Models of Gravity and Misconception of Aether

When you talk about "gravity" with people, what specifically do you mean?

Have to give an accurate definition based upon a given model or combinations thereof in order to do a question justice.

It is known what gravity does. No one is denying that when you jump up, you come back down.
But it's the mechanism that is not understood and the explanations for why and how that happens that are not complete.

So... do you mean Newtons model which says gravity is a force? That mass attracts mass (without any electric influence)?
"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses..." --Newton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Or are you speaking according to Einstein?
(who said gravity is not a force ... but rather is the curvature of space-time itself)

No attraction, no pull, exerting no work whatsoever.
Like a bowling ball on a mattress. The curve in the mattress does not exert any force on anything else on the mattress.
(or above/ around the mattress).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Or are you saying gravity is more like what Nicolas Fatio and Georges LeSage speculated, with ultra fine particles of matter subject to Casimir like forces?

Casimir Effect:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Or are you saying gravity is more like a push from the outside rather than a pull from the core like Walter C. Wright's model?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLm4HarLq5a6LiPn7WSsjsdl-14Tm9f-5-

Gravity Is A Push:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_01ueS0Y28YQUdLa2NHeWFxdFk/view?usp=sharing

Or are you saying gravity is more like Aberration and Refraction of energies analogous to massless “gravitons” like Dr Edward Dowdye's explanations?

In which earth is rotating/ orbiting through, and immersed in/ cutting through energies at a constant rate around the Sun.
And the more energy dense the atmosphere of plasma surrounding a celestial body will amplify (or diminish) the effect at angles and tangents.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/topic_04.htm

(There can be No direct link between electromagnetism and gravity. ONLY Indirect.
All models or unified theories trying to bridge the 2 directly are futile and erroneous)

Optics, Electrodynamics & Gravitation based from Re-Worked classic physics/ Galilean Transformations under Euclidean Space:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/short_present/ViewGraph_English.pdf

Gauss’ Law of Gravity:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings02.htm

Inelastic collision and Conservation of Kinetic Energy
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindingsInelastic.htm

More regarding collisions and center of gravity.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/details08.htm

All the light you ever see is the re-emitted light from the electrons making up yourself.

All the gravity you ever experience is the re-emitted gravity from the electrons making up yourself.

Or are you saying gravity is an emergent phenomenon resulting from a secondary electrostatic force?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505194.pdf

Or are you saying gravity is like what Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and other Russian scientists have speculated?
That space, or rather, the energies IN space are LIKE a superfluid. Can't interact with it because there's no resistance with standard mass, pressure, voltage, etc.
It's AS IF there is emptiness between planets. But really it is more like an ocean.
(Dirac Sea/ All pervasive Electrostatic Influence)

The Russians scientists here speculate that space (or energies In space) behave like a crystalline superfluid.
And that the deformation of the crystalline-like nature of the surrounding pervasive energies is analogous to a gravitational influence.

Visualization from about 10 minutes 15 seconds to 15 minutes 15 seconds.
If you don’t speak Russian, put on the subtitles if you can.
If not.. put it on mute and just observe, digest and compare.

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov:
https://rumble.com/vdcupd-dr.-eugene-podkletnov-full-interview-rotating-superconductors.html

Gravity Impulse Generator:
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnovs-gravity-impulse-generator

Podkletnov Lawrence Livermore Labs:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005

Dr. Podkletnov describes his “force beam generator” experiment and his improvements to increase the experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated bypassing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field. He described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab as well as capable to punch holes in solid materials. After careful testing, Podkletnov found the speed of the impulse to be approx. 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates doesn't conflict with interpretations of Relativity.
(You cannot violate what doesn't apply)
https://web.archive.org/web/20170501005744/

“Someone in the laboratory was smoking and the smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. We placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect increased.”
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

“Podkletnov claims the gravitational beam is generated by a 3 to 5 megavolt drop onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, which is enclosed in a wrapped-solenoid to create a magnetic field around the apparatus.”
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnov-on-gravity-shielding

Pulses are powerful enough to punch through brick, concrete, and deform light-metals, "like hitting it with a sledgehammer".
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnovs-gravity-beam-generator

“The beam doesn't disappear rapidly with distance -- in fact, it’s been measured at distances of up to 5 kilometers and seems to penetrate all materials without a decrease in force.”
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity

Boeing and Podkletnov:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

NASA, Dr. Ning Li and Podkletnov/ Project GRASP

And again here by the ESA:
http://phys.org/news12054.html

They didn't have the superconductor in a cryostat or a magnetic field... yet, the article states:
“Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.”

