The RE Community Has a New Enemy

Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea.

No, it was Whittaker's idea.

E.T. Whittaker, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

He even PROVED it, in two formidable papers published in 1903 and 1904:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

ETHER = POTENTIAL = LONGITUDINAL WAVES = SCALAR WAVES

In general relativity the ether = the affine connection which captures the gravitational potential (something that the metric cannot do).

Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

BUT HE DID UNIFY gravity and electromagnetism.

The initial criticism brought by Einstein was unfounded.

Weyl's solution was refined by Ponomarev and Obukhov in 1978.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2195432#msg2195432

So, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.

You still don't get it.

Einstein's metric captures only the transverse waves, and NOT the potential.

If you want the potential, the most important concept in physics today, you need THE AFFINE CONNECTION, which involves NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf


HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Here is quote you might have missed:

"Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrodinger-Dirac potential ψ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally-based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the ψ with the electromagnetic potentials A_µ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials g_µν with the A_µ, and measured the A_µ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units."

Hermann Weyl


Hermann Weyl derived in 1917, for the first time, using the AFFINE CONNECTION NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY, the exact solution to the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves theory like the one you are suggesting, so now you jumped to other authors.

You seem to be just collecting quotes and formulas from different papers  and building your own ether fantasy while ignoring anything that contradicts it. The result has invariably nothing to do with what the papers you are linking are really saying. Then you proceed to spam your posts with all those links and formulas to no end.

There is a reason why luminiferous ether theories were discarded long ago. Einstein's Relativity was the death sentence of them.

You have been posting your ether theory  in this forums for quite a while. However you refuse to publish it in a scientific paper and submit to peer review or even to discuss the topic in a more science oriented forum, where physicist might answer you. Maybe the only purpose of the ether wave pressure theory is to entertain people in the FES forums?

At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves

Your tricks don't work with me.

Please read what I said earlier:

"Let's put your word to the test.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther

The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again."

Furthermore,

Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Yeah, and Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
I don't get this whole comparision, who was the greatest scientist, or mathematician. To me this looks like a child's self esteem problems.
Really. Who cares?

Important is, what has been proved, and what has been falsified. And here comes peer-reviews and other processes.
And if you like to undermine the work of any of these scientists - do not do this here, there are not the competences to do the peer reviews.
Go for it, and do as the grown ups do.

At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves

Your tricks don't work with me.

Please read what I said earlier:

"Let's put your word to the test.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther

The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again."

No, H. Weyl wasn't proposing an aether theory. That's is just your imagination. Look here:

The only reasonable answer that was given to the question as to why a translation in the æther cannot be distinguished from rest was that of Einstein, namely, that there is no æther ! (The æther has since the very beginning remained a vague hypothesis and one, moreover, that has acted very poorly in the face of facts.)

HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43006/43006-pdf.pdf

You have a huge problem with quotes.

Weyl was commenting on EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF ETHER THEORY.

Use the word search now with "æther".

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.

Weyl mentions the aether 51 times.

PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.
...

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

Cute story, bro. The answer to your question is, yes, I would.

Why? Because he deduced the behavior of gravity and used that knowledge to explain how the same effect could cause something to fall to earth and yet keep the moon in the sky. There was no need for him to know why gravity caused attraction between masses, only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

Similarly, Newton didn't have to understand the cause of light before he could invent, and build, and use reflecting telescopes in the 17th century. Neither did opticians before and after him need to understand the cause of light before inventing and making and using lenses. They worked with great success without the slightest inkling of the basic nature of light. All that any of them needed to know is how light behaved when passing through various media and when encountering mirrors.

The achromatic lens was invented and the first such lenses were produced in the mid 18th century, and the apochromatic lens followed soon after, once the principle was shown to have merit. These were breakthroughs in optics long before the understanding of the electromagnetic nature of light, which came more than a century later. That didn't stop very active and productive development of optics, which was based on the behavior of light, not its cause.

Your notion that it's impossible to know anything about something without knowing everything about it is, simply, wrong. Period. Just because you want it to be true and it's all you have to hang your hat on doesn't mean anything in reality.

Many of Newton's ideas and insights were brilliant, but they are anything but infallible. Many of them did advance principles for the way the universe works that are still used today because they work and for that he is, unlike you, highly admired by many very accomplished people. Again, you just make stuff up if you think it advances your argument without any regard to whether or not it is true or even makes sense in the real world. This shows what a lightweight you are in science.

You have a huge problem with quotes.

Weyl was commenting on EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF ETHER THEORY.

Use the word search now with "æther".

Read the quote again. Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.

only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

You are of no help to the RE.

Your statement shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

Here are the direct quotes from NEWTON HIMSELF:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


Only the most ignorant of all users would post something like this in view of the quote just mentioned...

only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.


4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


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'

Newton dismissed the attractive law of gravity:

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.”

The last quote was meant exactly for you.

Please do your homework and stop posting nonsense.

Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.

It takes five seconds to debunk your quote.

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.


PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.

Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.

It takes five seconds to debunk your quote.

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.


PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.

