Witsit's Citations
Witsit Caught Lying
Manufactured - Witsit Lied - He did not mix them up
Links don't match
Titles don't match
Some titles do no even exist
Articles not even at the right page numbers
Manufactured - Witsit Lied - He did not mix them up
Links don't match
Titles don't match
Some titles do no even exist
Articles not even at the right page numbers
|
D. V. Abramov & V. N. Koneshov
http://dx.doi.org/10.3103/S0747923915030020 This paper explains the effects of an intense thunderstorm on two gravimeters. There is a 2–3 mcGal reduction of the net downward acceleration when the thunderstorm is over the station. This is due to the increased mass of the water in the clouds. The building that housed the equipment has a “radio transparent roof” so GPS signals could be received. Confirming that GPS reception comes from the sky, not laterally from cell phone towers |
Such a TINY amount and really changes nothing to many decimal places.
9.806 650 00 <- mean g 0.030 000 00 <- variation due to latitude 0.000 500 00 <- geoid variation 0.000 001 00 <- tidal influence of moon 0.000 000 50 <- tidal influence of sun 0.000 000 10 <- change due to 25cm rain .00000003 <- is even SMALLER than the 25cm rain entry 7-8 Decimals Places Witsit used this during our first debate but the anomaly is so small AND can be explained by gravity not electrostatics. 
|
Gravity predicts that the mass of the water in the clouds above the station will reduce the net downward acceleration. This is confirmed by observation.
Note the thin gray line in the graph is the predicted variations in the downward acceleration due to tidal forces. That’s the position of the moon and the sun and their effect on the net downward acceleration. Excluding the presence of extra water in the clouds in the vicinity of the station during the thunderstorm. This further confirms the earth-moon-sun relationship in our solar system.
Toon’s Law of Flerf #1 is confirmed.
Note the thin gray line in the graph is the predicted variations in the downward acceleration due to tidal forces. That’s the position of the moon and the sun and their effect on the net downward acceleration. Excluding the presence of extra water in the clouds in the vicinity of the station during the thunderstorm. This further confirms the earth-moon-sun relationship in our solar system.
Toon’s Law of Flerf #1 is confirmed.
"Dude, It's Well Known I have like an aptitude for Math"
-Witsit
-Witsit
The Correct Calculations
The Force do to gravity in his example is 4.65e-35 Newtons. The force due to electrostatics in his example is 54 Newtons... Like he says electrostatics is 10^36 times stronger than gravity!!
Constants
G = 6.67e-11 (Gravitational Constant)
Mp = 1.67e-27 kg (Mass of a proton)
Dp = 1e-15 m (diameter of a proton)
The Force do to gravity in his example is 4.65e-35 Newtons. The force due to electrostatics in his example is 54 Newtons... Like he says electrostatics is 10^36 times stronger than gravity!!
Constants
G = 6.67e-11 (Gravitational Constant)
Mp = 1.67e-27 kg (Mass of a proton)
Dp = 1e-15 m (diameter of a proton)
Force of Gravity between two Protons that are a protons distance apart. Distance between center of Mass = 2*Dp
[Newtons Law of Gravity]
Fg = GM1M2/r^2 = G*Mp^2/(2Dp)^2 = [6.67e-11*(1.67e-27)^2]/[4*(1e-15)^2] = 4.65e-35 Newtons
Force of Electrostatics between two protons that are a protons distance apart. Assume even charge distribution
Constants
k = 8.98e+9 (Coulombs constant
Qp = 1.6e-19 (charge of a proton in coulombs)
Dp = 1e-15m (diameter of a proton)
[Coulombs Law of Electrostatics]
Fe = kQ1Q2/r^2 = k*Qp^2/(2Dp)^2 = [8.98e+9*(1.6e-19)^2]/[4*(1e-15)^2] = 57.47 Newtons
Fe ≠ Fg (In fact Fe is 36 orders of magnitude greater than Fg!)
[Newtons Law of Gravity]
Fg = GM1M2/r^2 = G*Mp^2/(2Dp)^2 = [6.67e-11*(1.67e-27)^2]/[4*(1e-15)^2] = 4.65e-35 Newtons
Force of Electrostatics between two protons that are a protons distance apart. Assume even charge distribution
Constants
k = 8.98e+9 (Coulombs constant
Qp = 1.6e-19 (charge of a proton in coulombs)
Dp = 1e-15m (diameter of a proton)
[Coulombs Law of Electrostatics]
Fe = kQ1Q2/r^2 = k*Qp^2/(2Dp)^2 = [8.98e+9*(1.6e-19)^2]/[4*(1e-15)^2] = 57.47 Newtons
Fe ≠ Fg (In fact Fe is 36 orders of magnitude greater than Fg!)
