Academic Gravity Theory

Gravity lensed_quasar_2

Academic Gravitational Lensing, Warping Space? Or, is it the Electric “Optical” Lensing of Electric Star Light along the Curved Electrical Pressure Gradients (lenses) of a Galaxy’s Plasma Wave-field?

The Death of “Academic” Gravitational Lensing

YouTube link: Immanuel Velikovsky defies academic gravity model for the E.U.M.

 His Greatest heresy was to object to the academic gravity model! At 24:24 Velikovsky reveals that he debated einstein for 18 months and the subject was always einstein’s gravity based models vs. Velikovsky’s belief that we live in an Electro-Magnetic Universe. Turns out Velikovsky was right about many of his predictions because he was working a sane Cosmology instead of academic theories.

Cosmologies of newton, einstein/hawking disproven with Plasma Physics

Since the time of Ptolemy, great imaginary license has been exercised by mathematicians, from sir isaac newton’slaw of universal gravitation, to einstein’s  use of  a “cosmological constant“.  The math of academic science has been “fudged” many times, so much so,  that the entire foundation of the physical sciences can be proven to be filled with illogical ideas, due to the fraudulent mythematics and  faulty reasoning upon which they are founded. 

The addition of  “disposable constants”  to bring the values within acceptable mathematical parameters, makes these absurdities appear to be not as drastic as they really are. The resultant conclusions are based upon a flawed system of formalisms, which defies physical observations and experimental observations in the “non-theoretical” world of real life, which is the real Universe, as opposed to the grossly dysfunctional theoretical models groping to explain the real world in terms of egghead math from their theoretical models.

The truth about mythematical constants: “A mathematical constant is a number, usually a real number, that arises naturally inmathematics. Unlike physical constants, mathematical constants are defined independently of physical measurement“. So they have nothing to do with real physical Universe and real Physics and only apply to the freaky mythematical models created by academicians for their own amusement.

Gravity Cycle

The Gravity Cycle is the Universal Heartbeat

For example: “One of the easiest ways of avoiding conflict with the facts is to make the theory less specific. At the present time, for example, there is a great deal of activity that is directed toward the construction of semi-theoretical mathematical expressions designed to represent physical properties of matter. The usual practice is to start with some purely theoretical relation, such as the general gas law PV = RT. In order to secure better agreement with the experimental results this relation is then modified by additional terms and adjustable constants. In developing the first “equation of state” for gases from the general gas law, van der waals used two such constants. For a better fit with the experimental data, subsequent equation constructors have increased the number of these adjustable or “disposable” constants. The beattie-bridgeman equation has four; the benedict-webb-rubin equation has eight….

Gravity Bar

Gravity Bars (magnets) are Polarized Opposites in Infinite Regress

The situation in such areas as gravitational theory is not quite as obvious as that which results from the addition of successive adjustable constants to the equations of state, but any measure that increases the flexibility of a theoretical relationship so that it can more readily accommodate itself to the experimental data produces the same results as these added constants: it increases the number of possible situations which can be made to agree with the postulated relation and hence decreases the mathematical probability that the relationship is correct (this describes so-called string theory with it’s 10 to the 500th versions to the extreme). 

A theory such as special relativity which denies the constancy of the magnitudes of space and time intervals has a smaller probability of being correct than one which accepts fixed space and time magnitudes, providing that neither is inconsistent with the observed facts. A theory such as general relativity which goes still farther in the same direction and eliminates the “metrical meaning” of the coordinates that are employed in describing these magnitudes has a still lower probability of being correct, and if einstein had succeeded in his attempt to devise a general field theory by further loosening of the theoretical structure along similar lines, the a priori probability of the validity of such a theory would have been essentially negligible….  

