Gravity and Bernoulli’s Principle

Scientists utilise Bernoulli principle to ‘lift’ aircrafts against the Earth’s gravity but I am sure they don’t really understand how this principle works. If they had, they would have realised long ago that it is the same principle that underlies the mystery of gravity. And Bernoulli principle would have become much more famous than Newton’s laws and wouldn’t have let Einstein’s theories distort our understanding of Gravity.

Bernoulli principle as understood by physicists states that ‘the pressure exerted by a fluid decreases as its velocity increases’. In other words, as a fluid moves faster, it exerts less pressure. Some physicists think that it is the law of conservation of energy that underlies the Bernoulli principle; while others attribute it to Newton’s 2nd law. That just highlights the physicist’s ignorance on not just Bernoulli Effect but also on the laws which they try to make use of to explain Bernoulli Effect. The fact is that we need neither of them to understand how Bernoulli principle works. What we need is just common sense.

To correctly explain Bernoulli’s effect we must first correctly understand about pressure. Pressure is defined as force per unit area. We know that force is a vector which means that a force is not just a quantity but also has a direction. For example if someone says ‘‘a force of 1Newton is applied on the ball’’, it conveys little meaning because we need to mention in what direction that said force is applied to make sense. There could be a number of forces acting simultaneously on a body from many directions, but the sum total of all the forces is what decides the final force vector and hence the direction of work. Because pressure is nothing but force, it implies that pressure is also a vector. So whenever we talk about pressure, it makes again no sense if we just say 1 Pascal or 2 Pascals and not mention the direction of pressure. This fact is often ignored or forgotten when physicists talk about pressure. Pressure i.e. the force exerted by a body, can be different in different directions. For example a book lying on a table may exert a downward pressure of 1pascal but it exerts no pressure in the upward direction or laterally. And we all know that the pressure exerted by water inside a container on the earth is not same in all directions.

Having realised that pressure is a vector; now we will go on to understand what pressure means at a deeper level. We know that a gas or a liquid exerts pressure on the walls of its container. But what is the fundamental mechanism that underlies the phenomenon of pressure? In other words from where does that force which we feel as pressure come? For this we will have to go to the kinetic theory of gases which states that the pressure of a gas is caused by collisions of its molecules against the walls of the container. The sum of the impacts per unit area of a wall is what we measure as the pressure applied upon that wall or in that direction.

We ‘know’ that the molecules or the atoms of a gas are in a state of random motion and collide with each other and with the walls of the container. Random motion implies that the molecules of a gas move equally in all directions (or in other words there is no net movement) and hence collide equally with all the walls and exert equal pressure in all directions. This is probably the reason why physicists ignore direction when they talk about pressure.

It is may be true that a gas inside a balloon exerts equal pressure in all directions in some situations, for example in the outer space and away from the celestial bodies when there is no ‘external influence’ upon the gas particles. But in the vicinity of earth, the effect of gravity can make the molecules move faster toward the bottom wall of a container and hence we may expect a little more pressure exerted upon that wall. (More over the term ‘random motion’ is only true at a gross level. If we magnify things and look deeply into the microcosm we would probably appreciate a highly ordered motion of the molecules and will be able to appreciate the slight differences in pressure in different directions)

In summary,

1) Pressure is nothing but force exerted per unit area of a surface

2) Pressure is a vector quantity

3) It is collisions of particles against a surface which manifests as pressure upon that surface.

Now imagine a container ‘filled’ with some gas. The gas molecules or particles move randomly and collide with the walls of the container. As discussed earlier, the sum of the impacts per unit area of a wall is what we measure as pressure upon that wall. If we ignore gravity and other external influences, the gas molecules collide equally against all the walls and hence exert equal pressure in all the directions i.e. on all the walls of the container. Now let’s remove the left and right walls of the container and make the gas to flow through the box in the rightward direction. Obviously the gas particles no longer move ‘randomly’ in all directions but move ‘preferentially’ towards the right. So the number of collisions against the top, bottom and other remaining walls of the container diminish. The result is that we measure less pressure being exerted by the gas on these remaining walls of the container. And the faster a gas flows in a given direction, the lesser the number of collisions on the side walls and hence the lesser the sideward pressure.

The gas particles collide equally against all the walls and hence exert equal pressure in all directions

The gas particles collide equally against all the walls and hence exert equal pressure in all directions

The gas particles are no longer in random motion but are moving preferentially toward the right. So they impinge less often upon the sidewalls and exert hence exert less pressure sideward. The particles obviously exert more pressure towards the right.

The gas particles are no longer in random motion but are moving preferentially toward the right. So they impinge less often upon the sidewalls and hence exert less pressure sideward. The particles obviously exert more pressure towards the right.

The statement that a fast moving fluid exerts less pressure makes no sense. The truth is that it exerts less pressure only on the side walls (i.e. in the perpendicular direction). If we place a pressure gauge just opposite to the flow of gas, we will realise that it actually exerts much higher pressure in the direction of flow. (And obviously much lower pressure in the opposite direction)

Now imagine a body suspended in a tank of still water. Obviously the water particles keep colliding with the body on all its sides with equal force. In other words the water exerts equal pressure on all the sides of the body. And because there is no net force acting upon it, the body remains still and suspended inside the water.