Fg = Fe = k*q^2 / (2r)^2 [As shown above you CANNOT equate the two]
where q is the charge on a proton.
Witsit skipped a couple steps which we will fill in.
The FATAL error is he is trying to equate g to the acceleration due to gravity between two protons.. NO!!
g = GMe/Re^2 where Me is the Mass of the Earth and Re is the Radius. On the surface of the earth
the gravitational acceleration is on average 9.81 m/s^2, however we are talking about the gravitational force and acceleration between two protons?? But let's continue to play along with this laughable physics.
Solving for g, we obtain (again remember g is the gravitation acceleration due to the mass of the earth not to the acceleration between two protons)
g = Gm1 / r^2 = kq^2 / (4r^2*m1)
What he is doing is Setting Fe = Fg = mg (again how is g here?).
So solving for g you would get g = [k*Qp^2]/[4*Dp^2*Mp]
Substituting the values for G, q, k, and m1, we get:
g = 6.67 x 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2 * 1.6 x 10^-19 C^2 / (4 * (1.5 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)
g ≈ 9.81 m/s^2
But if you actually do the math his numbers DO NOT equal 9.81 m/s^2
[6.67 x 10^-11*(1.6 x 10^-19) ^2] / [(4 * (1.5 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)= 1.136e+8
This NOT even CLOSE to 9.81 m/s^2 and he is using the wrong equation and using g!
But it gets worse. Witsit plugs in the wrong values. He put in G when his own WRONG equation calls for k.
The first term in his WRONG equation should be k= 8.98e+9 and technically Dp = 1e-15
So let's see if that helps him...
[8.98e+9*(1.6 x 10^-19) ^2] / [(4 * (1 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)= 3.44e+28
EVEN WORSE!!
where q is the charge on a proton.
Witsit skipped a couple steps which we will fill in.
The FATAL error is he is trying to equate g to the acceleration due to gravity between two protons.. NO!!
g = GMe/Re^2 where Me is the Mass of the Earth and Re is the Radius. On the surface of the earth
the gravitational acceleration is on average 9.81 m/s^2, however we are talking about the gravitational force and acceleration between two protons?? But let's continue to play along with this laughable physics.
Solving for g, we obtain (again remember g is the gravitation acceleration due to the mass of the earth not to the acceleration between two protons)
g = Gm1 / r^2 = kq^2 / (4r^2*m1)
What he is doing is Setting Fe = Fg = mg (again how is g here?).
So solving for g you would get g = [k*Qp^2]/[4*Dp^2*Mp]
Substituting the values for G, q, k, and m1, we get:
g = 6.67 x 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2 * 1.6 x 10^-19 C^2 / (4 * (1.5 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)
g ≈ 9.81 m/s^2
But if you actually do the math his numbers DO NOT equal 9.81 m/s^2
[6.67 x 10^-11*(1.6 x 10^-19) ^2] / [(4 * (1.5 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)= 1.136e+8
This NOT even CLOSE to 9.81 m/s^2 and he is using the wrong equation and using g!
But it gets worse. Witsit plugs in the wrong values. He put in G when his own WRONG equation calls for k.
The first term in his WRONG equation should be k= 8.98e+9 and technically Dp = 1e-15
So let's see if that helps him...
[8.98e+9*(1.6 x 10^-19) ^2] / [(4 * (1 x 10^-15 m)^2 * 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)= 3.44e+28
EVEN WORSE!!
He sent the wrong Math is the understatement of the year.. That might be the worst display of physics and math I have ever seen! So now it is funny he is steering me to a paper that he thinks proves his point, but CLEARLY BASED ON THE MATH AND PHYSICS WE JUST SAW HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIC PHYSICS OF NEWONS LAW AND COULOMBS LAW. Even my high school students would not make errors that bad?
Wherever Witsit Copied and Pasted this note the conclusion: "Therefore, we have derived the acceleration due to gravity, g, from Coulomb's law by equating the gravitational force between two masses to the electrostatic force between two protons. However, it should be noted that this derivation is based on certain assumptions and simplifications and may not accurately reflect the true nature of gravity or electromagnetism."
BUT WE JUST SHOWED Fe is 10^36 stronger than Fg!!!