Podkletnov says it does not violate relativity because it operates with in laws of absolute motion.
Not laws of relative motion.
.
.
.
So... what exactly do you mean by "gravity?"
Which particular model are you basing your statement on when you speak on a given example?

I personally think it is a multitude of factors and combination of these scenarios. And more.

I also think the rate of decay of the Sun's core in relation to the accelerated expansion of the Earth's core somehow generates "gravity" between those two bodies. From the sum and/or difference of the emissions between each body.

Pari Spolter has clues to this connection as well:

In addition... I feel that gravity might have a spectrum.
Not like fictional “gravitational waves” as LIGO fraudulently claimed. (Have volumes of info on that one)

So it wouldn’t just be as simple as Gravity/Anti-Gravity.
(anti implying a cancelation of gravity)

Or Gravity/Inverse Gravity
(implying a flipping of gravity like polarity... rather than a canceling)

But if Gravity had a spectrum, then lenses might effect the properties as they do with light.
But the lens in this case would be an energy dense plasma or extreme high voltage discharge.
(not necessarily arcing, but rather producing anomalous magnetic walls to contain certain forces – “Plasma Double Layers.”)
And simultaneously act as a lens to refract/ deflect or manipulate surrounding/ incoming “gravitons” (not particles) or specific spectra of gravity.

But generalizing and saying, "Gravity doesn't exist" is ineffective and an easy way to get people to stop listening to you.
Gravity obviously exists… But the mechanism by which it operates is not understood.
Semantics matters in the Scientific community.

I think there is a similarity between Illumination and Gravity.
It doesn't matter if a room is lit by a dim red light or a bright blue light or white light, etc.
The effect of Any range of Illumination allows you to observe the room in real time.

Just as it doesn't matter if a body is emitting different spectra of "gravitons"/ emissions.
The effect of Any range of gravity allows other bodies to be influenced.
Looking at gravity as being binary or "on or off" or positive/ negative doesn't cut it.
But Imagine if someone wasn't able to see ANY color. Just that illumination allows the observer to see in real time.

This is how the world views gravity currently. No discernment between wavelengths/ frequencies OF gravity. Which follow the same rules as light. And many people still have misconceptions of light.

Here is an excellent presentation regarding the gravitational potential of the Sun and refraction in space.
https://rumble.com/vbtco9-dr.-edward-dowdye-gravitational-potential-gradient-and-refraction-in-space.html

And a few of my own links with my own perspective on Gravity, Light, Space and Time:
Classic Physics vs Relativity
Reality vs Fiction

Part 1 - Light and Space
Re-Emissions and Dr. Edward Dowdye
https://rumble.com/vbs6cx-classic-physics-vs-relativity-history-examples-and-alternatives-jason-verbe.html

Part 2 - Time and Gravity
Real-Time vs Space-Time:
https://rumble.com/vbs6ir-gravity-and-time-classic-physics-vs-relativity-jason-verbelli.html

4 Minute Explanation Why Relativity Model of Gravity is Wrong compared to Classic Physics. Barycenter Delay vs. Instant Gravity
https://rumble.com/vbs65f-gravity-in-classic-physics-barycenter-delay-vs-relativity-space-time-curvat.html

.
.
.
MISCONCEPTION OF AETHER:
I used to believe in aether. But now I think… if you can define it, then it isn't aether.
I think aether is like the word quantum or magic
An esoteric and convenient copout to avoid talking about particle physics and dynamics on scales smaller than what Max Planck's models would allow. And charged particles below “ground states” that “shouldn’t be possible.”

Anything not understood is automatically labeled quantum or aether or magic, etc.

I think there are fine and ultra-fine particles of matter like what Nicolas Fatio and Georges LeSage speculated.

I think there are gases that pervade space that are not recognized.
Like what Walter Russell presented on his periodic chart from 1926.
Showing 24 elements before Hydrogen.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greeks thought plasma was Aether.
But as scientific understanding grew and tools evolved, our terminology advanced and understanding also grew.
So what used to be "aether" evolves into a now definable and a definitive variable.

I view Aether as being undefinable.
It’s debatable that even Nikola Tesla and Charles Steinmetz viewed an electrostatic field/ potential as being "the aether."
So, if there are particles not recognized... and gases not recognized… and an all pervasive plasma throughout the galaxy... and semantics about electrostatic influence...Then those are real factors that we can talk about. Therefore, the more we learn, the less "aether" plays any role. It’s not needed. Neither is dark matter... (and many other "modern" concepts based upon false premises)

Aether was proposed to try and explain how light propagates and how gravity influences over great distances.
So they thought a 3D mass displaces a "luminiferous aether".