IMG_1737

Now imagine that there exists another body in the vicinity and which starts spinning vigorously. The body obviously stirs the water around it and induces circular currents in the water tank. Obviously the water particles that are closer to the spinning body get stirred faster than the ones that are farther away.

How would this scenario influence the first body?

  1. the body which was still before starts moving in the direction of the water currents
  2. it starts spinning (in the opposite direction to that of the ‘inducer’)
  3. and it gets dragged towards the second body (why?)

IMG_1758

Now replace water tank with Ether universe. Imagine a body suspended in still Ether. Imagine Earth nearby and allow it to spin. That explains gravity.

Go to Demystifying Electromagnetism

Go to Main Index

Comments

  • cheesecookies  On April 1, 2014 at 11:01 pm

    I love relativity and astrophysics and I am hoping to major in it in university. Your blog really made me realise the implications beyond what I had learnt.

    Like

    • SomeGuyFromNJ  On March 19, 2017 at 2:55 am

      Maybe this invisible water that’s acting on us to give us Gravity is “dark matter” and it’s just spinning around us right now as we type

      Like

  • Aaron Do  On July 3, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    The ideas you have in your website are really interesting. The problem is you need to back up your theory with measurement.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On July 4, 2014 at 9:03 pm

      The problem here is not lack of experimental proof or backup by ‘measurements’. The whole point is that observations and ‘measurements’ need to be interpreted logically to make sense out of them. When people don’t bother about logic, any ‘measurement’ can be used to back up any stupid statement.

      The observation: Apple falls to the ground

      Relativists’ explanation: because space is curved.
      (Even then, why should the apple fall ‘down’? Why doesn’t it fly ‘away’? In other words, what force makes the apple to move from the less curved space to the more curved space? I am sure relativists resort to circular logic here: They might say ‘that is because of gravity’!!!)

      Ether theory: due to ‘whirlpool effect’ as the Earth spins through the ocean of Ether.

      The observation: A photon appears to pass through both slits and interfere with itself

      Quantumists’ explanation: A photon particle travels through all paths simultaneously and hence is able to pass through both the slits.

      Ether explanation: when a photon is fired inside the Ether Ocean, it creates a wave just like how a water particle fired inside a pool of water results in a water wave. And it is this wave which spreads and travels in all directions simultaneously. So it is not the particle itself which travels via both the slits, but it is the particle energy which does so in the form of ‘daughter waves’.

      Similarly better logical explanations exist for cosmic ray muons reaching the Earth in large numbers, slowing of GPS clock, neutral pion decay, aberration of star light etc etc.

      So all the observations and ‘measurements’ claimed by modern physicists as proof of their weird theories actually prove that our physicists are mad because all of them can be explained logically and without resorting to the stupid preachings of their relativity and quantum religions.

      Like

  • Aaron Do  On July 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    So you’re saying that we have plenty of measurements, they just need to be interpreted properly…

    Regarding the “whirlpool” theory, I have some difficulty visualizing how it would work in 3 dimensions. If you have a spherical object spinning in a tank of water, then it is only spinning on one axis. So would there be any attraction to the “poles” of the object, and how would it compare to the “equator” (pardon the terminology)?

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On July 24, 2014 at 11:30 pm

      You are actually on the right track. If you look at our solar system or the numerous galaxies, they are more or less disc shaped and not spherical. According to the ‘whirlpool’ model, the gravitational influence exerted by a celestial body is greatest in the ‘equatorial plane’ and it decreases towards the poles.

      But how do we explain the observation that the weight of an object is more towards the Polar Regions than at the equator? A body’s weight is decided upon by two forces. One is the gravitational force which pulls the body inwards i.e. towards the Earth. And the other force is the centrifugal force which pushes the body away from the earth. It is the sum of these two forces which probably decide the actual weight of a body. As we move towards the poles, not only the gravitational attraction becomes weaker, but is also the centrifugal repulsion force. I think probably there is more reduction in the centrifugal repulsion force than in the gravitational attraction force as one moves from the equator towards the poles.

      The phenomenon of gravity can be easily conceptualised by understanding how a centrifuge works- “Centrifuge model of gravity”. Of course it is ultimately Bernoulli’s effect that underlies both.

      Like

  • Aaron Do  On July 27, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    Thanks for the reply!

    I still have two doubts though. The first is that at the precise position of one of the poles, you would expect both the centrifugal and the “whirlpool” force to equal to zero. i.e. no gravity. I think that kind of effect would be well documented. Unless the earth’s precession has some effect too (I would expect it to be very small…).

    My second doubt is that if you take a spinning sphere in a tank of water, and water is moving towards the “equator” then it would have to be moving away from the poles in order for the water to circulate. In your ether model, wouldn’t something similar occur?

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm

      Yes, the above described Bernoulli phenomenon can’t fully explain the gravitational ‘attraction’ near the polar regions. And thanks for your thought provoking question: I have stumbled upon a new concept that not only solves the gravity issue at the poles but also provides an insight into the phenomenon of magnetism.

