The pyramids were built before Isaac Newton invented gravity making it easy.

@bonnjohnson5189

Жыл бұрын

Don’t think Issac Invented gravity

@SkemeKOS

Жыл бұрын

LMFAO!

@gilbertbaird8052

Жыл бұрын

So fucking true

@maranscandy9350

Жыл бұрын

Whatever floats your granite.

@maranscandy9350

Жыл бұрын

The motion of charge? That makes me think of W. Reich’s cloudbuster.

Ask me all about Counter Space. I know a lot about it. I just cleaned my kitchen and got lots of counter space back. It appeared where the dishes left a vacuum when removed.

@bobdole27

Жыл бұрын

badum tssh

@Baptized_in_Fire.

4 ай бұрын

Lol

@collinbergkamp7077

3 ай бұрын

I gotta clean out my vacuum soon.

i had to look up like 50 words while reading your book. Which was great by the way. learned more reading that then all my years in school. It makes so much more sense and way easier to understand than anything else.

14:18 is so spot on. You're the king of great analogies! Thanks for helping us to unlearn these inaccurate explanations we've been taught.

Thank you again for given access to your books , some of your important works on the net , all for FREE. I hope It will help people like me to understand some subjects... You are a great man really, in all senses. Wiseness, smart, clever, intelligent, with sense of humour. I wish you can be doing those important videos for a long time, we are so much to need your explanations. Your thoughts. TY Mr Ken. Cheers from Belgium

Uncle Kenny, I'm surprised to hear the criticism of "word salad". When I first heard you use the word incommensurate, the word anadi came to mind. The difference between space and counterspace as you define really hit home. A perusal of your definitions list reveals precisely chosen English words for languages like ancient Greek, Pali etc etc. This isn't easy people, there are words that have no English translatable words. Thanks Mate 👍🏻

Yup even as a child I never belived that the explanation of gravity was "a bending" of "space time". I wondered how can can you bend nothing? Science is a belief system based on observation but these are only perceptions and often illusory. All explanations as you say must fit together.

I figured out as a 10 year old that when I rubbed a balloon on my jumper and then stuck it to the wall that this was the same as gravity. My father wasn’t convinced, he attributed it to static. So I learned the lesson that gravity was just static

@4v4t4rmusic

Жыл бұрын

:p kids are smart until they’re taught to be adults

@kosmow2013

Жыл бұрын

@@4v4t4rmusic "taught" equates to being hypnotized into playing small, feigning ignorance and parroting the zombies that have blossomed into the Leftist mindset in order not to embarrass them as they pretend to be intelligent adults.7

@katbat2379

Жыл бұрын

We run on static :). Fruit is bursting with static. Eat fruit. Good health.

@rivademon1974

Жыл бұрын

I would say your mental process are static. As in they have not moved forward since you were 10 yrs old.

@illicit008

4 ай бұрын

There may be several things at work or in play to give us the illusion of gravity. I thought it was an object we were riding on creating what we think of as gravity. Think of a red liquid (like plasma) in a metal rod that spins. Attached to this rod are 3 triangles that also spin. When everything gets going the red plasma is dispensed and gives us our perception of gravity or mass. I believe this machine is called Tetragrammaton (the throne of and for god (that's you)) The AI that's in charge is what we think of as God, you are god growing inside of God.

Thanks Ken. .. As a layman to things scientific, I reckon I understood more than just the gist of your explanation…. I’ll have to suss out you field theory materials as I’m guessing some further ‘why’s’ might be answered there. Really appreciate your efforts to enlighten, in your indomitable sardonic style, which always cracks me up (and has me laughing out loud!)

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

you failed to ask yourself what the motion of capacitance (charge) is.

@jorgesolorio620

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom what do you mean by charge? I have a feeling is not the definition given in textbooks related to electricity

As a new member of this channel I am so glad I found you! Amazing work, i have a real talent for deep research and what you are saying resonates completely with the research I have done. Its not word salad, those folks just dont understand the terms - and would recommend they immerse in the field for a bit before coming here, only then will they realise the true significance of what it is you are saying. And, bud, I am so with you on quantum mechanics, a complete fairy tale thats sucked our best minds put to work on something thst produces nothing other than magical math - totally wrong approach, its all about the fields baby :)

First time hearing this theory, I love how your mind works. I couldn't put 2 pieces together. Could you explain the difference between small objects being attracted to high energy states (planets), but planets are attracted to low energy null points. I'm missing the correlation so it seems contradictory.

@itnaklipse1669

Жыл бұрын

if you can't put 2 pieces together, what makes you think you can judge whether what you're hearing makes sense or not?

@waltertchapman32

Жыл бұрын

@@itnaklipse1669 it's crazy isn't it, not mastering the details of a theory you have never heard in less than a few minutes. It's a burden I'm stuck with, I guess. I am proud to share that I do, however, excel at not being an unprovoked/arrogant person. We all have our wins and losses.

@bellaccione

Жыл бұрын

@@waltertchapman32 lol - sick, underrated burn

@Srelus

Жыл бұрын

@@itnaklipse1669 Very good point.

@ElementUup511

3 ай бұрын

I think he said regardless of size the objects move toward each other but obviously the smaller objects motion is far more observable than the big one being that the ratios are so vastly disproportionate that it appears that the smaller ones are falling into the big one but they are technically falling toward each other's null pressure point but since the smaller objects pressure point is closer to its surface of mass than the large object the small one inevitably is overcome by the larger. I could be wrong but thats my understanding of his explanation.