 In this connection, bondi makes the comment, “…it may justifiably be asked at this stage, when the mathematical complexity of the theory emerges, why einstein should require ten potentials of gravitation where one was good enough for newton.”94 The answer is, of course, that instead of locating and correcting the error in the basic space-time concepts of newton’s gravitational theory einstein set up a looser and more flexible theory that can be stretched far enough to cover the observational facts with the error left intact. His gravitational potentials serve exactly the same purpose as the eight adjustable constants of the benedict-webb-rubin equation of state; in both cases mathematical flexibility is substituted for a correct conceptual foundation”. (Beyond Newton, Part V) 

The hair- brained ideas of academia have produced the “standard model of elementary particle physics” (yet none of these so-called particles is elementary). “The twelve particles and four forces  are all we need to explain everything in the known world… this understanding is expressed in terms of a theory that accounts for all of these particles and all of the forces except for gravity… For all of its ‘usefulness’, the standard model has a big problem. It has a long list of adjustable constants. When we state the laws of the theory, we must specify the values of these constants. As far as we know, ‘any value will do’, because the theory is ‘mathematically consistent’ no matter which values we put in. These constants specify the properties of the particles. Some tell us the masses of the quarks and the leptons, while others tell us the strength of the forces. We have no idea why these numbers have the values they do; we simply determine them by experiments and then plug in the numbers… There are about twenty such constants, and the fact that there are many freely specifiable constants in what is supposed to be a fundamental theory is a tremendous embarrassment” (for all academic eggheads). (The Trouble with Physics, Pgs. 12-13)


Gravity Bars  also known as Magnetic Bars

“The incomplete character of a theory is usually reflected in it’s arbitrary parameters or ‘fundamental constants’ that is, in quantities whose numerical values are not explained by the theory, but have to be inserted into it after they have been determined empirically. quantum theory cannot explain the value used for the mass of an electron, nor field theory the magnitude of the electron’s charge, or relativity theory that of the speed of light. In the classical view, these quantities were regarded as fundamental constants of nature which did not require any further explanation. In the modern view, their role of ‘fundamental constants’ is seen as temporary and reflecting the limitations of the present theories”. (The Tao of Physics, pg 288, edition three) That’s to put it kindly!

The “rock and string orbit theory” of newton’s thought experiment establishing the “law of universal pulling gravitation”,  should be proof alone, that the foundation of academic physics is flawed.  If  the thought experiment cannot even be imagined properly,  how can “the authorities” expect us to believe the math, of their imaginings?  Because of this flawed academic “unidirectional pulling gravity” based model of the Universe, the nuclear theory of the atom and a limit to the speed of light, we have stupid ideas like dark matter, wimps and machos, black holes, dark energy, neutron stars, string theory, gravitational collapse, event horizons, worm holes, quantum mechanics, etc.,  just more nonsensical fix jobs for the academic parrots (scientists) of our schools systems. 

The Optical “Electric” Lenses of “Gravity Bars” (Bar Magnets)


as opposed to academic theories hyping  gravitational lensing  as “pulling” Light according to

Einstein’s “curved space”  fantasy, page 76

The “laws of planetary motion” existed before newton and were developed by Johannes Kepler (the Geometric Orbit Equation). They were based purely on geometric descriptions according to the observations regarding the movements of the planets, through the heavens, in his time (1571-1630), not on any imagined “unidirectional, inward pulling force” of gravity. Newton added this hypothetical, one way pulling force, into the conceptual structure of these pre-existing equations and as a result of this flawed marriage of an assumed sole pulling force, with historically observable orbital data, we have become indoctrinated with this flawed idea of an “unidirectional attracting force” called gravity, which has no existence, other than in the theory which invented it. 

Johannes Kepler discovered the interpretation of Circular and Elliptical Orbits having the Same Period and Focus, before newton added the product of two masses and the concept of a theoretical “inward pulling-gravity” to the mix newton’s one way idea of gravity “pulling” on objects is not even demonstrated correctly by the idea of a taught rope holding a planet in it’s orbit. The rope is not “pulling” it is just holding the tension created by the inertia of the moving rock. Newton’s law of universal gravitation is merely a combination of the Geometric Orbit Equation of Kepler and the Centripetal Force Equation describing a rock swung on a string with his assumed “unidirectional pulling force” of gravity, being represented by the tension on the string .