https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140130061439/http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (it is very easy to find any web page that is not active anymore on the internet archive)
jackblack, you were asked a very simple question: can you provide an explanation as to how attractive gravity works?
Here is your answer:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.But this is PURE MAGIC.
You have no idea how two gravitons attract each other.
You are requiring of your viewers an unwavering FAITH in pure magic: the pressurizing force which would keep in place four trillion billion liters of water would not affect anything else, not the clouds, not any lifeform, nothing else.
You are living in a fantasy world of your own making: ignoring very cleary explained experiments conducted by some of greatest physicists in history, Dr. Francis Nipher, Dr. Maurice Allais, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, and clinging to PURE MAGIC as explanation for gravity.
For this is what you wrote:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.Electron/photon interaction in ether theory, the Compton effect:
http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter110-ParticleNature.htm"The photo-electric effect and the Compton effect are
cited as proof that photons are transmitted from source to
destination. Recorded impacts are evidence of the arrival of
the sent photons. However, the same effect can be explained
by waves traveling through the medium of aether activating
aether cells already located at the destination, thus giving the
false impression of the cells actually having traveled there.
Similarity with a line of dominoes provides visualization of
this phenomenon. The first one is pushed into the second and
so on, with the final domino striking whatever is next to it at
the destination. Think also of waves from a ship striking the
seashore. It is the waves but not the water that travel from
the ship to the shore. It is acknowledged that the photoelectric
effect and the Compton effect gained acceptance
because they were able to provide a quantitative evaluation
of the phenomena, whereas the wave analysis did not, but it
is suggested that this was due to the lack of consideration of
an aether supporting the waves."
You are forgetting that I can always prove the exactness of the quantum ether model.
In that model, what are currently described as bosons, become the carriers of light.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdfA century-old claim by two early leaders of the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations are found to be consistent with facts of nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected. Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of matter is shown to agree with the
string model. Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory. The implication of this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.
Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater,
how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real objects and were not fabricated ac-
cording to their expectations? Knowing which groups of the periodic table
these undiscovered elements belong to could have enabled them to deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups.
But the values of the atomic weights of these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for these elements agree with their chemical atomic weights to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have come about by chance in every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery. These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.
The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if Besant and Leadbeater had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.
Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements? This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively, 1939 and 1940, about seven years after the deaths of the two
Theosophists. How, if MPAs are not atoms, could they have anticipated in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in 1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.
This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles. It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted. Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of physics. If this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have compositions and UPA populations indicating that they consist of the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of an element. This
makes them more akin to what nuclear physicists call "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion of two very fast-moving nuclei. Moreover, precognition would not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry. If they had used
merely precognition, they would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.
The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were published several years before physicists even suspected that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing the neutron in 1932, twenty-four years after the first edition of Occult
Chemistry appeared. No normal or alternative paranormal explanation of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations of subatomic particles appears to exist other than that Besant and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.
The following sections of the article by Dr. Stephen Phillips provide a complete and correct model of the atom, up to boson/antiboson level:
Micro-psi Atoms
Quark Model
A Statistical Test
Quantum Chromodynamics
The String Model
Micro-psi Confirmation of the String Model
Structure of the UPA (Subquark)
Superstrings
UPA as Subquark State of Superstring
Detection of subquarks/preons:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:
DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.
In the Occult Chemistry (copied by Murray Gell-Mann, P. Dirac, and P. Higgs), A. Besant described correctly EACH AND EVERY element of the periodic table (including isotopes); moreover, the atom is shown to be made up of vortices (ether/subquarks/tachyons).
A 100% statistical proof of the correctness of the ether model (see also the graphs in the article of Dr. Phillips).
OCCULT CHEMISTRY TABLE OF CONTENTS:
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htmhttp://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htmYou, on the other hand, have nothing at your disposal other than this:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.The shit that you hold to be your scientific belief can be dismissed easily and immediately using the Nipher experiments:
Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.
And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htmNew Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)
The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htmA TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE OBJECTS, AND FOR THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, THE EXPERIMENT PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ARE ABSOLUTELY LINKED.
I told you that you are scientifically illiterate.
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.
Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:
Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':
....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”
You have nothing at your disposal other than this pathetic argument:
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.If you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, there is no credibility whatsoever attached to the RE hypothesis.