You explained in another video that an omnidirectional field has to be created to overcome 'gravity'. I can only imagine that a craft that is able to do so, has an array of electromagnets that has to be fed with insane amounts of electric power to be actually able to lift. What kind of generator do you think would such a craft use that is small enough to fit and still is able to provide enough power?

@justinbennett9998

Жыл бұрын

An annihilation reactor... Bismuth is your friend

@4v4t4rmusic

Жыл бұрын

Don’t need “insane” amounts of energy. Could power an antigravity device with an iPhone

@bigoptions

Жыл бұрын

If the earth is basically a magnet, then you magnetize your ship. Then you figure out a way to keep the poles on your ship from aligning with the earth. Keep them opposite.

@bigoptions

Жыл бұрын

I'll figure it out. Not in a hurry though. Let Ken do it.

Definitely no word salad in your writings. Very clear and concise. Thank you 😊

@kisbiflos

Жыл бұрын

It is so damn ironic that the comment right above yours is: "Ken I learned physics from you. I kid you not it took me watching a year of your physics videos to begin comprehend what you are talking about. I started to comprehend literally in November 2021. I didn't fathom that EVERYTHING I was taught about physics was wrong, that's the real hindering reason."

@nathanielgates2863

Жыл бұрын

@@kisbiflos exactly. We’ve made everything so unnecessarily complicated for ourselves. Divinity is simplicity.

@bryggel5926

Жыл бұрын

That's gotta be ironic

Ken, when we model a gyroscope, should we apply orbital mechanics to each point mass at its individual velocity? I have had it confirmed by a cosmologist that indeed if a gyroscope is rotating at a linear velocity sufficient for circular orbit, the rim is pulled down by the axle, not by gravity. He said I was clever for thinking of that. Remember, the center of a horizontal wheel is a little bit lower than the axle, because of the curve of the Earth. The centripetal acceleration, then, is a little bit downward, and it replaces some of the gravity.

@jasondavis8886

Жыл бұрын

Curve of the earth, lol. No. Proof exists for that claim nor ever will.

Brooo just found your channel I am loving this I am a spiritualist but I believe science and spirit intersect and one of my main arguments for this is the defining of electro magnetic fields and other energy fields defined by spiritualist observation over the millennia. Admittedly an anecdotal point of evidence but these observations are ancient a focus of innovation in days before but now we have tools to measure and prove their theories. Modern science laughs at spirituality but I believe in revisiting these ideals only to gain a clearer understanding of the universe and the energies that manipulate it. Thanks for sharing 😊

Ken, thank you for being relentless!

@thestonedandstripped

Жыл бұрын

You know what I mean.🙂

Hey haven't watched your videos in a while, I was just looking into gravity here today and you came up in my search results so hello again!

"Space has no properties so it can't be warped"... I've always imagined if you were alone in space, floating, losing all preconceptions - would you still come up with a 3 axis? Why 3? Anyway...you caught me with that statement.

Thanks for posting, tremendous teaching. I like the way you deliver your thoughts (no arrogance ). Also agree THAT Nikola Tesla was the true GENIUS of the day. Best regards.

The new James Webb telescope images Wal Thornhill shared were pretty compelling for the Electric Universe hypothesis.

Gravity is as gravity does. Gravity is a box of chocolates, you never know what mass your going to get... Do I sound as ridiculous as a member of the cult of bumping particles yet? I'm sure I can get peer reviews.

So magnets with opposite polarity, when facing each other create a discharge in between them "space" which causes the magnet to move to the area without charge. Equal polarity magnets facing each other create an area of charge which creates resistance. The Earth spinning would be caused by the "poles" creating areas of charge and discharge kind of like a rail gun or the magnetic launch system on an aircraft carrier?

@lucasljs1545

Жыл бұрын

Earth doesn't spin, it was proved by the experiment measuring the speed of earth relatively to the Aether. If you accept the aether and believe the earth spins you are either too innocent, or a shill.

Gravity's influence on mass can be described mathematically but to make it into something is likely wrong. The same goes for light.

Seems to me that gravity is nothing more than the flow aether, the base energy/unit of the universe, acting on a unit of matter with mass kind of like a leaf in a stream. I find it interesting people still have problems reconciling why acceleration/deceleration creates "G-forces" and how velocity affects mass. If people started thinking about aether and apply it to the problem, oh so many answers could be had.

@alderwolf7687

Жыл бұрын

@@bobann3566 I said "kind of like" not "like". I see aether sharing many properties of liquids and gases in how it behaves while displaying other attributes that completely turn's conventional logic on its head then bangs it against the wall.

