T6A: The Distinti Paradox exposes a fundamental Flaw in Science

[@russellsheridan3957]

Heliocentric? Ah, no... Subjecticentric. Everything revolves around me, I am the inertial frame, even for the universe.

[@TheSafecat]

It occurs to me that if a shadow demonstrated that light is an emission, then a shadow in the magnetic emission would have a similar effect.

[@marcinmatwiejczyk5532]

I still can't understand how electrons can form a beam when they repel each other.

[@infinitebeing1119]

Potential defferrence between the points.

[@Blurns]

Abrupt change in capacitance, or abrupt change in voltage. That's what you need to look into.

[@8thsinner]

On another note, there is nothing at all difficult about FTL, or supraluminar transport as long as you understand one thing, or maybe two. How gravity is an effect of ether, and is not infact a force, I guess you might call it a stationary force? If you understand ether and gravity, then you understand that SLT is simply a matter of removing the mass and effect of gravity. And you can do this inside a suitable highly dense charged electromagnetic field of specific frequencies. I can't explain that any better right now... Thought i'd share none the less though. As for communications, same thing, remove the effect of mass from ether created gravity. In other words, find a massless particle that has ether momentum. It's already been found and it called a muon neutrino and obviously yes, it's a misunderstood thing from my perspective. When you can cancel gravity effects, you can control neutrinos, and when you control them, you can pulse them basically like a morse code, because this pulse is simultaneously existing in all aspects of ether at the same time, all you need to do to find a signal is set your receiver to detect pulses of this set frequency.

[@8thsinner]

Very interesting video but I disagree with only one premise. The concept of a stationary copper ring generating nothing at all. Yes this is true with electromagnetism. But, myself and many others can feel a very specific flow of energy movement that we can only call ether, IF the length of wire is precisely measured and relative to specific harmonic wave lengths...or something like it. We call this etheric, we can feel it's direction, and yes it has one. It has direction, and it has velocity. It appears to have velocity based on the materials the medium is made from. We normally use copper, but if you use steel, it's faster, it's a higher frequency, and you can feel a very distinct difference. This is it's own paradox if relationally compared to the idea of frequency harmonics, because the same length of wire should have the same velocity of movement if it is indeed based on harmonic wavelengths. There is a grounding effect more with using copper compared to steel, and using gold theoretically should have even more of a grounding effect. But this couldn't be simply ether gravity/momentum/flow (whatever), it isn't just as simple as some sort of ether portal based on frequency because the flow would feel the same if it did.

[@DeathValleyDazed]

Cool comment. Wondering what it is about metal rings vs non-metals?

[@8thsinner]

@@DeathValleyDazed Oh, good thing you said this. I haven't tried it with non metals yet. Would be pretty tricky to make one out of plastic or something though. Measurements really have to be accurate to 3 decimal places in order to feel it better. I could maybe twist one up in tarred leather and use hide glue to join it. Hmm, thank you for the experimental pursuit forth coming.

[@martinsoos]

Any metallic ring creates an antenna and antennas collect energy from photons(radio waves) not Ether. There might be a way of detecting the ground state or reference frame of ether but I'm not banking on that method. If you prove me wrong however, It wouldn't be the first for me.

[@8thsinner]

@@martinsoos I know that many materials, even those that are just paramagnetic will attract other atmospheric waves. But there is no reason or logic in that that explains why this field in the ring has a direction. I can also tell you from experience that this is the same energy feeling as that practiced in advanced tai chi.

[@DeathValleyDazed]

@@martinsoos - Making sense but to me, a layman, I wish smart science could figure out this “Ether” issue to the point where it becomes practical to every day Joes like me.

[@bassblom]

me wants time to go faster so I can see more of this.

[@FractalWoman]

This was an EXCELLENT video. Can't wait for part II.

[@lucassiccardi8764]

Have you finally grown tired of following those charlatans that go by the names of Ken Wheeler and Tim Venderelli? Why couldn't you ever listen to any of the warnings I wrote you, either as comments under your videos or as personal emails? Lorenzo Peyrani

[@FractalWoman]

@@lucassiccardi8764 You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't FOLLOW anyone buy my heart and my logic. Leave me alone.