      Briefly, we know that the vast majority of the space inside the atoms is ’empty’. In other words, the vast majority of the space inside any ‘solid object’ (including our Earth) is empty. According to the Ether model of universe, all the space including this empty ‘internal mileau’ of all objects is pervaded by the Ether or photons. So our Earth may be considered as a highly ‘porous’ body suspended in the ether ocean and also filled with the ether fluid. Now as the body of our earth rotates, ether gets dragged in via the ‘poles’, flows outward at the ‘equator’.

      This inward dragging of ether is what manifests as gravity near the poles and the differential spin of ether combined with Bernoulli effect explains the gravitational attraction near the equator. We can actually undertake a simple experiment to prove this: we just have to make a round porous body (made of say iron mesh) spin inside water and see how it affects near by smaller objects.

      And I believe it is the flow pattern of ether in and out of the Earth which manifests as the magnetic lines/ field of Earth.

      Like

  • Aaron Do  On July 28, 2014 at 7:40 pm

    I may have been a bit hasty with my second doubt. So I guess the water itself is only moving in a circle around the sphere, but not towards the sphere, and nearby objects are moved by the water towards the sphere? I think I might try this out in my kitchen sink just to verify… 😀

    Like

  • curtweinstein2  On July 31, 2014 at 7:59 am

    1) Is the “spin” real? OK, I can “buy” the ether, no problem.
    2) If the Earth didn’t spin wouldn’t it yet create the same “amount” of gravity?

    3) Oh, OK, I know why I am confused. I think “gravity” is the ether, and “gravity” doesn’t spin with the Earth, according to our experiences with Foucault’s Pendulum and also according to Dr. Petr Beckmann.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On August 6, 2014 at 9:50 am

      If Earth didn’t spin, there wouldn’t be any gravity here. Let me correct you, Ether is not gravity, it is the differential spin of Ether which manifests as gravity.

      Like

  • Darcy Donelle (@Darcy_Donelle)  On October 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    The Ether? The first strong evidence against the ether emerged in the late 19th century via the Michelson–Morley experiment…

    It seems like you’re having difficulty grasping the fundamental properties of nature. Your invoking ether as an explanation for gravity is no more convincing than accepting gravity as a fundamental property of nature. All you have done is introduced a new fundamental property of nature, i.e. that the earth spins through a whirlpool. Where does Earth get its energy to spin around its axis and orbit the Sun? If this energy comes from the whirlpool, then where does the whirlpool obtain its energy from?

    “We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” – Isaac Newton.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On October 18, 2014 at 10:38 am

      If you want to religiously believe in what your mentors preached you, I have no objection. But don’t swear your beliefs as evidence. I have explained how your mentors have misinterpreted Michelson’s experiment and exposed their stupid reasoning here – http://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/
      I strongly suggest that you don’t read that if you are a weak hearted individual because that would tear apart your religious theories and your heart may not tolerate that. Rather keep chanting that Ether has been disproved, so that you remain healthy and your religion survives!

      So where does earth get the energy to spin? What about posing the question to your religion? Also let me ask your religion another question, where does the matter that makes the Earth come from? I have never claimed that Ether model would answer all the questions down to the most fundamental level. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/the-divine-stuff-explains-all/

      Like

  • Aerophos  On October 17, 2014 at 8:36 pm

    IMPORTANT: Good theory, I like your thinking, BUT: have you proven that objects in space that DONT spin have ZERO gravity? I strongly suspect that you will find at least ONE object in our solar system that doesnt have much of a spin or any spin but it still has gravity. Also, what about magnets? If magnets can attract or repel even when NOT spinning, then WHY cant larger objects like the earth not have the same quality? If magnets can do it, in other words, if magnets can exert a force that we can call “micro gravity” towards other magnets, then why cant a planet have a similar quality? Your theory could be correct, but as long as you are not saying that there doesnt exist any other attracting and/or repelling forces when a planet doesnt spin. As long as you’re not implying that, then I’m happy. In my personal opinion, I think that non-spinning large objects in space still have gravity. Therefore, we need to try and find a different explanation for the existence of gravity and how it works. We need to try and find an explanation independent of the “ether” theory. Have you ever considered that gravity could be related to magnetism in some way?

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On October 17, 2014 at 9:19 pm

      I feel that gravitational attraction and magnetism are fundamentally one and the same and can be explained by the Ether model. I will have to explore more on this issue. I have explained my thoughts briefly in the following reply-

      http://debunkingrelativity.com/gravity-and-bernoullis-principle/#comment-2438

      Like

    • JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:15 am

      You are both correct in my opinion, they are definitely part of the same “force.” To me, time, space, gravity, EM, are all a singular phenomenon. And one can and do impact the other.

      Like

  • Galacar  On October 17, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    To Darcy Donelle

    Don’t believe what you have been spoonfed!
    I know this is the original fairy tale!
    But so much is wrong with it1
    People later have tried to replicate it, to no avail!
    You see, ; science’ is about propaganda, not real information and truth!
    Once you see that, a lot becomes clear.
    It really is a disguised religion.
    Start unlearning what you have learned ( read: being programmed with),’
    and you can start thinking rational and logical again.

