EM03 01: Electrogravity: Matter and Ether

[@gcerri524]

Mr Distinti, how do you explain the absence of ether 'friction' in interplanetary space (analog to aerodynamics on earth)?. If there is an ether that drag us to earth why this drag is absent on interplanetary space? if we move thru interplanetary space at high rate of speed, the relative ether speed would be faster than the ether speed falling to earth; why we do not have loss of speed on the ship? we just experience inertia when speed changes, but no drag maintaining the speed thru space, or is it?

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. Are we going to talk about that the model standing on earth (page 6:20) also consume Aether or not?

[@FractalWoman]

Can't wait to see your simple galactic simulator.

[@SciD1]

I just discovered your channel and finally, an Aether model! Although I haven't watched many of your videos yet, I find your ideas very interesting. I've been working on a model myself for a couple of years which incorporates gravity and electromagnetism. However, light remains the biggest mystery since I've discovered, contrary to popular belief from mainstream, or Ken Wheeler, or everybody else, that it did not behave like a wave at all. I had never believed light to be a wave until I had my confirmation about a year ago. That assumption came from the childish wave on a pond interpretation supposedly confirmed by Young's double-slit experiment more than 200 years ago. It still was a gross misinterpretation that led to Einstein's ridiculous wave-particle duality and the madness of quantum mechanics and particle physics. Amazingly, in 200 years, nobody thought of running the experiment inside a cloud chamber to visualize the space between the slits and the screen! Well, that was done recently. The following video uses a laser of 532 nm "wavelength" and 5 mW output. Double slits obtained from 3B Scientific were used in slide format with slit width of 0.15 mm, and spacing of 0.30 mm. To visualize the behavior of light between the slits and the screen, a cloud chamber environment was created to detect light pathways while remaining transparent using heated water vapor. This was created in an enclosed room to capture and hold the water vapor and allow for wide field imaging. What you get is a diffraction pattern from the light ray being diffracted into discrete INDEPENDENT rays, NEVER INTERFERING with each other. No waves whatsoever! The different "wavelengths" and "frequencies" of light have nothing to do with waves. Those are only the result of clever mathematics, a product of human ingenuity. Light is simply a property of the Aether, like different energy levels of the Aether itself. In KZbin, type: *Double Slit Experiment: Visualization of Free Space Reveals Light Strands not Waves* The Aether is the medium for gravity and electromagnetism. However, saying matter attracts Aether is not enough. Saying "+" attracts "-" doesn't mean anything. We need the exact mechanism that physically causes objects to be "attracted" to one another. Matter is condensed Aether (energy). Radiation is the opposite condition, matter returning to Aether. Matter is thus not being fed by the Aether. Aether is simply passing through and this will be explained below. The Aether is a ubiquitous fluid that will move according to density of matter. It's no wonder we can draw so many parallels between electromagnetism and fluid dynamics. The more mass, the more atoms the Aether will be going through and carrying everything in its flow, in its wake, hence Newton's connection between masses. Consider the magnet. The magnet has a toroidal field (3D), but also a double-hyperbola, one end (pole) being South, and the other being North. Aether goes in South (charge) and exits North (discharge). Upon exiting, it's immediately met by the surrounding Aether and bends back, the field returning to the South pole, hence the donut shape. All atoms are like tiny electrostatic dynamos, mini magnets. They all have this same basic structure acting as a VENTURI for the Aether. The Earth contains gazillions of atoms with dipoles pointing in all imaginable directions, hence the weak "pull" of gravity, as opposed to the powerful "pull" of a magnet (point source). The difference is COHERENCY. As an analogy, try this very simple experiment. Take a bunch of 5 mm spherical magnets (representing atoms) and form a sphere (incoherent magnetic field). Stick a single free bar magnet (coherent magnetic field) onto the ball. Obviously, it sticks. Now, turn the bar magnet around to reverse poles. Again, bring the bar magnet close to the large sphere. Notice how it still sticks even though the poles have been reversed. The ball will always attract, never repel. A gauss reading will show how the magnetic field grows weaker and weaker as you add little magnets to the ball. This incoherent magnetic field is gravity. The acceleration of the Aether into density of matter is also consistent with the acceleration of gravity. No force involved. What I mean is that nothing is pulling. I expect a reply, please. Let's work together, not against each other. So very few people reply to comments under their videos and that's too bad. Some miss important info that can actually help them.