@tinyear926

Жыл бұрын

If inertia exists in the horizontal plane, why not in the vertical plane. A free falling body has no resistance to falling freely. If no resistance is put up by a body in free fall is there a force acting upon a free falling body? If no force acts upon a free falling body(such as a body in orbit) how can G having no force make Mass rotate indefinitely such a planets around the sun. “Force is proportional to the product of two masses divided by the square of their separation” F∝Mm/R^2 Let that sink in for a moment: here a Force is defined as “square-kilograms per square-meters”kg^2/m^2…. and what might a square kilogram be for chrissake? Well, that’s only the proportionality you might say, there is the factor [G] missing which puts everything to right…. so now it is proposed to turn a meaningless unit [kg^2/m^2] into a meaningful unit [kgm/s^2] by multiplying it with another meaningless unit: that of “the inverse of the product of density and time squared” [m^3/kgs^2] Let’s compare that with another fundamental equation, but in contrast to the mess that is gravity, one that is really and fundamentally empirical and therefore holds up to close inspection - the gas equation: PV/N=kT Here we see that the Boltzmann constant [k] has a concrete physical meaning as the “energy content of temperature”: Joule per Kelvin, which makes the right term an energy term (J/K)xK=J. The left term is also an energy term, because in gases Pressure is Kinetic Energy times Number density, and thus KEx(N/V)x(V/N)=KE again in Joules [J]. This is how a physical expression should behave. In contrast to [k] the gravitational constant [G] makes no physical sense whatsoever, the product of density and time squared is not a physical species, nor is its inverse. Also, if [G] would be a real constant, it would be constant wouldn't it? you would be able to extract [G] from orbital equations of all planets and it must come out the same - being a constant, now wouldn't it have to? well, let’s try: For an orbiting planet the centrifugal force (F=mv^2/r) balances the centripetal force(F=GMm/r^2), (as per NASA, not my invention) from which we can derive an expression for the conversion factor [G] F = m･v^2/r = G･Mm/r^2 → G = r･v^2/M☉ For an orbiting planet Kepler’s harmony T^2∝r^3 produces another expression for [G] F = mv^2/r = GMm/r^2 with v=2πr/T → G = (4π^2/M☉)･(r^3/T^2)･ → G∝r^3/T^2 With this, a mathematician like Newton should have immediately pulled the emergency break, because the observed r^3/T^2 never produced a constant. This shows clearly that the Kepler/Newton system is deeply flawed, but let’s now with very “updated” numbers from NASA check if the value for [G] really represents a constant conversion factor: it should ALWAYS come out at 6.674x10^-11 but…… Mercury: G=v^2･r/M=47400^2 x5.79x10^10/1.9x10^30=6.540x10^-11 Venus: G=6.663x10^-11 Earth: G=6.679x10^-11 Mars: G=6.654x10^-11 Jupiter: G=6.717x10^-11 Saturn: G=6.781x10^-11 Uranus: G=6.677x10^-11 Neptune: G=6.590x10^-11 Pluto: G=6.559x10^-11 As we see, [G] fluctuates wildly between planets and this means that mathematically centripetal forces and centrifugal forces are NOT equal and opposite and thus orbits cannot be balanced. For different planets that failure to balance plays out differently: Mercury☿: F(centripetal)=G☿M☉xM☿/r^2=1.3067x10^22 and F(centrifugal)= M☿v^2/r=1.2805x10^22….. and Mercury would crash Venus: 5.522/5.513…… and Venus would crash Earth: 3.541/3.543…… and Earth would flee orbit Mars: 1.6408/1.6361…… and Mars would crash Jupiter: 4.1561/4.1833…… and Jupiter would flee Saturn: 3.669/3.7281 …… and Saturn would flee Uranus: 1.3964/1.3972 …… and Uranus would flee Neptune: 6.7011/6.6168 …… and Neptune would crash Pluto: 5.5556/5.4604 …… and Pluto would crash So we see that the Newtonian model fails even where it should be watertight, and that is pure mathematics. What is never attempted though - and that would be the job of teachers - is to understand the problem with gravity as Newtonian force intuitively: on the contrary, teachers only compound the confusion in order to uphold a failed model at all costs.

This is one of your finest videos Ken, many thanks indeed for sharing this knowledge, best regards to you Gareth (Cardiff, UK).

Absolutely clear! Thank you for your very important perspective. You've probably already covered what Bearden calls the "Charge problem" meaning that charge has not been defined by conventional physics. Could you please elaborate on how a charge can perpetually emit EM energy.

Glad you understand the gravity of the situation 🙏 🤣

@guldukat6749

Жыл бұрын

just awful

Ken, get yourself onto the Lex Fridman podcast please. Your yoda level knowledge is needed by the world. Contact him. You two will have a great chat.

How much energy could we get from tuning a rectenna to the earths resonant frequency. I know the antenna would have to be thousands of miles long.

@ScubaDracula

Жыл бұрын

👍

Not bad, I read that Tesla said we fall towards the Negative polarity. After exposing the source of the quote on Tesla Universe site. Some time later went back and the quote was removed. Exciting times.

When the force vector (magnetism) reach its gradient and start to accelerate back, does it then ”become” dielectricity? This is one thing I dont really understand, logical it should be since its just one feild. Please give me the answer for this.

@klassemyra

Жыл бұрын

@@bobann3566 Thanks, but I know and understand all this. Non of that really answer my questien. I think I know the answer but I would like Ken to answer. I would like to know if he stills calls the accelerating returning magnetic field a magnetic field or is it now the dielectric field. Because the magnetic field must at some point reach its force gradient and start accelerating back.

Hello Ken. I have never heard the term "Dielectricity" (correct my spelling if it's wrong), could you tell me what you mean by it?

So how can earth orbit anything if it's only attracted to it's null point? Is the null point moving?

@AstralApple

Ай бұрын

Flerf ftw

Acceleration and gravity are effects or results of something. My view: the aether. Matter/mass pushes the aether aside to make room for the matter/mass. The aether pushes back. Near in towards the matter/mass the aether becomes more dense and less permeable. The dense aether and its push back against the matter/mass is what we call gravity. The Michelson Morley experiment failed to show the aether wind because the denser aether near in to the matter/mass was stationary, sticking to the matter/mass. Had the MnM experiment been done in deep space, the wind would have had a better chance of being seen.

Ken I learned physics from you. I kid you not it took me watching a year of your physics videos to begin comprehend what you are talking about. I started to comprehend literally in November 2021. I didn't fathom that EVERYTHING I was taught about physics was wrong, that's the real hindering reason.