This clip here shows Witsit thinks Coulombs law is almost exactly the same as the gravitational law!!
Wherever Witsit Copied and Pasted this note the conclusion: "Therefore, we have derived the acceleration due to gravity, g, from Coulomb's law by equating the gravitational force between two masses to the electrostatic force between two protons. However, it should be noted that this derivation is based on certain assumptions and simplifications and may not accurately reflect the true nature of gravity or electromagnetism."
BUT WE JUST SHOWED Fe is 10^36 stronger than Fg!!!
This clip here shows Witsit thinks Coulombs law is almost exactly the same as the gravitational law!!
Two Things Witsit Avoided in our 15+ email exchanges
1) Would not fix the algebra and explain how Fe=Fg
2) He would NOT explain how this works on a flat earth
1) Would not fix the algebra and explain how Fe=Fg
2) He would NOT explain how this works on a flat earth
THE PAPER - Regardless, Let's Look at it.
Predatory Publisher
|
|
The Electromagnetic Nature of Gravitation and Matter-Antimatter Antigravity. Surmise on Quantum Vacuum Gravitation and Cosmology
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=118200
Several New Ideas He Proposes that Are Untested
1) Kenons and Dark Light
2) Electromagnetic Push Gravity
3) The vector potential amplitude quantization constant ξ.
4) He embraces Antimatter and matter are opposite signs which has NO empirical and credible evidence. That would mean that mass can be negative. While there are theories that have negative mass, nothing has been supported with experimental evidence yet (Gravity is always attractive). So as far as we know this paper saying that particles and antiparticles repel each other, they are doing so via non-existent opposite charges.
In contrast, electric charge can be positive or negative. Presumably, if negative mass existed, it would be repelled by objects with positive mass. Second, the lack of negative mass means that gravitational fields can never be shielded, blocked, or canceled. In contrast, electric charge comes in both positive and negative varieties.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=118200
Several New Ideas He Proposes that Are Untested
1) Kenons and Dark Light
2) Electromagnetic Push Gravity
3) The vector potential amplitude quantization constant ξ.
4) He embraces Antimatter and matter are opposite signs which has NO empirical and credible evidence. That would mean that mass can be negative. While there are theories that have negative mass, nothing has been supported with experimental evidence yet (Gravity is always attractive). So as far as we know this paper saying that particles and antiparticles repel each other, they are doing so via non-existent opposite charges.
In contrast, electric charge can be positive or negative. Presumably, if negative mass existed, it would be repelled by objects with positive mass. Second, the lack of negative mass means that gravitational fields can never be shielded, blocked, or canceled. In contrast, electric charge comes in both positive and negative varieties.
Author Admits It is Only a Hypothesis
Meis is happy to admit he is proposing ONLY A HYPOTHESIS which had no empirical evidence to support it, HENCE it is in no position to supplant our best tested and evidence based THEORIES of GM, Standard Model and Big Bang Cosmology!!
There are literally THOUSANDS of ATTEMPTED unification hypotheses out there with no experimental or empirical evidence unifying all the four forces. Dr Finklestein.
Not even a Theory BECAUSE IT IS NOT TESTED. THERE IS ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!
Meis is happy to admit he is proposing ONLY A HYPOTHESIS which had no empirical evidence to support it, HENCE it is in no position to supplant our best tested and evidence based THEORIES of GM, Standard Model and Big Bang Cosmology!!
There are literally THOUSANDS of ATTEMPTED unification hypotheses out there with no experimental or empirical evidence unifying all the four forces. Dr Finklestein.
Not even a Theory BECAUSE IT IS NOT TESTED. THERE IS ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!
1) Witsit doesn't understand High School Physics let alone graduate level
2) Witsit is NOT qualified to critique this paper
3) This goes for ANY paper written for experts in fields Witsit has no experience
4) PhD Tony summarized Witsits Delusional Narcissism in this exchange so beautifully!
2) Witsit is NOT qualified to critique this paper
3) This goes for ANY paper written for experts in fields Witsit has no experience
4) PhD Tony summarized Witsits Delusional Narcissism in this exchange so beautifully!
I have to admit I did not follow several parts of the paper, but
I got some feedback from a PhD of physics friend of mine and an incredibly smart engineer.
Two people I am happy to admit are smarter than I am and both better qualified to critique it.
-----Engineer ----
"I just read the abstract.