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 1, 2015 at 7:39 am

    I second that.

    Like

  • Saiz  On June 5, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    I like micro explanations. You explain pressure by micro impacts of the particules againts the walls. But why the move of the particle changes from ‘randomly’ in all directions to ‘preferentially’, and why gases and liquids do this accordingly with Bernouilli law? If the particles continue moving randomly and rightward the collisions frequency would be the same, and so the pressure?
    Thank you.

    NB. I’m absolutly in agreement with you concerning the stupid relativity theory, even more after having seen the movie “Interstellar”

    Like

  • Amitabh  On July 24, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    I like your explanation of floating objects. In a large vessel filled with water just leave some random free floating objects..they mimic a galaxy. The objects have different energies and exert wave patterns in the water pool…all the objects somehow keep a steady balance and flow as they chart their own orbit. They never collide. The container MUST BE ALIVE and so should be the environment. I mean a terracotta vessel is alive and water in plastic is inert ( ignoring the static) This is our cosmos. Of course the fluid contains or surrounds the planets, so is not planar in the sense of the experiment explained.

    Now why the apple falls…is because the seed inside the apple wants to germinate. Are physicists blind to this simple phenomena of life meeting life ? So smoke goes to air and gross matter ones back to earth…and water evaporates to be with the clouds and reach the ocean…Is this poetry or science. .?

    Like

    • Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 6:50 pm

      Things do not happen only because life wants to meet life. That is like saying that dinosaurs just grew wings so that they could fly and not die when they jump off of trees. There are scientific explanations for these things (even though I do not really believe that dinosaurs grew wings).

      Like

  • pk surendran  On January 25, 2016 at 7:56 pm

    All this boils down to one thing: Our seers short cut (learning by intuition) was the only way we could see the total from the fringes of fragments….

    Like

  • aether  On February 12, 2016 at 10:08 pm

    I’m having trouble visualizing how ether spin alone can explain gravity on a sphere (earth). Can you elaborate?

    Like

    • daniel3710  On February 14, 2016 at 5:42 pm

      I believe what he said was that the spin of the earth within the ether medium causes a lower pressure area around the earth and this attracts nearby bodies due to the fact that any object in a pressurized environment will move towards areas of less pressure to create balance.

      Like

  • aether  On February 14, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    daniel3710,

    Thanks for your explanation, but I’m still having trouble visualizing what happens especially at the poles.

    I actually filled up my sink with water and used an electric hand held mixer to test the theory. The single mixing piece/extension (oblong, not spherical) was stuffed with steel wool. I used floating markers on the surface of the water. Admittedly crude experiment. I might try it in the bathtub or a bigger clear plastic container (round). It would help if I had colored suspended particles in the water.

    Prior to accidentally finding this site, I had never considered Bernoulli effect was the cause of gravity. I’m not dismissing the idea, just having trouble visualizing it. Action at a distance just doesn’t cut it in my (simple?) mind. I always pictured an ether medium and universal pressure. Pressure differentials at points of mass.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2016 at 10:39 pm

      aether, thanks for your interest.

      I have explained that in the following post.
      http://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/

      The gravitational attraction near the poles can be explained by the centripetal flow of ether towards the poles of the spinning body.

      And thank you very much daniel3710, I truly appreciate your input. And this is what I really need. It is becoming rather difficult for me to address each and every query posted by the readers immediately. For most questions posed by the readers, explanations already exist at one place or the other on this blog. Little more elaboration is what is often required. (I know that animations would really help understand many concepts presented on this blog but I am neither a techie nor do I have time for that now. So please bear with me).

      Having said that, It is because of the questions posed by the readers that I become enlightened everyday and able to solve the mysteries of this universe and creation. I owe a lot to all those people.

      Like

  • Aether  On February 15, 2016 at 3:05 am

    drgsrinivas,

    I haven’t read everything on your thought provoking site, but I had read that piece. Still not sure, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong. I’ll play around with my kitchen mixer some more when I get the chance.

    Also, at the equator, the rotational velocity of the earth is approximately 1037 mph. At the moon’s equator, the rotational velocity is about 10 mph. According to some sources, gravity on the moon is ~ 17% of gravity on earth – this doesn’t seem to square with spin differentials that are 100 times different. At least in my mind.

    Then again, the moon travels farther than the earth on the trip around the sun and maybe this has an influence. And maybe the published density and gravity of the moon are wrong.

    In any event, I can’t buy into action at a distance, constant SOL, time dilation…….all nonsense in my opinion. There are no paradoxes in nature imo. The Emperor’s New Clothes is the perfect analogy.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On February 16, 2016 at 10:56 pm

      aether, I am unable to deduce the exact relation between the rotational velocity and the force of gravitational attraction in mathematical terms. That is beyond my mathematical brain. But I can tell you one thing: The rotational velocity of the fluid particles decrease as we go farther from the spinning object. And it is the velocity gradient between two adjacent layers of the fluid which determines the gravitational force at any locality in the space. Of course, the higher the the rotational velocity of a celestial body, the greater the velocity gradient that develops between the successive layers of ether, but I don’t think this relation is a linear one.