[@lucassiccardi8764]

@@FractalWoman I will leave you alone, madam, but since I spent a couple of days of my life sending you writings and drawings to make you understand you were wasting your time with the "Torus Knot" (which of course your heart and logic couldn't have concocted without the fraudulent campaign about the ferrocell brought on by those charlatans), I would have liked, anytime during these years, to hear maybe a "I'm sorry" or one "you were right". Break someone's illusion and they will hate you. You've been ungrateful to the bone. Bye bye

[@FractalWoman]

@@lucassiccardi8764 What's the torus knot have to do with Timm Vanderelli? And what's wrong with the torus knot? The torus knot was an interesting mathematical geometry that I thought was worth studying. I thought it was interesting that the image in the ferrocell from the N and S polar view looked like a torus knot. What is the harm in studying that? Fair Well Young Man. You know me knot.

[@lucassiccardi8764]

@@FractalWoman "Young man" you tell to your father, if you please. There's nothing wrong in studying the Torus Knot as a geometry, exactly as I wrote you at the time; what was wrong was thinking, as you did, that it represents a natural phenomenon intrinsically connected to magnetism. You act as you were a scientist or at least a thinker, but you can't even read and understand a text longer than two sentences. You're a just a megalomaniac idiot.

[@tanner1985]

If magnetism reference frame is the same of light, then light (and radio waves) are not electromagnetic, but just magnetic waves in the aether. They differ just in something quantitative and not qualitative.

[@gbpferrao]

Where do you make the diagrams?

[@adrianm4506]

I recently saw a video where it was described gravity is the result of time dilation. Can't remember the link to it. I think a lot of people who are in science these days think that advances have been done in a linear fashion with no mistakes and deviations from that "straight" path whatsoever I am very glad we have rules of acquisition to get people educated! That along to how to prove or rather disprove something are IMHO very important concept that need to be learned early in school... but I digress. Looking forward to the PDX3 video.

[@davidorr947]

You may like to know that Einstein had a somewhat contradictory view of the ether. In fact there is a video on KZbin in which he asserted the necessity of the ether for supporting physical processes. See kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXrFemiOrtxlfKs

[@davidrandell2224]

Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching the released object; overlooked for 400 years.

[@martinsoos]

I see 3 reference frames and I have always gone with the ether frame. The speed of the earth, an unknown, and the speed of the observer with reference to the earth. And then add a fudge factor. I can hardly wait for you to come up with something that works. Shame the GPS people won't share data.

[@markg1051]

What Lori said above😎 and anyone that says it's all been figured out and explained are not really looking close enough. I keep looking at the homopolar paradox and stil (not just theoretically) can't see what is going on in order to fully make me at ease with my observations. I fully agree that the field cannot be moving with the magnet except that it can under certain conditions "appear" to do so. Really looking forward to seeing your conclusion. Thank you and yes I'm also one of the people who's kept an eye on your work for many years, before you got on youtube.

[@marcin4xm]

How can electrons these strongly repel each other particles , create a beam?

[@hermes_logios]

The wire is just another medium, one that is more conductive than the atmosphere (air). The wire is like a channel (e.g., a river bed) through which water flows downhill (as opposed to flowing in an arbitrary direction). It focuses the propagation, because electric charge propagates more easily in that medium (as opposed to the low-propagation medium that surrounds it, such as air or some other "insulator"). If a current of water is strong enough, it will overflow its banks. Likewise, electric current propagation will cause a "breakdown" and arc (propagate) through the surrounding atmosphere, instead of being confined to the wire. In electric current, magnetism, and electromagnetism, no physical thing actually flows, per se. It's a propagating pressure wave. It's completely absurd to claim that there's no medium through which this wave propagates. It's just that this medium can't be directly detected (ie., measured), but instead only by its electromagnetic effects, similar to the way that electric current and magnetism can't be detected directly, except by their effects on other matter.

[@kentecklund]

I enjoy your work and I think it's very important. I have a problem with your train thought experiment. I think you might still be influenced in a trickery way by Einstein. Einstein substitutes the word "beam" with "photons" whenever it best suits his theories, but they are different. A beam might look like its bending but the individual photons can be going in a straight line. My point is that Einstein has misled people with his use of "light beam". I believe Newton said photons have no mass and therefore are not affected by gravity or inertia. Therefore the photons would not move with the train. They would continue straight. The mirror would move away. The photons would miss the mirror completely. But if we exchange the photons with a baseball, the baseball has weight, inertia from throwing it across the train, inertia to the right from the forward motion of the train, and drag from Earth's gravity. The observer on the train can visualize the zig zag travel of the ball in relation to the ground outside. People aren't idiots. The zig zag energy is completely accounted for because of the energy the ball gets from the moving train. Both observers see the same thing!!! Einstein is tomfoolery. Please do another version using separate photons traveling independent of each other and see what happens. Sadly Einstein misled physics by confusing people. I asked a friend yesterday, "If your wife is sitting down and watching you walk from your kitchen to your TV holding a plate of food, does she also see the plate moving?" "Yes." "When you look at your plate, is it moving?" "Yes" "Einstein says when you look at your plate you can't tell it's moving." He laughed.

