined as a specific type of ‘knot’ or specific pattern of condensation of that Ether.
I wonder if you have read my post http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/05/double-slit-experiment-electrons/. There, I have explained how different objects can be described as different patterns of vibration of Ether medium. I think that just represents the ‘wave version’ of your knot theory.

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 4:57 am

I would like to know where I could find out about this simple knot theory, and where I could find how we can know that the mainstream atomic theory is wrong. As far as I know, the atomic model correctly explains and predicts reactions among different substances. This knot theory surely does have a lot to explain that the atomic theory already does.

Like

• Galacar  On January 5, 2016 at 7:02 pm

Nice piece and I agree wholeheartedly.

Especially on this one:

“I believe that science lost its way long before Einstein even began to spread his lies.”

Well it really didn’t loose it’s way! ‘science’ was deliberately made to be this way by the Royal Society. Right from the start.
As I have written before, it is a control tool for the masses.
Just like a religion.
Nothing more, nothing less.
it was invented to hide real spiritual knowledge.
To hide all this behind ‘science’ FAKE HEROES where created.
Like Einstein and Hawkings etc. I somewhere have some documents where this is even stated bluntly,
But of course it never will be put on the evening news. 😉
(also a control tool!)
And as I have written recently elsewhere on this site, it is very clear to me now, that our consciousness is put in a liitle box by education and ‘science’..
Why it is put in a little box is because if is out of the box it is EXTREMELY POWERFULL and can change our world into a paradise,
But some people at the top of this world has a different agenda.
And, let us just say it, they are pscychopaths.Those sort of people don’t
So they lie to us from cradle to grave.They have no proplem with that.
They have no empathy.
O boy, I better stop now.Or I can go on and on and on……

Namaste!

Galacar

Like

• John Davis  On April 1, 2016 at 1:25 am

Nots or notes ? Have you ever read Tolkiens Silmarillion. It is a creation story where the Creator literally sings objects into existence. So all matter is simply a note in a grand symphony – each with its distinct resonance. I believe that he most probably used the creation idea of Genesis (him being a Catholic). “In the beginning was the word.” Very interesting – especially considering the creation of light doesn’t come until later in the sequence of events. (In the O.T.)

Like

• drgsrinivas  On April 2, 2016 at 12:06 am

“the Creator literally sings objects into existence”
What a wonderful narration! Truth now sounds even more sweet and musical to me!
Yes, every object/phenomenon that we experience in this universe can be explained in terms of specific patterns of vibration of Ether medium. Just like how different patterns of vibration of air molecules produce different notes of sound, different patterns of vibration of Ether medium give us the sensation of different objects that we see/ experience in this universe. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/05/double-slit-experiment-electrons/

Thank you very much!

Like

• John Davis  On April 2, 2016 at 12:56 am

Thank You for helping to clear the fog for so many people. I love reading these ideas. I hope you’ll post the details of how to get your book when it is finished (I do not do social media so this is my only link to your news)

Like

• Nic Achee  On June 19, 2016 at 3:15 am

If the ether is adhering to Bernoulli’s principals then it must have a viscosity… can the viscosity be calculated by comparing the observable phenomena we have at our disposal? Im just starting to apply the language of physics to my spiritual endeavors, but I think a good place to start is a comparison of the earth and moon’s movements. In my mind, it’s obvious that the moon was once a chunk of the earth, that’s why it’s pattern of movement is congruent, in relation the center of the earth, as any continent… it appears to not spin… as if it slowly projected off the earth onto a seemingly separate entity. Over time due to the greater distance it has to travel in circumference, because it’s farther out, it has less orbital frequency than let’s say north America. Due to the earth’s vector field, in which the moon sits, as proposed in this article, eventually it would start to spin in a polar opposite rotation to the earth, though it would be long before that movement is observable based on the inertia of the moon. If we could determine how long ago the moon was terrestrial and compare it to its current rotational velocity around earth’s vertex, perhaps a viscosity of the ether can by determined.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 5, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Of course Ether will have viscosity and that’s what gives inertia to matter particles.
By comparing the inertia experienced by a body in water to that in vacuum (i.e. ether), we could calculate the viscosity of ether.
Inertia of a body not only depends upon its mass but also upon the viscosity of the medium in which the body moves.
In true vacuum (which doesn’t exist in our Ether universe) there wouldn’t be anything called inertia and things become very absurd there, for example, even a gentle tap (slightest force) would give infinite acceleration to a 1000kg body!