He's just using aether in the same way Einstein does, then you pick two quotes that still don't look much like your theory of ether waves causing gravity.



At the index of the document you get two links for aether:
(as substance) 237
(in generalised sense) 251, 466

This is the last mention of it on page 466:
The extended field, “æther,” is merely the transmitter of effects and is, of itself, powerless;

You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.

You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.

You are the ether expert, I'll give you that.

You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.

Any debate (other than yourself) in the current century on this issue?

And in the context of previous debates, how many of your sources were taken out of context?

only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

You are of no help to the RE.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? Since the earth is "round" (actually, it's approximately spherical) regardless of what I do or say, your comment is is as irrelevant as it is trite.

Your statement shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

Since you're so completely wrong about so many things, that's high praise! Thanks!
 

Here are the direct quotes from NEWTON HIMSELF:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

So you agree that gravity is attractive after all. That's a start!

Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

<link that doesn't work>

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER

Only the most ignorant of all users would post something like this in view of the quote just mentioned

...

All we see above and with what follows is that you can pull quotes out of context with the best of 'em. This is not a new discovery. You show that you can even repeat parts of the out-of-context material in the same post, highlighted, and in a different color! Woo!! What talent!

4. ... aether ...

5. ... aether ...

Yes, aether was an idea for the mechanism of gravity that Newton postulated, but it didn't pan out in the long run. Nonetheless, the proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of distance part still stands tall.

His work in alchemy resulted in many a dead end because the basic premise underpinning the subject was flawed. Still, he learned enough while doing those experiments that he gained insights that proved very significant later, in a different field. Alchemy eventually evolved into chemistry, which does have a basis in reality and has made immense progress since its inception due to that (unlike alchemy, which went nowhere, but not through lack of effort).

Quote from: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 10:46:30 PM

... But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

Many of Newton's ideas and insights were brilliant, but they are anything but infallible.

See... I was right. Not infallible. Case closed.

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':

....

Newton dismissed the attractive law of gravity:

A letter to Bentley: ...

The last quote was meant exactly for you.

Woah! I'm honored you think so!! Newton was not only brilliant, he was clairvoyant and foresaw my existence 300 years in the future!!! If only it were so. 

Please do your homework and stop posting nonsense.

Lol!

Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.

Wrong.

I didn't say that it is a force. You DID see the words "mathematical representation".
Even the force of your finger pressing a key on your keyboard is only a mathematical representation.
Resultant of billions of molecular interactions between particles inside your finger and the key cap.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.

JTolan Media has done well in proving the globe with his footage.

Yes, aether was an idea for the mechanism of gravity that Newton postulated, but it didn't pan out in the long run. Nonetheless, the proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of distance part still stands tall.

Let's put your word to the test, as always.

And it shows exactly why the story of the allegory is so important: terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electromagnetism.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:




https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Your statements have been debunked, yet again.

Here is the BIEFELD-BROWN FORCE FORMULA obtained using Weyl's affine connection theory:




So you agree that gravity is attractive after all.

Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

Pressure gravity, the true cause of terrestrial gravity.

Why do objects in free fall not feel a force.

Simple question.

But they do feel a force.

A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.

Where does the energy acquired by a falling body come from? Certainly it was not inherent in the body before the fall.

"All potential energy exists in the ether"

Sir Oliver Lodge

"All kinetic energy is kinetic energy of the ether"

Sir J.J. Thomson

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

But they do feel a force.

Really? What part of your body would "feel a force"?

Why does a free-falling body experience no force despite accelerating? There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.

"A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source" and that source is its own potential energy.

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.

What part of your body would "feel a force"?

At the most infinitesimal level: atomic nuclei.

The dextrorotatory ether waves act exactly at that level: the body can then emit or absorb aether.

A falling body ABSORBS aether as it falls.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

A simple plastic bottle proves all of them wrong:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.

A body in a circular orbit is subject to the OTHER GRAVITATIONAL COMPONENTS CENSORED/ELIMINATED/DELETED BY NEWTON.

Newton published only the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation.



When equation (1) was derived, it was assumed that empty space is rigid. We will now assume that space is dynamical and replace angular velocity ω with the vorticity vector H which is related to ω through the equation:



That is why everyone who witnessed the first experiment on rotational Newtonian gravity performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma was left speechless.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.

But they do feel a force.

No.




The two are nothing alike.

A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.

Where does the energy acquired by a falling body come from? Certainly it was not inherent in the body before the fall.

Million dollar question. The answer will win you a Nobel Prize and a million dollars.

"All potential energy exists in the ether"

Sir Oliver Lodge

"All kinetic energy is kinetic energy of the ether"

Sir J.J. Thomson

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

You have ether doing so much, yet you can’t show it.

Gravity isn’t a force. That helps solve the different masses accelerating at the same rate problem.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

The examples are outdated.

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

Yes, Weyl was a great mathematician, however Weyl was also a notorious supporter of Einstein's Relativity and I'm sure he would never agree to your ideas of ether causing gravity.

Weyl also admited that his attempt to unify relativity and electromagnetism failed:


Hermann Weyl 1950
From Space-Time-Matter. Preface to the american edition from 1952.