The abstract states: „ We draw that G is the same for matter and antimatter but gravitational forces should be repulsive between particles and antiparticles because their masses bear naturally opposite signs.“
So if we find that anti hydrogen gravitational mass to inertial mass ratio is positive (expected by quantum physics and relativity is exactly +1), then the hypothesis above is falsified.
Until now we can only set a limit for this ratio of 110 to -65 from the ALPHA experiment.
So this is an inconclusive result.
Currently there is the GBAR experiment in construction. It aims to measure the free-fall acceleration of ultra-cold neutral anti-hydrogen atoms in the terrestrial gravitational field.
I guess we have to wait at least a few months or years for results that falsify or support the presented hypothesis.
Here is the status of this experiment:
I got some feedback from a PhD of physics friend of mine and an incredibly smart engineer.
Two people I am happy to admit are smarter than I am and both better qualified to critique it.
-----Engineer ----
"I just read the abstract.
The abstract states: „ We draw that G is the same for matter and antimatter but gravitational forces should be repulsive between particles and antiparticles because their masses bear naturally opposite signs.“
So if we find that anti hydrogen gravitational mass to inertial mass ratio is positive (expected by quantum physics and relativity is exactly +1), then the hypothesis above is falsified.
Until now we can only set a limit for this ratio of 110 to -65 from the ALPHA experiment.
So this is an inconclusive result.
Currently there is the GBAR experiment in construction. It aims to measure the free-fall acceleration of ultra-cold neutral anti-hydrogen atoms in the terrestrial gravitational field.
I guess we have to wait at least a few months or years for results that falsify or support the presented hypothesis.
Here is the status of this experiment:
The PhD in Physics and Cosmology WHO IS VERY qualified to Interpret this article:
[Even if the above experiment shows a (-) ratio which would suggest antigravity is possible, there are STILL other issues]
--------
[1] My immediate reaction was that the sign of the gravitational potential is incorrect anyway, it should be negative. I did briefly look at this paper, and it looks like rubbish to me, but I need to read through it.
[2] Well, it published in predatory journal (all scirp journals are), his other publications in this area are in equally dodgy publishers (e.g., intechopen). It's impossible to follow his reasoning, because he doesn't present any. He just makes assertions which are unsubstatiated. He seems to be trying to using the integrand in a quantum field decomposition, though he doesn't implement any gauge condition (in the Gupta-Bleuler quantization one should remove the longitudinal photons by imposing a condition on the vector potential -analogous to the Lorentz gauge but with a subtlety, he seems to have done none of this). I think he expects readers to buy his book to get the details.
[3 - From The Book] The first part is okay-ish, it goes through the standard theory in a poorly written and understood way, but is roughly right. When he makes his own contribution it gos horribly wrong. He has the equation which essentially reads H^2 f= p^2c^2 f for all functions f, where H is a scalar operator and p is a vector operator (with c the speed of light). He claims the solution to this is H=pc, i.e., he has equated a vector operator to a scalar operator. H is the Hamiltonian for his photon, which should be a scalar operator. It's hopeless. Everything else is him trying to fudge the equations to cover his mistake. All rather embarrassing for him I reckon.
[Even if the above experiment shows a (-) ratio which would suggest antigravity is possible, there are STILL other issues]
--------
[1] My immediate reaction was that the sign of the gravitational potential is incorrect anyway, it should be negative. I did briefly look at this paper, and it looks like rubbish to me, but I need to read through it.
[2] Well, it published in predatory journal (all scirp journals are), his other publications in this area are in equally dodgy publishers (e.g., intechopen). It's impossible to follow his reasoning, because he doesn't present any. He just makes assertions which are unsubstatiated. He seems to be trying to using the integrand in a quantum field decomposition, though he doesn't implement any gauge condition (in the Gupta-Bleuler quantization one should remove the longitudinal photons by imposing a condition on the vector potential -analogous to the Lorentz gauge but with a subtlety, he seems to have done none of this). I think he expects readers to buy his book to get the details.
[3 - From The Book] The first part is okay-ish, it goes through the standard theory in a poorly written and understood way, but is roughly right. When he makes his own contribution it gos horribly wrong. He has the equation which essentially reads H^2 f= p^2c^2 f for all functions f, where H is a scalar operator and p is a vector operator (with c the speed of light). He claims the solution to this is H=pc, i.e., he has equated a vector operator to a scalar operator. H is the Hamiltonian for his photon, which should be a scalar operator. It's hopeless. Everything else is him trying to fudge the equations to cover his mistake. All rather embarrassing for him I reckon.