      That probably explains why earth’s gravity is only 6 times more than that of moon despite its much faster rotational velocity. And of course, there probably exist many other factors- I would also propose ether density in addition to the ones you have mentioned.

      Like

  • aether  On February 17, 2016 at 1:42 am

    The rotational velocity of the fluid particles decrease as we go farther from the spinning object.

    Yes, this was readily observable in my sink experiments using fine black pepper particles. Unclear what happened at the poles of the steel wool or inside the steel wool for that matter.

    <i.>but I don’t think this relation is a linear one.

    I don’t either. Inversely proportionate to the ^2 of the distance? Do we really know the gravity on the moon? Our space gadgets typically have rocket boosters.

    Anyway, I’m sure all this can all be explained by Einstein’s GR theory (at this point I’m surprised it’s still just a theory and not a law). No joke, GR can be used to explain everything.

    Seemingly, everything proves Einstein was right. Behold: One year to collect the data and a whopping 5 years to massage and distort the data to maintain the religion of relativity!

    What a spectacle! Theater of the absurd. A never ending Tamasha!

    Liked by 1 person

  • aether  On February 18, 2016 at 3:40 am

    Paper on Bernoulli effect and ether:

    http://140.121.146.149/Jom%202014-Lin.pdf

    Out of my league.

    Like

  • bimbomechanic  On February 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    Has anyone considered gravity as density?
    Objects denser then air sink, similar to how objects operate in water.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On February 21, 2016 at 8:58 pm

      Denser/heavier objects sink in water because of gravity. If there was no gravity/ external force acting upon them, objects, whether heavier or lighter remain where ever they are left i.e. neither they float nor do they sink. So density per se can’t explain gravity.

      Having said that, differences in Ether density can influence the strength and extent of the gravitational field generated by a spinning body.

      Like

  • aether  On February 23, 2016 at 12:28 am

    A few thoughts.

    In my comment above, I mentioned that the spin of the moon is very small relative to the spin of the earth. While true, the rotational velocities of both the earth and moon are tiny compared to their orbital velocities ~ 67,000mph. So one can think of the moon as orbiting the sun along with the earth in a vortex streamline. Of course, the (relative) spins of the earth and moon still play a role in the system

    As expected, the farther from the sun the slower the orbital velocities of the planets:

    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

    Scientists talk about the barycenter of our solar system, but that might be theoretically calculated rather than actually observed. And even if it is observed, perhaps it could be explained in terms of a swirling vortex.

    In a hurricane, the higher wind speeds and lower pressures are nearer the eye (center).

    Like

  • Stephen  On February 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    All – though as men we are equal, I will not pretend to have equal understanding or education. I am just a man who loves to learn and am fascinated with understanding the universe (small task right – ha ha )…but I learn just for the joy of it. I am still absorbing these concepts. What lead me to this page was my inability to grasp the concept of space-time, which I believe is a component of Einstein’s theories. To me, time is simply a concept to quantify change. If nothing changed (all was frozen) in essence, time would stop, but with each passing second, my body changes, cells die and are born, the clouds move, the earth spins. The concept of time allows us to reference the changes around us. Is this a legitimate way of looking at this? I relate this to this discussion topic, be cause my limited understanding of relativity is that it is used to explain gravity. I do not understand how you can make time a principle of gravity other than to reference the effect it has on things. This becomes important because if space-time is a flawed concept, doesn’t the rest of his theory start to unravel? I am basing my comments on my limited understanding, so please forgive me if I come across as un educated (because I am). I also struggle with the concept that relativity applies to everything but light (in other words, the speed of light is constant, regardless of the travel speed of the observer.) Even if light has special properties, this still doesn’t make sense to me. I am not sure there is a question buried in my rambling, but any comment or response is welcomed.

    Like

  • Galacar  On February 25, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    Stephen,

    You sound more rational then an ‘educated’ men does.
    You have been spared the deep brainwashing of our ‘scientific’ culture!
    (being in a ‘culture’ is really telling us something!!)
    Belessings to you.
    Now, be less humble, and KNOW you can work things out.
    Throw all that stuff away that tells you, that because you are ‘uneducated’
    you can’t and ‘scientists’ can do better.
    You have the very very deep advantage of NOT being brainwashed.
    So, let your genius run.