I told you that you need to become an expert in quotes involving ether.

In the same year, Weyl published this:



Weyl was under tremendous pressure to renounce his quest for unification, that is why he was practically forced to give up on it.

But he knew he was right all along.

In 1918, H. Weyl introduced the physical concept of gauge at points within an affinely connected space corresponding to a non-Riemannian geometry to unify electromagnetism and gravitation. The Riemannian metric was used to explain gravity, while the new non-Riemannian geometries in the points of space were used to express the electromagnetic field.

Einstein immediately objected and argued that certain vectors can be treated as clocks marking the histories of atoms, whose spectral lines never change with time. Pauli used a different kind of a counterargument to Weyl's theory: the discovery of an “absolute length” in the Dirac theory of the electron (its “Compton wave length”).

However, Weyl responded to both objections.

https://www.scribd.com/document/316926632/Weyl-Reichenbach-and-the-Epistemology-of-Geometry (the best work on Weyl's response to Einstein's objections)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319 (Nobel prize winner C.N. Yang explains that Einstein's objection was not valid)

Weyl even addressed the Compton wavelength argument in 1949 (see the quote above).


Where did the pressure come from?

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.


Weyl was allowed to be a Professor at Princeton, but he had to give up his quest for unification.

That is why he wrote that passage (quoted above) not in the preface, but somewhat hidden in some later chapter, letting everyone know that he knew that the Compton wavelength argument was not valid to start with.

What part of your body would "feel a force"?

At the most infinitesimal level: atomic nuclei.

The dextrorotatory ether waves act exactly at that level: the body can then emit or absorb aether.

A falling body ABSORBS aether as it falls.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

A simple plastic bottle proves all of them wrong:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.

A body in a circular orbit is subject to the OTHER GRAVITATIONAL COMPONENTS CENSORED/ELIMINATED/DELETED BY NEWTON.

Newton published only the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation.



When equation (1) was derived, it was assumed that empty space is rigid. We will now assume that space is dynamical and replace angular velocity ω with the vorticity vector H which is related to ω through the equation:



That is why everyone who witnessed the first experiment on rotational Newtonian gravity performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma was left speechless.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.

Gravitation caused by pressure of ether particles is just an outdated idea from the  XVIII century. Now it's clear where your theories are coming from.

I told you that you need to become an expert in quotes involving ether.

Weyl admitted his attempt failed. That is fact. The rest is just your excuses and conspiracy theories.

Newton based his entire theory of gravity on ETHER PRESSURE. In the official chronology of history, this theory was further developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, one of his best friends. Lesage added certain features later on.

However the pressure theory developed by Lesage was not INFINITESIMAL.

The first physicist to truly develop and describe ETHER PRESSURE theory was John W. Keely.


http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html

Keely's theory of molecular structure:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theory.html

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theorycontinued.html

For Weight Increase or aggregation of additional mass: When the artificial neutral center is superposed onto the natural center, the aether flows increase proportionate to the entraining amplitudes flowing through the artificial neutral center thus causing an increase in weight and a gradual INCREASE in the mass density.

Such a resonance, properly directed can cause what Keely calls "high vortex action" to decrease or increase the aether flow through the mass neutral center.

Weyl admitted his attempt failed. That is fact. The rest is just your excuses and conspiracy theories.

Within the same year, Weyl publishes TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED STATEMENTS.

The original objection to his unification project, stated by Pauli, was the Compton wavelength argument.

Weyl says he solved it:



He had to be careful to insert this in a later chapter in such a way as to not attract attention.

If the Compton wavelength argument is invalid, his unification theory stands correct.

Newton based his entire theory of gravity on ETHER PRESSURE. In the official chronology of history, this theory was further developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, one of his best friends. Lesage added certain features later on.

However the pressure theory developed by Lesage was not INFINITESIMAL.

The first physicist to truly develop and describe ETHER PRESSURE theory was John W. Keely.


http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html

Keely's theory of molecular structure:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theory.html

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theorycontinued.html

For Weight Increase or aggregation of additional mass: When the artificial neutral center is superposed onto the natural center, the aether flows increase proportionate to the entraining amplitudes flowing through the artificial neutral center thus causing an increase in weight and a gradual INCREASE in the mass density.

Such a resonance, properly directed can cause what Keely calls "high vortex action" to decrease or increase the aether flow through the mass neutral center.

Yes, a c. XVIII idea, that was further developed during c. XIX to finally join the ranks of superseded theories in the beginning of c. XX.

Nothing wrong with XVIII theories, it just happen that this particular one has been discarded because it doesn't work and there's a superior theory called Relativity which:
- is simpler
- fits the facts much better
- has way superior predictive power

and there's a superior theory called Relativity

Not Einstein's relativity which does not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

It can only be applied to STATIC SYSTEMS, not to the bending of light, not to many body problems (Mercury's perihelion).

If you want a bounded dynamic solution, you need to introduce an antigravitational term in the equations.

Please inform yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

Ponomarev and Obukhov went even further than Weyl, and unified gravity with electromagnetism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962