[@ShredEngineerPhD]

32:41 Interesting argument

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon does to Standard Model/Theory and yours exactly what Copernicus did to Ptolemy and religion. But you won’t have or “get it “.Sad but true.

[@red57dryad]

I like "tethered" (to the point of emmission- impact- point of inertia) Better than "stationary" , not my ideal.. it hurts my head to think that deep. But to me anyway, "tethered" helps me see it better😉

[@davestorm6718]

Both these simulations are incorrect (to me, anyway). Light will not magically follow the reference frame of either the source, nor the train. As soon as the pulse is emitted, the light is decoupled from it's source. It will not bounce/migrate, as you show, to the right. It will completely miss the emitter/detector as it will return to the left of it. It will scribe a straight path to the other "wall" (incidentally, which will not be the same part of the wall directly opposite the emitter/detector but arrive at it's left), and not follow the motion of the train at all (the aetheric drag will affect the momentum of the photon, greatly). Complete decoupling occurs. That's the real flaw, but it's an illusion created by the same thought experiment with a ball (where this light thought experiment comes from). Launching a ball will appear to be in the same reference frame because, unless something slows the ball down, it will carry on rightwards (as if it's "coupled") with it's momentum, but, once launched, is no longer in the reference frame of the launcher. The aetheric drag with a ball is almost imperceptible (ludicrous orders of magnitude difference) due to it's mass (and momentum), not so with light. The experiments that supposedly confirm the light moving with the frame of the source are setup incorrectly: the detector is many orders of magnitude too big with respect to a single photon. An analogy is dropping a grain of sand in an olympic sized swimming pool, with the pool being the detector and the grain of sand being a photon. No matter where in the pool the grain of sand hits, the pool (detector) registers a "hit". That is, there is no way to conclusively determine if the grain of sand's horizontal trajectory changed with a pool that big. The pool would have to be the width of a grain of sand, then if there was the smallest horizontal component change, there would be no registered "hit" by the pool "detector". This might explain why particle accelerator experiments (near c) are showing something completely different - even the FTL neutrons may be a real phenomena, and, not, a fluke nor miscalculation. There is a proof that no one is discussing, however: the fact that, gamma emissions (recorded) from a radioactive nuclei accelerated to near c has NO Red Shift vs the same nuclei that is not accelerated! (the smoking gun proof, at least to me, that time dilation is an illusion)

[@rdistinti]

I think you misunderstood the simulations. In one case the reference frame is the source (Which follows the train). In the other case, the reference frame is the "stationary" medium. You Say light would miss the reflector; that can not be true. If it were true the Michelson Morley experiment would not have been null.

[@markg1051]

Robert, you need to make some T-shirts with things like "Distinti's gonna get ya!" or "It's so simple, even a phusicist will get it." etc. So many possibilities. Or maybe some coffee mugs. I'd definitely like and get a mug. Maybe an alternative way of making extra income for your work. Cheers and stay well.

[@markg1051]

Darn, that's supposed to be "Physicist" not "Phusicist" these spell checkers are useless.

[@alexanderhugestrand]

Oh no... Distinti got me, and I love it! :D Very interesting conclusion regarding the magnetic field and faster-than-light communication. It must be the best (as in strongest, most irrefutable) argument against relativity I've heard so far.

[@tanner1985]

Not only, but radio waves are in fact…. Magnetic Waves

[@kentecklund]

Your work is very good but why on the moving train is your light beam directed forward? The beam should shoot straight across, identical to the stationary train. Then the train will move forward and the light will miss the mirror entirely. Time is the same for everyone.

[@marcin4xm]

Great!

[@BrentLeVasseur]

Magnetism is a radiative emission of dielectric counter-inertia. However, dialectricity itself is not particle based, and as Tesla and Steinmetz said, is a field property of the Aether. This is shown to be true when you look at NASA’s first ever image of a black hole, and compare that to the image of a magnet under a ferrocell. They are virtually identical. This would seem, at first glance to be verification that Tesla and Steinmetz were correct and Einstein was wrong.

[@miqueles5783]

Hmm...

[@buddysnackit1758]

OK answer me this or your credibility is severely crippled. How does a pull work?

[@eclipse369.]

+1