So what do you guys think, was Witsit right, does this paper does NOT "Dunk on me"?
Feel free to read it before voting (link in comments).
Poll in community.
Feel free to read it before voting (link in comments).
Poll in community.
My Take and Other Issues
Image Page 35 from my book Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler
Other Known Problems with All Attempts to Combine Electromagnetism and Gravity. Mainly Because the two forces are fundamentally SO DIFFERENT.
1) Acceleration in electromagnetism is q/m (no universal acceleration). Universal Acceleration does apply to gravity
2) Polarity Can be -/0/+ (Charges can be neutral , attract or repel) , gravity always attractive , no polarity (Based on mass attracting mass )
3) BECAUSE of the charge Gravity cannot be shielded, electromagnetism can... provably
4) Fundamentally different Mathematical Structures (rank 1 vector vs rank 2 tensor).
5) Force Proportional to mass, not the composition of the materials. Different Materials Behave Differently (conductors, magnets, etc). Electromagnetism can affect different objects differently. However, gravity affects everything the same; only the amount of mass and the distance between them count.
And this is not even including the flat earth yet!! These are problems with the Electric Universe type of theories in General.
Image Page 35 from my book Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler
Other Known Problems with All Attempts to Combine Electromagnetism and Gravity. Mainly Because the two forces are fundamentally SO DIFFERENT.
1) Acceleration in electromagnetism is q/m (no universal acceleration). Universal Acceleration does apply to gravity
2) Polarity Can be -/0/+ (Charges can be neutral , attract or repel) , gravity always attractive , no polarity (Based on mass attracting mass )
3) BECAUSE of the charge Gravity cannot be shielded, electromagnetism can... provably
4) Fundamentally different Mathematical Structures (rank 1 vector vs rank 2 tensor).
5) Force Proportional to mass, not the composition of the materials. Different Materials Behave Differently (conductors, magnets, etc). Electromagnetism can affect different objects differently. However, gravity affects everything the same; only the amount of mass and the distance between them count.
And this is not even including the flat earth yet!! These are problems with the Electric Universe type of theories in General.
|
|
George Hnatiuk - PhD in Electronics
None of the Papers Witsit has EVER sharing on any version of combining Electrostatics and Gravity are flat earth proponents. How could they be , because even COULOMBS Law is a spherically symmetry law. So the Potato Radius Problem still exists.
Flat Earth Electrostatics (IDA) is even worse, because it inherits ALL the problems the Electric Universe Has and adds even MORE BAGGAGE. This version is based on Ken Wheeler (which is bad enough) but FURTHER bastardized by Bob Knodel, Witsit and Globebusters.
1) Two Gaussian surfaces
2) 100 V/m gives rise to downward Arrow, and supposedly density and buoyancy take care of the rest?
3) 9.8 comes out of Coulombs law magically from THIS? Or it is just an agreed upon average.
Even if the papers Witsit cites one day confirm gravity is electromagnetic in origin, ALL OF THEM without exception debunk a flat earth because Coulombs Law of Electrostatics LIKE Newtons Law of Gravity is spherically symmetric and everything above a Potato radius will crush into a sphere.
1) Two Gaussian surfaces
2) 100 V/m gives rise to downward Arrow, and supposedly density and buoyancy take care of the rest?
3) 9.8 comes out of Coulombs law magically from THIS? Or it is just an agreed upon average.
Even if the papers Witsit cites one day confirm gravity is electromagnetic in origin, ALL OF THEM without exception debunk a flat earth because Coulombs Law of Electrostatics LIKE Newtons Law of Gravity is spherically symmetric and everything above a Potato radius will crush into a sphere.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8PO_WmRF58vsQJUVl2kh8ZZXj2zeprFX
Conclusion
Witsit just likes people to think he is smart by just referencing all these citations without reading them fully or understanding them. He cherry picks what he does read to find the part that supports his preselected conclusion.
He looks for errors or Anomaly's in our model that are often grossly exaggerated (Gravity and Seismology).
Most of these papers he cannot understand because he has no background in them.
If Interacting or Debating with Witsit:
If he makes a claims demand he send the citation right now..
Witsit just likes people to think he is smart by just referencing all these citations without reading them fully or understanding them. He cherry picks what he does read to find the part that supports his preselected conclusion.
He looks for errors or Anomaly's in our model that are often grossly exaggerated (Gravity and Seismology).
Most of these papers he cannot understand because he has no background in them.
If Interacting or Debating with Witsit:
If he makes a claims demand he send the citation right now..