    As for your grasping or ‘grokking’ space-time.
    Congrats! There is nothing to grasp!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Stephen  On February 25, 2016 at 8:03 pm

    Thank you very much for your good words. I continued trying to study Einstein’s theories after I made this original post yesterday. I will have to admit, your strong opinion seems extremely valid. To think that mass increases/decreases due to change in velocity (which in my mind, means you gain atoms or the atoms change), or that time slows down or that distance shrinks.. as you go faster…etc., makes absolutely no sense at all. At least not to me. At best, the function of the concept of relativity is simply to provide a reference point. (you cant know what light is if you don’t know what dark is). It is a concept of perception and not physical science. No wonder it was so hard to understand, I should worry if it did make sense to me. What is interesting is how many people who teach it, teach it as if it is undisputed fact. I am finding that happens a lot with people teaching science (and history for that matter). Often times things are just theories and not thoroughly validated in any way. In psychology you learn that beliefs are individual and have nothing to do with the truth, but our perceptions and our acceptance of what we are told or exposed to…as well as our faith in the source of information. I am quite sure when Einstein developed his ‘fuzzy’ math it made perfect sense. He was trying to solve un answered questions. He had great faith in math and assumed if he could make an equation work, then it MUST be true. I can understand, he is just human as am I. I think that as people, we feel foolish to challenge anyone who is accepted as ‘great’ or is highly esteemed. We also are typically willing to follow them blindly. I think it is part of our nature, but thankfully there are always those occasional minds that challenge the accepted and launch us forward in new ways of thinking and new ideas. Its actually quite brave in many ways. I’ll tell you something that happened to me as well. Up through my 20s I had no belief in Auras. In fact, I watched a special on 60 minutes about a girl who could see auras and even tell if someone was sick. My thought was either this is a hoax, or the little girl was gifted with rare psychic ability (which I also didn’t really know if I could believe in). Then one day, many years later, I realized I could see them!. First, they were always clear and I had always assumed I was seeing clear light reflecting off of people. When I realized I was seeing this in dim lit areas, and the entire shape of the person, it occurred to me that couldn’t be light reflecting. Then once I recognized it as an aura, I eventually could see colors too. I don’t see them all the time, and they have no ‘psychic’ meaning to me, but this has opened my mind. I realized just because I didn’t believe in something, or if I couldn’t see something, didn’t mean it wasn’t true. It also taught me to be open to change my views if there is new reasonable information to consider. This being said, I still hold tight to the idea of critical thinking and using logic. I even accept the possibility that perhaps I have something wrong with my eyes or the part of the brain that deals with vision. I do not believe this to be true at this time, because of several reasons, but I also realize I cannot prove or validate what I am seeing. It is simply something I experience. I suppose I am just talking to talk now. I do want to thank you for voicing your conviction about the errors of relativity. It has really helped me.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On February 28, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Stephen,

    Actually, You are starting to get in touch wich your
    multi dimensional YOU!

    Great!

    Nearly all of this (mainstream) world is here to keep us in
    a little box, being little me.That is the PURPOSE of mainstream media,
    science, politics, whatever.

    (what do you do if you look up to someone? That is right! You are looking down on YOU! Makes sense?)

    But , YOU ARE A MULTI-DiMENSIONAL BEING.

    free your mind!

    That will scare some people up the ladder! lol

    I hope not to sound too arrogant, but this is my deep, deep conviction.

    See if this resonates with you.

    My two cents,

    Galacar

    Like

  • aether  On March 2, 2016 at 1:39 am

    Regarding infinity:

    Derived Planck Units

    Who can say for sure?

    Like

  • John Davis  On June 25, 2016 at 6:17 am

    Interesting article on gravitational anomalies during eclipses. Known as the Allais Effect, Pendulums swing faster during an eclipse.

    http://www.economist.com/node/3104321

    Interestingly Allais went on to deduct this from the findings

    “Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation, without giving any explanation of his own. Allais’s explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotropic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this hypothesis in his 1997 book L’Anisotropie de l’espace. This explanation has not gained significant traction amongst mainstream scientists.”

    Liked by 2 people

  • Galacar  On June 25, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    @John Davis,

    You wrote:

    ““Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation”

    Well. problem is that the ‘modern physics’ is full with gravitational anomalies.
    Because there is no gravity at all.

    Gravity by itself is a myth, and anomalies come easy with myths. 😉

    I am not saying things don’t fall etc. Of course they do.
    But gravity m which is non-existing, has nothing to do with it.

    btw isn’t it interesting to see that if people have a word for something,
    like ‘gravity’ they think they understand it I find that fascinating.

    My two cents.

    Galacar

    Like

  • John Davis  On June 26, 2016 at 9:09 pm

    I think he is on the right track though. His study of pendulum swing during eclipses alludes to an ether or emission based source of gravity. As another paper puts it – We jump and fall back down because we are entrenched in the ether – which is constantly being pulled towards the earth. If the sun is a provider of this emission then it would make sense that an eclipse would disrupt its flow – in the same way an island disrupts tidal swell as felt by the mainland shore. It also might help us better understand the dual tide phenomenon for which the current language seems a bit illusory.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 4:45 am

    If your ether theory is right, why is it that wind does not increase dramatically with altitude? If your theory was correct, would not the photons at higher elevations push the atmosphere at a rate slower than the speed the atmosphere goes on the ground? Would not these air particles cause wind, since they would be moving over a shorter distance in the same time period as the earth is rotating?