[@SciD1]

@S thank you. I would've liked a reply from this channel. I'm not trying to compete for the right theory here. Unfortunately, many KZbinrs aren't interested in the comments.. I can understand when you've got thousands of followers and comments as it makes it impossible to reply to everyone, but here it's far from being the case. Too bad.

[@SciD1]

@S well, it's very hard to go against established dogma. The experimental results were quite a challenge to publish! Nobody was interested.

[@earthenscience]

I made a theory almost the same as this, but I don't think it's correct. I noticed that if you put a bunch of sphere magnets together, you can form a bunch of grapes. From the large scale, this might look like gravity. My theory was that gravity is just another form of magnetism and atoms are just magnetism. Then I explained magnetism by it just being a Venturi type tube effect where magnets are just tubes, causing aether to tunnel into the tubes and create a pressure difference and vortex. What I couldn't figure out though, was why aether would want to tunnel into the tubes in the first place. For example, if you put a tube into the ocean, water balances out and doesn't just flow through the tube in 1 direction. My handwavey explanation was that aether has no viscosity and just a tiny imbalance would somehow create a vortex and then a chain reaction causing permanent 1 directional flow. Actually, that part of my theory might be explainable, since magnets seem only be able to created by other magnets, so the flow would be induced instead of spontaneous. My theory was flimsy, to say the least. But the real disproof seems to be that magnets and non metals/non ceramics seem to have the same amount of gravity. If gravity is just another manifestation of magnetism, why should non-magnetics have the same gravitational acceleration as magnetics? "A gauss reading will show how the magnetic field grows weaker and weaker as you add little magnets to the ball" If that's the case, then why should planets increase gravity as they increase mass? "So very few people reply to comments under their videos and that's too bad. Some miss important info that can actually help them." If you want to talk to Distinti he will probably respond on his Patreon page videos. " However, saying matter attracts Aether is not enough. Saying "+" attracts "-" doesn't mean anything. " Very true. Although standard parlance would anticipate + meaning a pressure abundance and - meaning vacuum, that is until Ben Franklin flipped everything backwards. "However, light remains the biggest mystery since I've discovered, contrary to popular belief from mainstream, or Ken Wheeler, or everybody else, that it did not behave like a wave at all." Huygens Optics convinced me light is a wave. Draft Science believes light is a sequence of morse code particles afaik. Light has a frequency indicating it is either a wave or morse code particles. I am going to watch that Light Strand video. I have a new theory of Aether now. My theory is that matter consumes aether but the aether is sent to another dimension. Space is expanding because the Aether is being stretched due to gravitational consumption. Divergence and curl is because the magnetism is being sent to another dimension, in that dimension there is a twin magnet that expels the magnetism back into this dimension. So far so good. The flaw in my theory is that if aether is being sucked in towards planets, and if aether is the medium of light, then light should bend more around planets than it does. I still feel my theory is more plausible than the theory proposed by the prophets of spacetime though, since spacetime believers think the Earth is literally expanding towards us and that is causing gravity.

[@SciD1]

@@earthenscience The gauss reading eventually stops decreasing. It's only in the beginning when the magnets still show "coherency". Then it becomes incoherent. As for your water example, don't take the analogy too far. Water is not Aether.

[@earthenscience]

@@SciD1 How would you describe Aether? Can you explain the operation of Aether and Venturi in a permanent ceramic magnet?

[@mccoytg1]

What does it mean to "consume" ether? What started the "first" consumer-of-ether going?

[@Rich13571113]

There is no consumption, as that suggests the loss of something from the universe... But rather there is transformation; ether (gravitic) field gets transformed into charge (photonic) field, which gets transformed into the sub-matter (ionic) field, which gets transformed into matter (elements) field. The "transformers" for each of these are what Robert is calling pretons, for the gravitic, then protons for the photonic, and then entities only found in planetary cores and stars for the transformation to the ionic and elemental fields.