Like

• Puleece Nho  On August 6, 2016 at 8:01 pm

What? Even assuming that the ether exists and has some viscosity, you yourself admit that the inertia of a body depends on the mass of the object. How exactly then does the acceleration of a body become infinite if the ether drag is taken away?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 7, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Basically, Inertia of a body is a product of the mass of the body and the resistance (viscocity) of the environment. If we increase the resistance of the environment or the viscocity of the medium, the inertia of a body proportionately increases.

i.e. Inertia ∝ mass.viscocity

If there was no ether (i.e in absolute vacuum), the viscocity of the environment would become zero i.e. there would be no resistance to motion of objects.

Next,
Acceleration ∝ force/inertia

So when inertia is zero, even a small force would produce infinite acceleration.

Mathematicians might say that any number divided by zero is undefined or makes no sense. In my view, an object gaining infinite acceleration makes no sense. That’s why I said, things become absurd in absolute vacuum.

I think both infiniteness and absolute emptiness are beyond human perception/intellect or beyond human brain’s software to resolve.

Like

• John Davis  On June 24, 2016 at 12:55 pm

drgsrinivas – What are your ideas for the atomic model ?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On July 5, 2016 at 8:45 pm

John Davis, thanks for your valuable inputs.
I haven’t seriously thought on the atomic model since my ‘salvation’ from science. As a student of science, I have always had difficulty imagining the shapes of different orbitals. Now I know why!

Like

• John  On August 7, 2016 at 1:35 am

It’s a weird one. The tendency is to want to make them small solar systems. Recent info suggests otherwise. I’m not sure where i stand… But I do see bonds between atoms as figure 8’s – this would account for both speed of orbit and high strength of bond.

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 4:50 am

Here is a website that presents the Concave Earth Theory, which I do not necessarily agree with: http://www.wildheretic.com/ . This theory is different from the heliocentric model, with the entire known universe being inside a concave earth. You should probably check it out, since you are theorizing things that have to do with astronomy.

Like

• Galacar  On August 13, 2016 at 1:32 pm

well, a “nuclear atom” can’t really exist at all. so there goes the solar system

analogy.

Like

• cadxx  On May 27, 2017 at 6:07 pm

All the greats of the electrical age believed in the Aether. Maxwell, Faraday, Thomson, Crookes, Lord Kalvin, Mendelev and Tesla and an insight into its nature can be gleaned from their work.

From the late Eugene Mallove:
In an elaborate series of experiments with Tesla coils, employing a host of different thermal and electric sensing apparatus (mercury thermometers, electroscopes, GM counters, oscilloscopes, neon bulb indicators within circuitry, Faraday cages, and plate antennas) at different ranges from the coil tips, and using comparison energy sources (various ion generators and radioactive sources), the Correas were able to rule out what Tesla coil radiation is not, and to synthesize what it may well be. They conclude that Tesla coils emit a special form of massfree radiation that is not electromagnetic in character and not sourced in ionic emissions. They observed that these “Tesla waves alone were capable of triggering the ratemeter via the plate antenna even at substantial distances.” They suggest that the pulsed input to the primary of the Tesla coil “induces in the space of the closely coupled secondary a conversion of the local aether energy to electric form.” They write,

“All happens as if these coils synthesized two different kinds of electric fields, one proximal [near the coil] and massbound, and the other massfree and responsible for all distal [distant from the coil] effects.”

At root, these experiments touch on the deep issue of the aether and its relation to what are evidently two basic forms of electricity, the accepted form (massbound, the flow of electrons), and other not accepted at all by conventional science, massfree—capable of flowing in and around wires, as well as being transmitted as Tesla waves through gas media and vacuum.
The massfree form of electricity might be called “cold electricity.” This hearkens back to another fundamental issue, the very nature of some non-standard biological energies, which are also presumed not to exist and the subject of much mockery these day.
My own thoughts on this subject can be found here: https://nextexx.com/electron-deception-1/

Like

• richard johnston  On July 15, 2018 at 11:35 am

Dr.G, this may be your most poorly thought out article that I’ve come across so far. It appears to be in direct contradiction with everything we see and your own claims elsewhere on this site.

Firstly, if positive and negative charges are simply particles spinning clockwise and anticlockwise respectively as you claim, then anyone with knowledge of spin can see the flaw in this logic. Simply put, if im looking at a glass clock (so that you can see the hands from both the front and back) and I see the hands going clockwise, someone on the back side of the clock would see the hands going anticlockwise! Therefore, if charge is dependent on spin direction, looking at the particle from the opposite side (whichever direction that may be) would flip the sign of the charge! This is clearly an issue in your proposition and surely would’ve been noticed by now!