    In addition to that, 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

  • Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    There is an experiment that seemingly proves that the heavens move above the earth without the earth moving. This experiment was done by George Airy with a water filled telescope. You can find out about this experiment at exhibit D in the following link: http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/ . Can your particular heliocentric model explain this experiment just as well as the immovable earth model can? If so, how?

    Like

    • John Davis  On August 16, 2016 at 10:03 pm

      I’m open to both models – helio or geo. Airy’s experiment seems to be a simplified version of the Michelson Morley. The supposed conclusion – Either there is no Ether or Earth is not moving. However if you read through this site you’ll see that Dr. G. has whirlpooling ether models which can support both a spinning earth & ether.

      Like

  • Lance Nelson  On September 24, 2016 at 3:24 am

    I enjoyed your description of pressure and how it changes with flow speed. However, I’m not following one of the main points to your argument. You said,

    “Now let’s remove the left and right walls of the container and make the gas to flow through the box in the rightward direction. Obviously the gas particles no longer move ‘randomly’ in all directions but move ‘preferentially’ towards the right. So the number of collisions against the top, bottom and other remaining walls of the container diminish. The result is that we measure less pressure being exerted by the gas on these remaining walls of the container. And the faster a gas flows in a given direction, the lesser the number of collisions on the side walls and hence the lesser the sideward pressure.”

    Let’s say the flow(or pipe) is oriented horizontally. I think you are saying that as the gas particles are accelerated horizontally, the vertical components of their velocity vectors(perpendicular to flow) will decrease, thus making their change in momentum in that direction diminish? Indeed, if that were the case, I can see how the pressure would decrease. However, how can a horizontal acceleration affect the other components of the velocity?

    One more thing: your explanation relies on thermal motion being the main source of pressure. However, in many instances, it is the weight of the particles pushing down on their lower-lying neighbors that is the main source of the pressure. Can you explain in these terms.

    Thanks

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On September 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm

      Lance Nelson, thanks for your comments.
      The simplest answer for your question is that when horizontally moving gas particles flow into the pipe, they displace the random particles. So the vertical pressure drops in the pipe as the gas flows horizontally. And of course, accumulation of random particles causes an increase in vertical pressure at the leading end of the stream. This increase in vertical pressure is what causes the ‘buckle’ or swelling of the water pipe at the leading end of flow.

      I wouldn’t say it is ‘thermal motion’. It is ultimately Energy that causes motion of particles. We experience that Energy or motion of particles as heat in some situations. The scenario of ‘weight of particles pushing down’ only occurs in a gravitational field. There, the particles get downward acceleration because of the gravitational force and hence are able to exert downward pressure. It is again motion ultimately.

      Like

    • carlchristianbarfield1st  On August 23, 2017 at 10:25 am

      Internal motion, in the electric field, results in much of the mass, as photons spinning exerts momentum on the surrounding space.

      Like

  • John Foster  On September 25, 2016 at 12:58 am

    You had me excited by your revelations until you included rotation of a body having an increased effect on gravity. If anything rotation only decreases the effect of gravity due to it being a centrifugal force. Pressure is definitely the key to gravity, but maybe we need to start thinking on a smaller particle level, ones that may cause a pressure effect, but also pass through the object, and accelerate after leaving, slowly back to a maximum velocity.

    If two bodies have an equal amount of pressure exerted upon them, and the particles causing the pressure can pass through the objects at a slower velocity, then slowly regain their original momentum, then that would cause the effect of attraction.

    ==> O =><= O<==

    Also pressure on a single mass would definitely explain gravity. We need to think of gravity as a Pushing force rather than a Pulling force. Pressure caused by particles passing through us, slowing down as they do, and then slowly regaining their original velocity as they exit would explain gravity and attraction.

    One other correction I would make is c=maximum speed of light. it is not constant because space is not a vacuum, but it is a maximum and hence works with the best equation Einstein came up with.

    As for quantum entanglement, well this is easily explained by pressure throuout the universe. Infact any object can exist anywhere in the universe at any one time, if we apply the correct pressure on an object at the correct particle level. It is like a domino effect.

    || || // //
    ||||||||||| //////////
    || || // //

    Time is not a dimension, it is not variable, it progresses at a universal rate. People need to start thinking outside the universal box, and observe things that way. Relativity only works because we are inside the box!, Einstein gave us equations for being in the box, and that was awesome. To progress his work we need to, erm, well think outside the box…

    One thing I do have a problem with is time dilation. I cannot explain it, I do not know why it exists. I look forward to reading your theories on this subject

    Like

  • John Foster  On September 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    Please forgive my post, I had a few drinks too many and got very excited by your ideas, but I had only read a small amount before I rushed out my drunken comments.

    The words relativity and space time makes my head want to explode in anger every time I hear them. Reading just this page alone was like a breath of fresh air.

    As for what I was trying to say in all that garbled post….

    I have been trying to understand the cause of gravity my entire life, and einstein’s theories are just a load of rubbish to me. It is not that I don’t understand what he means, I just think it’s incorrect. I wasn’t trying to correct your theories and ideas, I was trying to correct his.

    E = M x the MAXMUM speed of light squared

    That equation was what I may have referred to as awesome, and as for progressing his work, it would be from the time when he worked out the relationship between energy and mass.