@lovablelycan

Жыл бұрын

Holy god woman please save yourself and stop subscribing to this lunatics ideas

@rammingspeed4941

Жыл бұрын

Wanna become friends?

@jaydenwilson9522

Жыл бұрын

deprogramming is way harder than learning.... kids are lucky but we adults/teens gotta work twice as hard lol

@narutoroxanne22

Жыл бұрын

@@jaydenwilson9522 That is true! I'm so happy I go through it. I'm so happy I persisted with Ken's content. And the glossary of terms he put out helped a lot. I printed them out!

@jaydenwilson9522

Жыл бұрын

@@narutoroxanne22 i barely know what the f^$& his talking about but the more terminology i google and concepts/theories I research the more general understanding I have... but between the consa QED paper and relativity proving to not be fundamental we're living in an exciting time rn lol can't wait to see if gravity inversion and zero-point energy are really impossible or not, and if we can find a new explanation for the movement of outer rim planets in galaxies other than dark energy, etc. then I'm all for it!

Why is Buoyancy and density "ludicrous"...any references or videos on that?

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

its flatearth nonsense ROFL

@beautheory6047

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom the Lorenz equations describe differential equations of pressure, buoyancy and density

@lucasljs1545

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom but if you believe in ball earth nonsense you need to accept their gravity, since the ball is theirs. You are using their model and removing their laws, it makes no sense.

@alienscientist8893

Жыл бұрын

@@beautheory6047 Archemedies explains buoyancy, it's how they build boats. They generally don't sink so it works. There's no flat pancake earth floating, this is insane.

@jaykay9286

5 ай бұрын

​@@kathodosdotcom What about barometric pressure with relationship to the aether?? The force is pushing us down rather than pulling us in?? Any thoughts?

What forces act on the center of the earth? The accepted theory is the center is under a tremendous amount of pressure due to the weight of all the mass around it being pulled to the center. But as you approach the center, the mass decreases, and there should be no gravity at the center of the earth, therefore no pressure.

Down is down. There is no gravity. We are not being sucked onto the surface around a ball.

@MychelleSeymourHeyyouremember

Жыл бұрын

Agree

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

sorry you forgot to use your head buddy, but the PHENOMENA called gravity exists, unless you think nothing happens jumping off a ladder etc

@MychelleSeymourHeyyouremember

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom But what if we are falling to the bottom? 😳. If we dig further down and jump in... we will also fall down. 🤔

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

youre leaving out the INVISIBLE causation between two or more objects :)

@Rachie-nj3oi

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom jump of a ladder half way underwater what happens?

What an awesome video! Thank you! 😎👍🏼

Thanks Ken 👏

How much capacitance would be between the space of 93000,000 miles?

Space is a modality of matter. Ether is more dense than the gasious and liquid modalities of matter. Therefore dielectric acceleration (ether contraction, or gravity)effects solids w/ in these modalities…. There is no way to get there with the currently accepted physics definitions and equations, since the first equation defines force as it opposite which is inertial acceleration the force is only potential until instantaneous transfer (force) occurs. I will redefine everything for y’all this fall and go from newton to dollard taking wheeler’s understanding into account from first definition.

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

matter is a light modality, space is the after-effect of a divergent magnetic field, so thats not the case

@lucasljs1545

Жыл бұрын

@@kathodosdotcom matter is the modality of Plasma, Plasma is the modality of Light, and Light is the modality of Aether.

Thanks Ken. I was waiting for this video...

The most sensible theory I've heard is it is caused by a dying beachball sized black hole in the center of the planet... also known as the black sun in so many indigenous cultures. I first heard this from Nassim Haramein. lol 💖🙏🌻

@illicit008

4 ай бұрын

I wonder if this black hole is like your consciousness?

Phenomena Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da Phenomena Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da Phenomena Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da Da-da-da-da-da-da, da-da-da-da

@davidharris7431

Жыл бұрын

Well done. Now I can't get that out of my head .

@the51project

Жыл бұрын

@@davidharris7431 Da-da-da-da-da-da

@davidharris7431

Жыл бұрын

@@the51project da da da da da da eh eh eh eh TEQUILA da da da da da take that lol ....

Gravity is the invisible phenomenon perpetually created by the core of rhe earth. No one to this day has explained what the core of the earth is made of. Why don't we discuss that? It would aid us in our understanding of what gravity truly is.

@saltybits9954

3 ай бұрын

According to the useful idiots the core is solid Iron, Nickel etc....

"Dissatisfaction is the motor of the Universe" hmm, can't remember who to attribute that quote to.... Cheers!🍻

So, when I rise each morning I'm creating Anti-Gravity?

@ScubaDracula

Жыл бұрын

That's flatty power right there! 😉

@TRINITY4MAN

Жыл бұрын

@@ScubaDracula was thinking of you last night bro.

I like the shirt. I enjoy your videos, they are a breath of fresh air.

Awesome... maybe next time you can explain gravity.

I love it when something finally clicks.

The Electric Universe people have a Leviathan by the tail. That is, they are mining a rather large vein of gold.

I think space is made up of microscopic mass, electric and magnetic particles. Similar particles like to stick together. This produces field around mass and charges. When fields of masses or charges interact they change density of space b/w them. This moves them towards or away from each other. In case of mass space density b/w masses is reduced. Same is the case for opposite charges. For like charges the density increases which move like charges away from each other.

@icestationzebra7415

Жыл бұрын

Space is fake. No one has bèn thru the firmament

Im gonna binge your video until you're genius ideas compute in my laymen brain.