Like how you sit in a bath tub and the water level rises in proportion.
They viewed gravity as being an instantaneous action as a result from a 3D mass displacing an aether media.
But there is no such media and gravity is not instant.

So in 1911, that 3D Aether media was replaced with a 4D curving space-time.
So instead of light propagating through "the aether"... they say it now propagates AROUND the curvature of space-time.
And they say the curvature of space-time is = gravity.

But none of that is real.
Light only refracts in space from the plasma around the surface of a star. Doesn't progressively "bend" away from a star.

And classic physics doesn't require ANY media for light or gravity to propagate.
So that's the error.
And your futile search for an explanation of a non-existent media.

All models based upon a 4D curving space-time or an Aether medium or any previous emissions theories are destined to oblivion.

DIFFERENT IONIZED GAS PLASMAS

Plasma in this context is ionized gas.
The 4th State of Matter.
Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma

There are many kinds of gaseous plasmas.
Hot plasma
Cold plasma
Luminous plasma
Dark plasma
Dusty plasma
Plasma double layers
Plasmoids
Hot and luminous plasma
Cold and luminous plasma
Hot and dark plasma
Cold and dark plasma

Hot and dusty plasma
Cold and dusty plasma

Hot and luminous dusty plasma
Cold and luminous dusty plasma

Hot and dark dusty plasma
Cold and dark dusty plasma

Alfven Waves
Birkeland Currents
Marklund Convection
And much more

Liquid and Solid Plasmas:
Not as commonly known. Only exists in EXTREME pressure states.
(You can exchange extreme pressure for extreme temperature and combinations of other extreme states to lower the amount of pressure needed or temp needed to render a metastable state)

A metal is technically any material that has its atoms sharing electrons since the atoms are so scrunched together.
Liquid metallic hydrogen can be considered a condensed matter plasma because it is compressed so much the entire sea of hexagonal lattice structure shares electrons throughout the lattice. And in that state, the liquid condensed matter can be considered a plasma.

The real phase diagram for hydrogen under extreme temperatures and pressures is not known, but it is something like figure 6 here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1856/941cedd16ed627b05c09db7eb25c1613cf3c.pdf

Supersolids and other exotic states of matter can be considered as solid plasmas as well.
So "plasma" is the 4th state of matter normally reserved for talking about ionized gases. But a condensed matter liquid or solid can indeed become an ionized metal under extreme conditions.
So the liquid metallic hydrogen might be considered a 5th state of matter. And the glassy solid metallic hydrogen might be considered as a 6th state of matter.
And under extreme pressures... chemical bonds can form from forcing constituents together so much. Bonds that could not normally exist outside of that high pressure state. Which additionally could be debated to be a 7th state of matter.

"Also, matter in the condensed state does not need enclosure to stay condensed. Metallic hydrogen made in the solar interior is thought to be metastable, like a diamond. Once made at high temperatures and pressures, it can come to the surface and remain stable even in the absence of external pressure.

A diamond does not revert back to graphite because one takes it out of a mine.
In any case, you are not dealing with liquified hydrogen, but metallic hydrogen. Still, for your information, in order to get condensed hydrogen one must either compress it OR liquify it as you can learn here: http://www.hysafe.org/download/997/brhs_ch1_fundamentals-version%201_0_1.pdf

You liquify hydrogen by lowering its temperature. What matters is the average kinetic energy in the system. In a gaseous mass of hydrogen at very cold temperatures near 0K, one will form condensed hydrogen-like clusters. That requires that the attractive Van der Waals forces between molecules is great enough to overcome any kinetic energy of motion that the molecules possess.

If it is great enough, you get condensation, pressure and enclosure has nothing to do with it. If the mass stays cold enough, it will remain in liquified state. If it gets large enough, internal pressure can cause it to convert to the metallic form.

One can argue over the details and their is much to consider, but the reality that the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and all alleged gas giants is comprised of condensed matter is something which only the indoctrinated can now deny." -- Stephen Crothers

Examples:

PLASMA PHYSICS

Plasma Physics Lawrence Livermore Labs:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/understanding-the-universe/plasma-physics

Plasma Physics - University of Boulder, Colorado:
https://www.colorado.edu/physics/research/plasma-physics

University of Michigan - Parker Satellite Mystery - Alfven Waves:
https://news.umich.edu/solving-the-suns-super-heating-mystery-with-parker-solar-probe/

Plasma Physics - Max Planck Institute:
https://www.mpg.de/plasma-physics

Princeton Plasma Physics:
https://www.pppl.gov/about/fusion-basics

University of California Irvine UCI:
https://www.physics.uci.edu/research/plasma

Harvard Plasma Physics/ Bostick:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6...87B/0000096I033.html

Plasma Double Layers:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma_physics