Gravity

heres a rundown on what can be pieced together of his theory that the public have access to
All ponderable bodies are constantly in motion in through space.

Absence of a medium would result in no electromagnetic forces (the space-vacuum fabric is a medium, the aether (the ultimate medium))

Ponderable bodies and other media filling space all possess a dielectric level.

Motion through space produces the "illusion of time".

Mechanical effects are produced by electromagnetic forces acting through media (i.e., momentum and inertia is electromagnetic in nature Energy is force over time)

A media exposed to resonant vibrations of electromagnetic force interact.

Electromagnetic energy fills all space (referred to as radiant energy).

Electromagnetic force is a phenomenon produced through the medium in space (eg., the result of the medium acting upon ponderable matter).

Modulating Wideband frequencies of electromagnetic phenomenon permeate through all media (akin to spread spectrums).

Self-regenerative hetrodyning electromagnetic fields condense through the medium in space.

Electromagnetic potentials arrange themselves in groups according to the medium's polarization and the medium's dielectric resistance.

Electromagnetic fields interact and produce rotating fields.

Electromagnetic entropy returns energy to potentials.

Electromagnetic potentials of high frequency produce: [a] lower environmental interaction, [b] uniform movement without rotation through space-time, and [c] electromagnetic saturation [i.e., plasmas]

Stationary low frequency electromagnetics behave as waves.

Medium's electromagnetic fields creates attractive forces from negative polarity [or what is commonly referred to as "gravity"].

>>8471408
>the biggest and most fundamental floor in Einsteins theory
>most fundamental floor
>floor

Hoo boy, OK, let's do this.

>to return to a resting state space must at some point collapse in on itself according to Einsteins theory as space obviously holds some elastic property to him

Those are all words spelled correctly and they definitely form a sentence. Great job! Now some questions for you.

What is the "resting state" of space and why must space return there?
Why does elasticity imply a point of collapse?
Are you saying that mass exerts a force on space, and that space should apply a reactionary force back?

>the public have access to

Link? Source?

Now what follows in your post is a whole lot of stuff that maybe means something to someone. Maybe you are suggesting that electromagnetism and gravity are really the same force? Because no, that's definitely not true.


But let's just for a moment forget the answer you're looking for and confront some more practical questions.

Let's suppose that Einstein is Wrong and They classified the Right Answers.

How many of Them are there?
How many people in government, in physics, in industry, know the Right Answer? How many make sure that people like you and me learn the Wrong Answer?
How much money would any of these people stand to make by leaking the Right Answer?


You're one guy supposedly pouring over sooper seekrit Tesla notes and you're the one who's cracked it? Find a better and more realistic goal to set yourself, because while you might imagine the day that everyone sucks your dick for saving physics as we know it, I hate to break it to you but it's just not going to happen.

>>8471408
The egomania necessary to convince people that one's lack of understanding of a theory is actually a flaw of the theory never ceases to baffle me.

>>8471536
>What is the "resting state" of space and why must space return there?
equal and opposite reaction, it can not curve and stay curves, causing an inverse curve essentially causing space yo collapse in on its self. Einstein complete disregards this fact and makes no attempt to explain how space manages to return to its state before curvature. space is more comparable to a fluid, you cant curve a fluid only displace it.
>How many people in government, in physics, in industry, know the Right Answer? How many make sure that people like you and me learn the Wrong Answer?
Westinghouse and the United States Office of Alien Property, you will notice special relativity gets updated when we find an anomaly that disproves it making it very hard to prove its flaws. but it will always lack the ability to explain the origin of the medium of space or give valid cause for gravity other than a curvature due to mass.
>and you're the one who's cracked it?
i havnt and never said i did, thats why i am here for help, there is nothing overly usefull available to the public, only bits and prices he released to different maggasines and news papers at the time, and a few hints hidden in some of his later inventions and workings.
also another way to disprove relativity is time is not a fabric, but instead a fabricated to measure movement and change in a system, hence why time doesn't exist as a logical extension of our other dimensions and can not be traveled only measured.

>>8472507
>equal and opposite reaction, it can not curve and stay curves, causing an inverse curve essentially causing space yo collapse in on its self. Einstein complete disregards this fact and makes no attempt to explain how space manages to return to its state before curvature. space is more comparable to a fluid, you cant curve a fluid only displace it.
You are making random assumptions here

>you will notice special relativity gets updated when we find an anomaly that disproves it making it very hard to prove its flaws
SR is an extremely simple and straight-forward theory that hasn't been updated in a hundred years.

>also another way to disprove relativity is time is not a fabric, but instead a fabricated to measure movement and change in a system, hence why time doesn't exist as a logical extension of our other dimensions and can not be traveled only measured.
Again unfounded assumptions. You don't disprove a theory by claiming it's implausible or simply explaining what you don't understand about it. You disprove it by showing that it doesn't match observations.

>>8472645
how is the fact an action requires a reaction an assumption. tell me what the defined reaction of a curvature is since your so all knowing?

>hundred years.
wut? do you even history? how old do you think Einstein is

>You disprove it by showing that it doesn't match observations.
with this logic i could prove slight of hand is in fact actually magic, you my friend forget the the truth is not subjective, nor is it a point of observation nor does observation confirm truth. your assuming i have not observed logically what i have stated

>>8472770
I don't know a whole lot about GR pretty sure that the curvature of space time isn't the same as a Newtonian force.