When examining the torus ( toroid ) and the paraboloid ( parabola ) I imagined a bowl shaped field, the ratio of size at large [ mouth ] to the small [ point / tip ] that point / tip being shared / mutual acting as common / shared for an opposite or opposed bowl. Both bowls being flexible fields may rock back and forth at a frequency or fully rotate about the point / tip being shared / mutual acting as common / shared " point / tip being shared / mutual acting as common / shared point " which must carry an opposite charge large [ mouth ] . Sorry it not so easy for me to explain as it is for me to visualise.

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

i said hyperboloid

@tinyear926

Жыл бұрын

“Force is proportional to the product of two masses divided by the square of their separation” F∝Mm/R^2 Let that sink in for a moment: here a Force is defined as “square-kilograms per square-meters”kg^2/m^2…. and what might a square kilogram be for chrissake? Well, that’s only the proportionality you might say, there is the factor [G] missing which puts everything to right…. so now it is proposed to turn a meaningless unit [kg^2/m^2] into a meaningful unit [kgm/s^2] by multiplying it with another meaningless unit: that of “the inverse of the product of density and time squared” [m^3/kgs^2] Let’s compare that with another fundamental equation, but in contrast to the mess that is gravity, one that is really and fundamentally empirical and therefore holds up to close inspection - the gas equation: PV/N=kT Here we see that the Boltzmann constant [k] has a concrete physical meaning as the “energy content of temperature”: Joule per Kelvin, which makes the right term an energy term (J/K)xK=J. The left term is also an energy term, because in gases Pressure is Kinetic Energy times Number density, and thus KEx(N/V)x(V/N)=KE again in Joules [J]. This is how a physical expression should behave. In contrast to [k] the gravitational constant [G] makes no physical sense whatsoever, the product of density and time squared is not a physical species, nor is its inverse. Also, if [G] would be a real constant, it would be constant wouldn't it? you would be able to extract [G] from orbital equations of all planets and it must come out the same - being a constant, now wouldn't it have to? well, let’s try: For an orbiting planet the centrifugal force (F=mv^2/r) balances the centripetal force(F=GMm/r^2), (as per NASA, not my invention) from which we can derive an expression for the conversion factor [G] F = m･v^2/r = G･Mm/r^2 → G = r･v^2/M☉ For an orbiting planet Kepler’s harmony T^2∝r^3 produces another expression for [G] F = mv^2/r = GMm/r^2 with v=2πr/T → G = (4π^2/M☉)･(r^3/T^2)･ → G∝r^3/T^2 With this, a mathematician like Newton should have immediately pulled the emergency break, because the observed r^3/T^2 never produced a constant. This shows clearly that the Kepler/Newton system is deeply flawed, but let’s now with very “updated” numbers from NASA check if the value for [G] really represents a constant conversion factor: it should ALWAYS come out at 6.674x10^-11 but…… Mercury: G=v^2･r/M=47400^2 x5.79x10^10/1.9x10^30=6.540x10^-11 Venus: G=6.663x10^-11 Earth: G=6.679x10^-11 Mars: G=6.654x10^-11 Jupiter: G=6.717x10^-11 Saturn: G=6.781x10^-11 Uranus: G=6.677x10^-11 Neptune: G=6.590x10^-11 Pluto: G=6.559x10^-11 As we see, [G] fluctuates wildly between planets and this means that mathematically centripetal forces and centrifugal forces are NOT equal and opposite and thus orbits cannot be balanced. For different planets that failure to balance plays out differently: Mercury☿: F(centripetal)=G☿M☉xM☿/r^2=1.3067x10^22 and F(centrifugal)= M☿v^2/r=1.2805x10^22….. and Mercury would crash Venus: 5.522/5.513…… and Venus would crash Earth: 3.541/3.543…… and Earth would flee orbit Mars: 1.6408/1.6361…… and Mars would crash Jupiter: 4.1561/4.1833…… and Jupiter would flee Saturn: 3.669/3.7281 …… and Saturn would flee Uranus: 1.3964/1.3972 …… and Uranus would flee Neptune: 6.7011/6.6168 …… and Neptune would crash Pluto: 5.5556/5.4604 …… and Pluto would crash So we see that the Newtonian model fails even where it should be watertight, and that is pure mathematics. What is never attempted though - and that would be the job of teachers - is to understand the problem with gravity as Newtonian force intuitively: on the contrary, teachers only compound the confusion in order to uphold a failed model at all costs.

@zbnmth

Жыл бұрын

@@tinyear926 did you check for significant digits?

@tinyear926

Жыл бұрын

@@zbnmth lol like the number 6?