This Citation Actually Checks Out!!
4) I explained the free space impedance shows there is a background medium with a substantive quality, you guys mocked. I explained the dielectric permittivity and magnetic permeability of the vacuum sustains the “light” which is just an excitation/oscillation of the background field that permeates all of space, you guys mocked.
Yes Photons in quantum field theory, photons of light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind are the quantum of the electromagnetic field. As such they are excitations or oscillations in the underlying electromagnetic field. Gluons are the quantum of the strong interaction or gluon field. The W and Z particles are the quantum of the weak interaction fields. Gravitons would likely be the quantum of the gravitational field but have not been observed yet because we do not have experimental evidence for any quantum theory of gravity. But these quantum fields are NOT Aether as originally defined. Some researchers use the word Aether but that is just rebranding our current understanding of quantum field theory OR it is a NEW and untested theory. But in all cases with COMPLETELY different meanings than original Michelson and Morley Aether.
Free Space Impedance - Not Evidence of Aether (Engineering convenience)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79364/why-does-vacuum-have-a-nonzero-characteristic-impedance-towards-electromagnetic
Yes Photons in quantum field theory, photons of light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind are the quantum of the electromagnetic field. As such they are excitations or oscillations in the underlying electromagnetic field. Gluons are the quantum of the strong interaction or gluon field. The W and Z particles are the quantum of the weak interaction fields. Gravitons would likely be the quantum of the gravitational field but have not been observed yet because we do not have experimental evidence for any quantum theory of gravity. But these quantum fields are NOT Aether as originally defined. Some researchers use the word Aether but that is just rebranding our current understanding of quantum field theory OR it is a NEW and untested theory. But in all cases with COMPLETELY different meanings than original Michelson and Morley Aether.
Free Space Impedance - Not Evidence of Aether (Engineering convenience)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/79364/why-does-vacuum-have-a-nonzero-characteristic-impedance-towards-electromagnetic
Lol dude we live in a sphere not on one. We live in a toroid more specifically and the earth is stationary and geocentric in an electric universe with an aether. [Evidence?]
1) I cited the gravity is electromagnetic paper bc people like yourself openly ridiculed me for saying that very thing.. you ridiculed me for pointing out the mind blowing Ky obvious connection with Coulomb’s law [Yes because it doesn't work].
2) And that there is a field that permeates all of space that houses these interactions. [Yes Fields are a fundamental concept in all of physics... The Standard model, General Relativity and even Classical Electromagnetism are all field theories - But they are NOT Aether Theories]
3) Everything you guys ridiculed me for is going to get shoved right back in your face [No!] .. just like I said [Oh Hell No! Its one thing to Claim Gravity is Electrostatic and quite another to say Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration is why things fall 9.8 m/s^2 on a flat and stationary earth]. All the electric gravity main proponents acknowledge the earth is a sphere.
1) I cited the gravity is electromagnetic paper bc people like yourself openly ridiculed me for saying that very thing.. you ridiculed me for pointing out the mind blowing Ky obvious connection with Coulomb’s law [Yes because it doesn't work].
2) And that there is a field that permeates all of space that houses these interactions. [Yes Fields are a fundamental concept in all of physics... The Standard model, General Relativity and even Classical Electromagnetism are all field theories - But they are NOT Aether Theories]
3) Everything you guys ridiculed me for is going to get shoved right back in your face [No!] .. just like I said [Oh Hell No! Its one thing to Claim Gravity is Electrostatic and quite another to say Incoherent Dielectric Acceleration is why things fall 9.8 m/s^2 on a flat and stationary earth]. All the electric gravity main proponents acknowledge the earth is a sphere.
5) I explained relativistic and Newtonian physics is on its way out and has already been debunk, you guys mocked. I said what you call gravity is clearly electromagnetic and you mocked.
Witsit STILL doesn't understand what a scientific law is, what a scientific theory is and how the idea of domains of applicability relates to them. Newton's LAWS, yes LAWS, Witsit works just fine in their domain of applicability of low speeds and relatively flat spacetime which includes most of our solar system except around the sun (hence the anomoly of the perihelion of mercury).
Witsit STILL doesn't understand what a scientific law is, what a scientific theory is and how the idea of domains of applicability relates to them. Newton's LAWS, yes LAWS, Witsit works just fine in their domain of applicability of low speeds and relatively flat spacetime which includes most of our solar system except around the sun (hence the anomoly of the perihelion of mercury).