Secondly, in your discussion of gravity you detail how a spinning body in an aether (say a positive particle in this case) causes differential spin which induces an opposite spin on nearby bodies and causes them to start orbiting the first body as in the case of the planets. Bodies spinning in the opposite direction are attracted to the first by Bernoulli’s principle (as you say) and supposedly ones spinning the same way should be repelled by the same logic explaining why like charges repel and opposite ones attract. But in the electric field case why do the particles not orbit the original but are solely attracted/repelled? If gravity and EM are truly the same then either charged particles should orbit one another as they are attracted/repelled or in the case of gravity the planets should not orbit but purely attract and repel. So it appears you are contradicting your own theory. I am keen to hear your thoughts on these issues.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 24, 2018 at 8:07 pm

Richard,
If you had used even a fraction of that skeptical mind, you would have realized how absurd is your modern religion. Actually in your eagerness to disprove the ether model and save your religious theories, you are being unduly suspicious of everything on here. Unfortunately, the more your are trying to dig deeper, the more you are getting lost and you are showing up more and more of your religious innocence.

Ok, if you go to the other side of the Universe, the positives would be called as negatives and negatives would be called as positives. Then what? All the phenomena will happen exactly as before. What effect does your changing of labels have on the events in the universe and the laws of nature? Nothing.

You wrote

“But in the electric field case why do the particles not orbit the original but are solely attracted/repelled?”

Is it your own assumption or your religious pastors have told you. Give me one example from our everyday world where in an electric charge just gets attracted towards another without spinning and rotating. I promise I would provide an explanation for you if you come up with one such scenario. Don’t throw at me what your pastors have thought as occurring in their religious experiments. Come up with a real life observable scenario.

You keep uttering that ‘why ether when Relativity and QM could do without it?’. Let me tell you that just one God would do everything, why two things? for that matter why so much science and so many theories?

Actually what you should be asking yourself is that ‘when one Ether would explain everything, why resort to two absurd theories and so many stupid notions?’ And you said OR doesn’t favor Ether. I really wonder if you know what Occam’s Razor tells.

And then, you keep saying there is no proof of ether. You fail to realize that Double slit experiment provides a clear proof of Ether. Of course, DSE can be explained if one accepts that a particle could exist in multiple locations simultaneously and travels in multiple paths simultaneously. But DSE can also be explained if one believes in angels, aliens, magic wands etc. If you abandon reasoning and logic, then science becomes mythical and Truth remains elusive.

And finally, unlike what your prophets preach you, MM experiment showed nothing against the ether theory. We can’t expect people failing in basics to get enlightened by complex experiments. It is as simple as that. And it would be even more futile to discuss about aberration of star light and so on and so fourth with your folk.

Dear Richard, don’t be in a haste to post comments. To save you from embarrassment and to save myself from replying to your long confused ‘scientific’ arguments, I haven’t allowed many of your comments. My apologies but I don’t want rubbish getting accumulated on this blog. If you have a truly reasonable argument I would surely allow and answer.

Like

• richard johnston  On July 31, 2018 at 3:30 am

Joe, glad you decided to contribute! It is true that you can explain anything you want with anything else you choose as Bill says but there’s some things you have to adk yourself when looking at different explanations. These question are “What does this explanation imply?” And “Does this explanation successfully explain everything about the phenomenon?”. If it does explain everything (about gravity in this case) then that’s great! If not, we must throw it away or modify it. If it does though, we ask the other question and see if we can detect any effects of these implications or if we run into any paradoxes/contradictions.

In Bills EM rope example, (I didnt think about it too deeply so I dont know if it actually describes gravity well but let’s assume it does for sake of argument), one implication it may have is how the ropes themselves interact. Bill claims that they are physical objects as well so it seems as though they should interact with each other. Just as in a normal rope when I run into the side of it, it slows me down (or stops me) so does this happen with his EM ropes? Also could the ropes interact with each other and possibly tangle? How do the ropes change length as the objects get closer or further apart? These are all questions that arise when we look at this theory and need to be addressed and investigated through experiment. It is precisely by looking for questions like this for all theories we come across that we can find if a theory is successful or if it needs to be modified in some way. A brief glance leads me to think that these EM ropes can’t exist as Bill explains them as it leads to the problems I mention above but that doesn’t mean that he’s wrong! They could exist in some other form or in a slightly different way, the only true way to tell is to experiment. C

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.