Okay I am going to have a crack at this. We all use language to try and communicate what we think and or observe in this reality, quite often we lack the words to describe what we are trying to communicate to one another and often end up with incomplete sentences which makes it very difficult to accurately describe or find the cause of certain phenomena. If we are to try and make things simple with simplex explanations we can miss something, if we try and make it to complex we often end up creating other logic problems. So I will try for somewhere in the middle of simplex and complex. Gravity is just a word we tie to a phenomena in an attempt to explain and or understand it. If we want to try to explain the cause of the phenomena we observe as so called Gravity, it is just as easy to say it is either a fall or rise of any given object within a surrounding medium and its relation to the surrounding medium. This can be furthered by saying every thing seeks to find equilibrium within a medium. This realities mediums determine the relationship to any given object and what direction of movement it will move in, in order to seek equilibrium. IF we are to say it is buoyancy and density that is an incomplete sentence. To complete the sentence it would be more accurate to say, the density of an object within a medium is related to its buoyancy within the medium. If the medium is more dense than the object in it, the object will move upwards to seek equilibrium or if it is less dense the object will move downwards to seek equilibrium because that IS the nature of the reality we live in. There are only two continuous direction away from stationary which are up and down and therefore two actions, rise or fall. A deep thinker might ask but WHY down or up? I would answer because those ARE the only options. Just like many other things there are three states, just like the water example of gas, liquid or solid, steam, water and Ice. There is three states of equilibrium being stable, neutral and unstable, So to conclude any given object in our reality is either stable neutral or unstable depending on the surrounding medium and the result will be the object moving in one of the only two options it has or staying exactly where it is. You can also look at it as charge, neutral or discharge it doesn't really matter. Its all just attempts to put to words what things do in this reality. Some things are just unsearchable and that's a fact. Maybe if people were to humble themselves and seek God rather than the answers to unsearchable or unknowable things about our reality they my sleep better at night. If it really bugs you, finding God and belief in the supernatural may just be the answer you are looking for when it comes to subjects like this and hey, then at some stage if you haven't found peace with it, you can ask God what the answer truly is! ( waiting for the claim that I just spouted a bunch of word salad but I know I am going to sleep just fine ) Peace out 😊

Capacitance: The smaller the space, the higher the capacitance, the more energy it possesses. Reason being, the wave form is changing more quickly from sub to super (analogy). What's more disturbing? a 20 cycle hum or a shrieking 10,000 cycle scream? The quicker it modulates, the more damage it can do in a smaller space. When the wave is sufficiently small it doubles back on it's self. A torus is born and matter is created.

So is charge & discharge, causing the apparent movement? When a spaceship opens a window, everything loose moves to fill the discharged space? Is the planet earth discharging space then? Or is earth charged? Explain why the charge is moving to fill the charge on earth and to fill the discharged in space.

The natural phenomenon that cannot be duplicated and any way with any combination of masses. A gravity tethered orbit is impossible.

I really liked the chart that you created on 'the science' Ken and enjoy your videos and understanding of metaphysics particularly. I noticed that there is now some ridiculous campaign against you on Google- "Ken Wheeler is wrong about '/ Ken Wheeler is wrong about this and that etc. Keep up the good work because those articles are absolute ctap and it's pretty obvious that they don't know much of anything.

What are your thoughts on scaler waves or your description of how they are created and their properties?

Billy asked me How does water travel uphill on a ball, vertical ? 👍☸️

Would not the Djed be stacked hyperboloids?... Took some great notes... Great gratitude brother!.. ❤⚖🪶

Thank you

I would love to grt your take on the ancient stone cutting techniques, softening of stone and geo-polymer used in the Puma Punku in South America and the Egyptian high tech

I have followed you for years Love your work show me your experiment for gravity

The logical question to me is , why given the presence of a single mass does the sudden presence of the other cause this disturbance in the Ether resulting in said acceleration . Why does it take two to tango , so to speak . It cannot be simply because of imbalance in mediation considering two identical masses react the same . Frankly I think Tesla and Euler were both on to something stating that the masses are being struck externally . Is that external pressure the magnetic force that creates the space itself ?🤔

Is gravity part of the electromagnetic spectrum? Nature has worked wonders with electromagnetics. There is a big balancing act going on covering all manner of things. A number of different elements that can create endless possibilities. Space trapped in a magnet. The porthole for life. Chance or not, life still came through? The figureheads of ancestors here today. Protectives shells that bring you through extremes. Adaptations as environments change. Is the porthole of life a two way thing? Is the mass part of spaces property? Does a galaxy hoover up properties of space (like a plankton hoovering whale) and create the mass's we see.

@Rich13571113

Жыл бұрын

The base aether (zeroth dimension), which provides the attribute of spatial acceleration for massive bodies (gravity) is not part of the EM spectrum, but rather its source. Voidance of the base aether by the electron and the outer shell of the proton are responsible for charge, which in turn is the medium of the EM spectrum. Gamma rays accelerated beyond the rate of induction of free space take a curved path, and with enough additional energy wrap back upon themselves to become resonant entities we call electrons. Bashing enough of such entities together in the right way can even get you to the creation of protons. These are all just different echelons of the same phenomena, or aether modalities as Ken likes to call them. Simplex, but not simple in the least.

@narutoroxanne22

Жыл бұрын

Gravity is dielectricity, which comes before the formation of electromagnetism.

@lucasljs1545

Жыл бұрын

Gravity is the motion the Aether does in the direction of the floor. Anything other than that I think is pure BS. Nothing moves downwards, the base motion or vibration of the Aether transport things with it, but this base motion is weak, so other things like density will most of the time take precedence making things float.

I belive it's a summation of different chiral states that interect at a finite point which invaritably leads to an 'absolute reference' point. Sort of like how we reach 'absolute zero', but with varying spacial forces instead of just focusing on the one that makes 'cold'. Cold can be considered a reference for example, as some things become 'transatory' in states when heat or cold is applied, like water and ice for example. My belief is 'space' moves the same way, and matter is the summation of states which give rise to matter and it's properties. In terms of gravity, this is a resultant effect of invariances in space thats layered which ultimately favors a certain chirality at its core.I had a lot of time thinking about this while driving or I could've watched too much Star Trek while drinking... Also, I beilieve that 'shape' is the true 4th dimension, bit that's another discussion I think.