[@Nekrumorfiini1]

It means it's bullshit, of course.

[@goliathonscave9834]

I love your model of gravity! What I don't believe I have seen discussed though is if the ether is getting replenished. If not, will the matter in the universe eventually feed on all the ether? Can we describe a universe as a contained amount of ether? Does the depletion of ether explain why galaxies are accelerating away from each other (seems that would cause the opposite effect)? Last, can you use a similar model to explain the orbital motion/effects of the same spaceship and astronaut around the earth?

[@ulfnowotny01]

If the earth consumes the ether at a constant rate, how do you explain the excelleration of the body that moves towards the earth?

[@rdistinti]

venturi effect

[@glasshalf3839]

Yeah bro, concepts as facts have all the answers. LOL I love the blanket answer. It's like saying "simple."

[@Rich13571113]

Protons do not "consume" ether (the zeroth dimension field), but rather transforms it into the energetic elements of the photon field and casts them out at the speed of light. this transformation defines time, that is why the speed of light seems constant.

[@ulfnowotny01]

@@Rich13571113 'consume' is a quote from distinti's video

[@mikeschuler2946]

I’m glad your recovered . I love your Chanel

[@marcinmatwiejczyk5532]

Then proton is like black hole to ether . Creating ether low preassue zone arund that is gravity .Whwre electrostatic fild is in this ?

[@Rich13571113]

Pieces of the puzzle are mising with this explanation... The "pretons" are what are consuming/transforming the gravitic ether (inertial field). They are substructures to the electron and proton. There are more echelons to the ether concept than what Robert is considering.

[@Rich13571113]

Robert can we drop the use of the term "consumes", and start using the word "transforms"? Consumption seems to imply something is lost.

[@rdistinti]

cars consume fuel, kids consume candy, etc. Are these not transformations?

[@elpoliticodelsur]

Plis ,can you see " La teoria del drenaje central" ,is agree with You .

[@anidanga]

You are an Electrical Engineer. Why are you talking about Ken Wheeler as your equal. Despite some good insights and intuitions, I think he is superficial.

[@SciD1]

Ken Wheeler is an idiot. He doesn't accept any criticism and is the most arrogant narcissistic individual I have ever known. He refuses to correct his mistakes. He still believes magnetism bends light. We all know it doesn't. I could point out many other mistakes he's made.

[@635574]

Yeah the identity of inertia and gravity is not that hard to get, I dont really get the viscosity, but the fact that gravity is result of consuming the energy that goes through matter is pretty obvious to me.

[@veritopian1823]

Hi Robert. I think the ether doesn't need to be "dense" to transmit light fast, it can instead be "tight". That might make more sense because it's a transverse wave, the medium acts like a string, a 1D object. A 3D ether would carry energy as compression waves. Right? In your gravity theory, I think you need to conceptually separate the medium (ether) & what it carries (light). I.e. it makes sense that light can be consumed because it's energy, but the ether is the thing that carries light. Matter can't use it. Gravity is then more like radiation pressure, and matter is not the fundamental substance.

[@rdistinti]

If it is not dense then we will run out of it soon rather than later.

[@veritopian1823]

I think it'd make more sense for matter to be consuming the light that travels on the ether, rather than the ether itself. I think a 1D ether solves most of the conceptual problems, but a 3D ether can only give you compression waves.

[@earthenscience]

@@veritopian1823 So your theory, is the universe is enshrouded by a 3d net/grid of strings, the strings are the ether? And when light is absorbed by matter (such as a black paper) it consumes the light and this causes the atom to vibrate as heat?