>>8472770
>>hundred years.
>wut? do you even history? how old do you think Einstein is
Einstein's paper which brought SR to attention was published in 1905

>>8472788
excuse my dyslexia i read it as hundreds of years
>>8472783
so your saying a universal fabric defies all physics other than that stemming from relativity?

"...Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed."
Tesla

>>8472821
No, I'm saying that mass causing spacetime curvature is not the same thing as a force bending something so it doesn't necessarily make sense to talk about actions and reactions.

>>8471408
You should learn what Einstein's theory actually says at a mathematical level before you start saying it's wrong. You're actually onto something there with space having some elastic property, considering Einstein's equation contains a Stress-Energy tensor.

>>8472830
how is mass acting on space not a force?. that is an absurd notion.
>>8472850
i'm looking into it, i just have alot of math i have to learn. i am still quite young in respects to both Einstein and Tesla when they had a polished version of their theory.

>>8472770
>how is the fact an action requires a reaction an assumption.
It just is. It is a law that applies to Newtonian physics which may have revolutionized physics back then but isn't known to be particularly elegant or beautiful and in particular not especially universal.

>with this logic i could prove slight of hand is in fact actually magic,
No you couldn't, as magic doesn't make any predictions.

>you my friend forget the the truth is not subjective
An observation in the context of science is thought to be objective.

>>8471409
Have info re: Tanis, seeking runner

Hey OP. Just a tip: literally no physicist will take you seriously unless you can formally express your theory with rigorous math. You're wasting your time and possibly poisoning your motivation talking about it before that point.

>>8471408
Classified by who?

Dark matter has always been a dirty fudge. Most of the universe consists of something which we don't know what it is? Nice try.

Why is it so hard to go back to accept that current theory just doesn't scale out to galactic scales? It's not so hard to believe the classical Newtonian model which is accurate at our local scale is inaccurate at large scale, so why is it such a stretch that GR runs out of steam at galactic scale?

File: astrophysics_2x.png (56KB, 1157x628px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1157x628px

>>8473611
Literally current xkcd explains it pretty well.

There's a lot of data confirming the existence of dark matter and dark energy, it's not just the rotation speed of galaxies. It's of course always possible that it's just a problem of GR, but nobody so far has found an alternative that explains everything in sufficient detail. And don't even start the whole conspiracy bullshit, there ARE people looking for an alternative and basically every cosmologist would rather have a more elegant explanation than dark matter, but at this point we don't have it, deal with it.

By the way, as you started off with plausibility arguments:
Is it so hard to believe that there's matter that only interacts via gravitation? As a reminder, there is a particle that only interacts electromagnetically (the photon), or three that only interact weakly (the neutrinos). It's not that hard to imagine that there's a considerable amount of matter in that form.

>>8473017
>how is mass acting on space not a force? that is an absurd notion
I feel like you're confusing the "mass on a rubber sheet" analogy with what is actually happening.

The bending of space time due to mass is an entirely separate concept to regular old forces, it's about geometry more than anything else. There's no acceleration being applied to the space or anything.

>>8471408
>a universal fundamental law stating that any action must have an equal and opposite reaction this means to return to a resting state space must at some point collapse in on itself according to Einsteins theory as space obviously holds some elastic property to him.
Space curving is not an "action" and does not produce force. Everything after is just a bunch of cranky gibberish pretending to be based on a false premise.

Now this thread can die.

>>8473641
>it doesn't fit the data
neither does dark matter

>>8473848
The whole point of Dark Matter is that it's a hypothesis that fits the data

>>8473641

Data only confirms that the model doesn't fit the observation without pretending most of the universe is some sort of dark stuff. Idiots who will defend this bullshit to the hilt rather than entertain alternative theories are the cancer holding back physics.

>>8473854

That doesn't make it tangiable, let alone indisputable.

>flower of life in OP pic
Get out you new agey hippy vegan crossfiting flower power treehugging fatpositive liberal anarcho-communist islamotolerant anti-white problematic lazy entitled deluded leeching milenial invertebrate weakling swine, we are trying to do actual science here.

File: 1467042579005.png (320KB, 441x441px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 441x441px

>>8471408
That is because its an axiom created by humans with numbers attached to it, but somehow it works out to work with the universe 'n shit.

>>8474555
By no means is it indisputable, that would be unscientific, but it's still the best model we have so far.

>>8471408
>Now we all know a universal fundamental law stating that any action must have an equal and opposite reaction
No, this is Newton's law, which was superseded by GR. Get rekd.

>>8471409
Nice word salad bro.

>>8471408
This is honestly the worst fucking board on this site bar /pol/

>>8474881

A reasonable stance, and yet dark matter seems to be dogmatically unassailable, as it implies imperfection with GR. Dark matter and Dark Energy will be classified alongside phlogiston and aether.

check out the lecture "Light your inner fire" by Dan Winter he explains gravity

>>8475675
It's not dogmatically unassailable, if you have an alternative theory that doesn't involve it AND fits the data then people will consider it as an explanation. The thing is, there have been no satisfactory alternative theories so far and that includes your (and everyone else's) idea that "Maybe GR is flawed??".

>>8473641
But it does fit the data ... for a galaxy in isolation. It fucks up for clusters so there must be some sort of dark insulation that blocks the correction term from fucking with other galaxies.

Nobel Prize plz!