Earths surface has a “negative” charge and objects/people experiencing “gravity” on earth are “positively” charged?

@4v4t4rmusic

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrick2129 ah I get it now. It’s not that…. Thanks

A bit off topic, but an engineer of jet engines claims that suction is not a thing, that it's caused by the pushing of air, which I found odd because like the combustion engine, our body is designed around the ability to inhale in order for it to function. Not having attended medical school, my guess is this suction, is indeed a thing, regardless of how it's described by physics. Would you not agree?

@burtpanzer

Жыл бұрын

@@rrrick2129 When you inhale, air is not being pushed into the lungs, it is drawn in by design, of which the entire functionality is dependent upon.

Is charge destroying Space or Ether? Are these distinctly different concepts?

🎶“Gravity! The Big G!!”🎶 ~ James Brown

"Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force", Haisch, Phys. Rev. A, V.49, N.2, 1994.

Where does charge come from?

@AstralApple

Ай бұрын

I think charge comes from necessitative incommensurability of pressure reciprocation in magnetic flow as magnetism gets sucked into an etheric sink hole to accord ether recharging.

What about barometric pressure with relationship to the aether?? The force is pushing us down rather than pulling us in?? Any thoughts?

a sound force cause of mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (such as air) and is the objective cause of hearing. Causing a periodic motion of the particles of an elastic body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed (as when a stretched cord produces musical tones or molecules in the air transmit sounds to the ear) In layman terms, Sound causes a vibration (waves) that produces energy (force). Gravity. Think in terms of Energy. Frequency, and Vibration. In order to defy gravity, you must learn to resonate equal to or greater than the frequency causing the applied force. Hence an opera singer disturbs the frequency holding the crystal glass particles together causing a separation of the particles by the higher frequency.

🤯 You’re amazing!

so i got a question then. Are we heavier on Jupiter and lighter on pluto?

what about density ? i take 1kg of oil and 10gm of water what happen water go to the bottom and 1kg of oil are on top why gravity dosent push water

Thanks for sharing

Very interesting, thanks. Even tho I dont know all the words used, I could follow you. Toroide or donut, does the center touch/point or is there a gap. Sorry, that probably makes no sense lol

So motion or acceleration/intertia between charge/discharge causes gravity? And gravity distorts the perceptual lens giving the appearance of curvature ?

If you read all comments, I hope you read this one. I suggest you watch some videos from the channel titled Cosmic Agency. Fascinating material sir. Enjoy your videos and take on things.

What is space?vaccum superfluid, Im leaning towards superfluid. Also can we stars in free space or only when grossmatter involved . Also the moon is it really 240,000 miles away.

I am currently gathering my quarks, bosons, and virtual photons. They all smell like the number 7 and bend my personal space. If it breaks, I will have to gluon it back together. 🙄

Would displacement be a good comparison?

So is there less gravity on the moon and more on a large planet or gas giant like jupiter ? does that equate to more charge (energy ?) needed to separate (create space) something sitting on the surface of jupiter (assuming it has some sort of surface) compared to the moon - in the same way that it's easier to separate two weak magnets compared to two strong magnets. This might be a dumb question but my head hurts - Is there any way that this could be measured or visualized i.e. the creation of space between two objects.

@kathodosdotcom

Жыл бұрын

you failed to ask yourself what the motion of capacitance (charge) is.

Ok easy. So space doesn’t exist or at least has no properties. Counterspace is force = mass minus acceleration which doesn’t exist. Magnetism generates space which has no properties And Mother Earth is a dirty hippie girl. I don’t know why people have so much trouble understanding what he’s saying. Makes perfect sense to me 🤪

“Force is proportional to the product of two masses divided by the square of their separation” F∝Mm/R^2 Let that sink in for a moment: here a Force is defined as “square-kilograms per square-meters”kg^2/m^2…. and what might a square kilogram be for chrissake? Well, that’s only the proportionality you might say, there is the factor [G] missing which puts everything to right…. so now it is proposed to turn a meaningless unit [kg^2/m^2] into a meaningful unit [kgm/s^2] by multiplying it with another meaningless unit: that of “the inverse of the product of density and time squared” [m^3/kgs^2] Let’s compare that with another fundamental equation, but in contrast to the mess that is gravity, one that is really and fundamentally empirical and therefore holds up to close inspection - the gas equation: PV/N=kT Here we see that the Boltzmann constant [k] has a concrete physical meaning as the “energy content of temperature”: Joule per Kelvin, which makes the right term an energy term (J/K)xK=J. The left term is also an energy term, because in gases Pressure is Kinetic Energy times Number density, and thus KEx(N/V)x(V/N)=KE again in Joules [J]. This is how a physical expression should behave. In contrast to [k] the gravitational constant [G] makes no physical sense whatsoever, the product of density and time squared is not a physical species, nor is its inverse. Also, if [G] would be a real constant, it would be constant wouldn't it? you would be able to extract [G] from orbital equations of all planets and it must come out the same - being a constant, now wouldn't it have to? well, let’s try: For an orbiting planet the centrifugal force (F=mv^2/r) balances the centripetal force(F=GMm/r^2), (as per NASA, not my invention) from which we can derive an expression for the conversion factor [G] F = m･v^2/r = G･Mm/r^2 → G = r･v^2/M☉ For an orbiting planet Kepler’s harmony T^2∝r^3 produces another expression for [G] F = mv^2/r = GMm/r^2 with v=2πr/T → G = (4π^2/M☉)･(r^3/T^2)･ → G∝r^3/T^2 With this, a mathematician like Newton should have immediately pulled the emergency break, because the observed r^3/T^2 never produced a constant. This shows clearly that the Kepler/Newton system is deeply flawed, but let’s now with very “updated” numbers from NASA check if the value for [G] really represents a constant conversion factor: it should ALWAYS come out at 6.674x10^-11 but…… Mercury: G=v^2･r/M=47400^2 x5.79x10^10/1.9x10^30=6.540x10^-11 Venus: G=6.663x10^-11 Earth: G=6.679x10^-11 Mars: G=6.654x10^-11 Jupiter: G=6.717x10^-11 Saturn: G=6.781x10^-11 Uranus: G=6.677x10^-11 Neptune: G=6.590x10^-11 Pluto: G=6.559x10^-11 As we see, [G] fluctuates wildly between planets and this means that mathematically centripetal forces and centrifugal forces are NOT equal and opposite and thus orbits cannot be balanced. For different planets that failure to balance plays out differently: Mercury☿: F(centripetal)=G☿M☉xM☿/r^2=1.3067x10^22 and F(centrifugal)= M☿v^2/r=1.2805x10^22….. and Mercury would crash Venus: 5.522/5.513…… and Venus would crash Earth: 3.541/3.543…… and Earth would flee orbit Mars: 1.6408/1.6361…… and Mars would crash Jupiter: 4.1561/4.1833…… and Jupiter would flee Saturn: 3.669/3.7281 …… and Saturn would flee Uranus: 1.3964/1.3972 …… and Uranus would flee Neptune: 6.7011/6.6168 …… and Neptune would crash Pluto: 5.5556/5.4604 …… and Pluto would crash So we see that the Newtonian model fails even where it should be watertight, and that is pure mathematics. What is never attempted though - and that would be the job of teachers - is to understand the problem with gravity as Newtonian force intuitively: on the contrary, teachers only compound the confusion in order to uphold a failed model at all costs.