[@veritopian1823]

@@earthenscience Thanks for asking. TBH, I don't have a full theory for how light propagates atm. The above is just me thinking aloud. I'm open-minded on it. I think Distinti's 2-part aether theory is a good one, & I agree that matter has to consume energy. But I'm not sure about the aether itself being consumed. :)

[@sistajoseph]

INERTIA An object will remain at rest or in steady motion until it is disturbed. This is a problem because to the object a million miles per hour is the same as five miles per hour. Would not know an object has inertia until you try to change it's velocity, accelerate it. This is just like the principle of uncertainty. Interacting with the object manifest this quality. No acceleration, no inertia. This means that inertia is directional like acceleration. Inertia is also a property of velocity. When stopping an object we find out how much inertia it has, but that is deceleration, just reverse acceleration. Relativity is saying that acceleration causes gravity and the gravity is there even when there is no acceleration.

[@earthenscience]

"When stopping an object we find out how much inertia it has" No that only reveals the amount of inertia generated upon impact with the object measuring it. If you bounce 2 100% elastic objects (zero heat generation or deformation on impact) when they bounce the between velocity of those 2 objects will be the same after collision. If the 2nd object is swapped with a 3rd object going a different velocity they will disagree with the amount of inertia observed. In summary, an object does not "have" inertia, inertia is a human construct. It can only appear as the result of two objects going on a collision course and depends on 2 objects. So it can be said to be similar to the type of potential energy taught in high school which is another human construct. "Relativity is saying that acceleration causes gravity " The problem with einstein's relativity is nobody really knows what that's saying. Even four mainstream youtube channels got debunked by someone claiming they didn't interpret einstein correctly. Also, the prophets of spacetime told me that gravity is caused by the earth expanding towards us, which is preposterous.

[@m.c.4674]

aether can't be dense , drag would be ridiculously high , we wouldn't be able to move . Think about this , little droplets of water are in a body of oil , the water is more dense than the oil , but the density of the droplets are small than both the oil ,and the water . The lighter medium propagates waves faster than heavier mediums contrary to we believe . the only reason why water , metals etc... propagate waves faster than air is because they are held together by bonds , which means they are closer together than they would be if they were only held together by pressure . if the density of air was the same as the density of metal , the speed of sound through that air would be much faster than that metal . If thing need to suck in aether to stay in existence , then doesn't the aether need to suck in itself to stay in existence , nothing could exist because everything would eat itself . The hole argument of matter having to take in aether to stay in exist is strange , because what causes it to stop existing the the first place , it the same as what causes a particle to change it linear path of motion , how can it move itself , change itself if not by nothing at all. To transfer motion from aether to matter, you propose consuming aether, i propose the aether should lose energy by moving matter , and the matter lose energy by moving the aether . Matter/atoms aren't there own separate things , they are also aether . I think we agree about this , but the aether making up atoms is dense , to determine how much more dense the aether making up a certain material is compared to the "vacuum" , the speed of light through that material can be used . you are not wrong about the drone and the rod , both uses energy but not to stay in existence , the atoms in the rod is simply compressed , thus losing "potential energy"(which is not actual energy , but the ability to gain energy from the aether in the future).

[@josephgdangelo9807]

Wanna make a trade? I'll build you a site that looks really fancy and clean and you draw up some electrical engineering blueprints for something I've been working on. It's really simple it really just a magnetic gear. Well 2 sets of them.

[@viyye]

Edwin Babbitt

[@rajeev_kumar]

Einstein was a jerk.

[@bantix9902]

no equations, no maths, just esoteric bs, why is this getting recommended

[@walterverbruggen]

If you were following him, you should be aware all explanations are supported by equations, demonstrations, math etc... look on his channel an you'll find what you're searching for kzbin.infovideos

[@bantix9902]

@@walterverbruggen I watched some of the "foundations" videos for Etherneal Theory of whatever. There is no way anyone can take this serious, my man thinks he is the first one to discover the self inductance values for wires... I can't stand the lectures it's just so chaotic and he doesn't even start at the foundations of his own theory... If he finds his supposed link between gravity and electromagnetism then hurray give him all the respect but I don't think anyone can learn anything from confused takes like this.

[@adrianm4506]

I am sure you either havent watched all his videos or read ANY of the papers.

[@Nekrumorfiini1]

Here's a hint: It's impossible to have a pressurized air system inside a vacuum without solid separation.