    I like to try and have ideas to explain things that have apparently been proved to exist, such as quantum entanglement and time dilation. By time dilation I mean the difference in the 2 clocks in the experiment. I don’t believe in it myself, but I personally could not explain why the clocks differed. As I have only so far read a small amount of your work, I was trying to say I was very much looking forward to reading what you have to say about it.

    If I have learned anything from this, it is to not try and explain my ideas when I am drunk 😀

    Like

  • drgsrinivas  On September 26, 2016 at 8:49 pm

    John Foster, thanks for your interest and input. I can understand the reason for the confusion. I have explained about the centrifugal force and other forces created in the vicinity of a spinning body here- https://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/

    When a body spins in a pool of water, it is true that centrifugal force pushes the water particles away (and generates ripples that spread outward). But all the suspended denser objects get dragged towards the spinning body. That’s what happens in a centrifuge also.

    Your centrifugal force is what generates the so called gravitational waves that spread outward from a spinning celestial body in the Ether ocean.

    Like

    • Daniel25  On February 8, 2017 at 12:24 pm

      drgsrinivas, i love all you reports im slowing getting through them all, i have a question for you, do you believe we are on a spinning ball or do you believe we are living on a flat earth? alot of you debunking fits in line with a flat earth, tesla knew the earth wasnt moving, id love to hear your thoughts? thanks

      Like

  • Joe Deglman  On February 17, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    After seeing this portrayal of ether flow it seems to explain the General Theory well, what will happen to light as it passes a star or the Sun. It is almost as if Einstein knew what ether was and its effects, and did his best to cover it up! Or maybe just a dunder head?

    Like

  • JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:08 am

    Excellent work DrG!

    I saw your comments about weight at the Polar regions and equator, as well as the centrifugal and centripetal forces.

    Have you studied Nikolai Kozyrev? One of my now deceased friends who worked In “Aerospace” projects most his life told me he is the basis of many of their technologies. He successfully managed to diminish weight and gain weight EXPERIMENTALLY , through the use of spin/torsion, and proved existence of Aether (using other words). It also indicates a connection between electromagnetism, time, gravity, and “Space.”

    There are also deeper implications, such as that to biology! But some other time.

    He is all but ignored by modern science

    I also recommend friend of Tesla, Walter Russel. While less of a scientist, I think conceptually, he is spot on. He discusses the centrifugal and centripetal (pressure) forces, and how they cycle in the world. As well as the illusion of the speed of light, and how it doesn’t actually travel the way we think it does.

    Thanks for great work.

    Like

  • JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:33 am

    Also, my friend told me that they had a better explanation (using Kozyrev’s theories) as to why “time was local,” and so called differences in its passage, instead of relativities time dilation. It has to do with Ether (vacuum), and how suns, galaxies, and planets spin…and their “counter spin.” One appears to create a sort of centripetal pressure toward poles (and is invisible) and the other, which we see, is the centrifugal spin at the equator.

    Like “patches” of dark energy around stellar bodies, absorbed and released, at specific ratios that differ depending on the area. Perhaps the sun, was the local “clock” or conductor of the ratios of time/space. Perhaps there is indeed, a “divine order” materialistic scientists are utterly ignorant of.

    In a sense, Einstein was right that time is not absolute. But all he did was see the effect, not the cause. He said space time magically bends in presence of mass (thus gravity), when actually, it may be more that the Ether (space-time) is what dynamically compresses “space” or responsible for the formation of planets, while centrifugal spin assists in expanding space (like whirpools moving outwardly).. The equilibrium between the two as the stable structures we observe as matter.

    He also told me so called “free energy” technologies which draw from Aether/vacuum, have an effect on this compression or expansion of space, thus the acceleration or slowing down of time. And that abusing such technologies, actually have an impact on acceleration of time, and thus, are in no way “free.” That you could also impact space, by working only in space domain, and vice versa.

    One person asked, where does the “Aether” get its energy from. I think out of all the QM physicists, David Bohm was closer. He called the vacuum a plenum, and looked at reality as enfolded in layers, implicate and explicate Orders, and in terms of Wholes instead of “individual balls” we call particles. We may not know exactly what exists beyond Aether/Vacuum, like a veil between levels of manifestation- BUT we do know that energy does exist, even QM knows this through the spontaneous manifestation of “light” which they call “virtual photons.”

    One analogy is that one is the “absorbtion” of ether, or the porous planet being held together by the etheric center seeking pressure (which is correlated to youth or negative entropy) and the other, the centrifugal, as a “release” of the etheric pressure (and thus also, radiation and some magnetic phenomenon and entropy).

    Maybe, As a body gets older, it bulges more at equator perhaps and also begins to lose its density. Almost as if youth is the winding of Aether (Gravity and “time)” and older age is the unwinding of Aether (radiation, and expansion). The winding like an increase in Aetheric pressure (which in turn, correlates with density, like octaves of matter or pressure), and the unwinding like a release of the pressure.

    Most of this my own thoughts of course. But thanks for stimulating!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s