@RPGHouseFabricator

Жыл бұрын

I think the problem might be that when a person moves from mathematics, geometry, and kinematics into physics, one important thing is left out: consciousness. Modern 'science' denies its existence and brainwashes people to think there is no independent consciousness. For example, Dr. F. referring to humans as a 'herd'. Steiner talks about the transition into physics in a lecture given on Dec 23, 1919, found under the title The Light Course.

@tinyear926

Жыл бұрын

@@RPGHouseFabricator "I think the problem might be that when a person moves from mathematics, geometry, and kinematics into physics, one important thing is left out:" Geometry and Kinematics are spacial concepts, which have no actual relationship with, DYNAMICS.

@RPGHouseFabricator

Жыл бұрын

@@tinyear926 Yes, and because our 'empirical facts' are built on the foundations of concepts, they crumble. Ken is right that mother nature is simple, but he still avoids the topic of consciousness as you did. Why?

@tinyear926

Жыл бұрын

@@RPGHouseFabricator Consciousness is all there is, and we can talk about that until the cows come home and never arrive at an agreement. If you skip past the material we find the immaterial(ether). Consciousness is the ether and the memory of all life is stored in itself. DonJuan(Carlos Castaneda) said the universe is made of filaments that stretch in every direction for infinity and these filaments are conscious and self aware in a way inhumanly impossible to understand. Our job is to bring Heaven to Earth and we achieve this by understanding nature. We live in a realm not a cosmos.

@RPGHouseFabricator

Жыл бұрын

@@tinyear926 Beautiful! Separate Reality and Second Ring of Power were my favorite. The works of Theun Mares, especially his Dragon Lore book, I also relate to. I very much like your thinking, maybe we will meet out and about. Keep up the good work like you posted above. Excellent arguments and examples.

Love your shirt Ken 🤣

Jealousy manifests as personal attacks?😆🤔great shirt😊thanks for your patience in explaining😊it works!😊

The conclusion trap.. usually, ppl are so focused on the answer that they fail to ask the right question

I was never a good student, but i was always fascinated by physics. For past 10 years, i have been watching A LOT of science/physics videos, reading wikipedia articles, white papers etc... Couple of years back, i came to a conclusion that atoms are not particles, but vibrating fields, and then i learned that is actually the case, we were just tought wrong. My research lead me to stuff that dont make sence to me, like dark matter and dark energy (witch now i think is just BS). I came to this conclusion because a lot of stuff in the literature is basically like "trust me bro, its true", but we havent yet proven this, but its 100% correct because so and so said something in the past, and god forbid they were wrong, and the current experiments are ALLMOST confirming it... long story short... thank you, bold tattoed guy, for oppening a new avenue of research for me. not a native eng speaker. thank you for reading through my spelling mistakes.

Good job bud love the explanation 👍 👌 👏 😀

Right it’s what you don’t see. It’s like everyone’s looking for something I. The wrong spot and because that they’ll never find it because they think the “know”

Gravity does not exist at all. There is just the ground (negative) as you rise up there is a positive charge ever increasing. Densities sort the rest out

What do Religous Types Think of Garavity - I know some people who think the World is Flat. 80 year old Man and His Son as an example.

@yingyang1008

Жыл бұрын

looks flat to me

I do follow thunderbolts electric universe project. They laughingly reference " gravity ". Electric circuits creating Magnetism along with plasma are more their thing.

Gravity to us is the sky falling. Atoms are little storms kept alive by space falling into them. If you throw a twig in the river it will go downstream. If you throw it into the sky it will also go downstream in space.

@johnrobinson5269

Жыл бұрын

Space is completely undetectable by us and yet in its concentrated form it comprises all we know of as reality.