Mass-Energy Equivalence and E=mc2 mania

Mass-energy equivalence is just one of the many delusions of the relativity maniacs like time dilation and space contraction. As is the case with their time dilation delusion, the religious scientific folk claim that their delusion of mass-energy equivalence has been proven beyond doubt and they argue that nuclear reactors wouldn’t work without their religious theory. We can all agree that nuclear reactors generate power. But if one interprets that as proof of mass-energy equivalence and special relativity, then one may also interpret the flying birds and crawling tortoises as proof of the same. That is, if people go by faith and misinterpret things, then they can ‘prove’ any stupid theory and not just Relativity.

The famous equation of E=mc2 and the principle of mass-energy equivalence can’t be correct because

1) They are born out of an absurd theory that is built upon the superstitious belief of constant speed of light. https://debunkingrelativity.com/photon-clock-and-the-maya-of-time-dilation/

2) Mass is a scalar quantity while energy is a vector quantity (of course most physicists aren’t intelligent enough to grasp this point). When a force acts upon a body, the body moves in the direction of the force. That is to say that work (and energy) has the same direction as that of the force.

3) From what the mass-energy equivalence principle preaches, I would imagine that when the mass of a substance disappears, it releases an equivalent amount of energy as per the weird formula of E=mc2. But energy in what form? As far as we know the most fundamental form of energy is electromagnetic radiation, in other words light photons. So let us presume that 1gm mass of a substance ‘vanishes’ to release ‘x’ joules of energy in the form of photons. But if we manage to add the mass of all the individual photons that are released, that would probably add up to the original mass of the substance which released them. Of course relativists have another superstitious belief to their rescue- they believe that photons are massless. But how can a particle have no mass but still possess momentum. Obviously only relativity maniacs can accept such weird notions. There are some sane physicists who believe that photons do possess some mass, albeit very small. So it is sensible to believe that 1gm mass of the above substance just got transformed into 1gm mass of photons. So the mass as such is still there and hasn’t disappeared from the world.

4) Energy of a body is relative while its mass is not. The mass of an object is measured by its inertia which has nothing to do with the motion of the observer – this is what people with commonsense would think. But again relativists have a delusional belief that an object’s mass increases with its velocity relative to the observer. They believe that a fast moving object will have more mass (relativistic mass) than when the same is at rest (rest mass). If the mass of a body were to vary with its velocity, it would imply that its value would vary in different directions because velocity is a vector quantity whose value varies depending upon in which direction we measure it. It would imply that mass is a vector quantity which is obviously ridiculous. And if mass were to be a vector quantity, then what is the direction of the rest mass of an object? Like this we can go on talking about the weird religion of relativity forever. And the more we dig into the delusional theory of relativity, the more stupid it becomes. And that is the reason why one can never win arguing against relativists – as the argument proceeds, they turn more and more stupid.

In my view, mass and energy are opposite entities and are not inter-convertable. While mass gives inertia to a body and opposes motion, it is energy which makes the body overcome that inertia and sets that body into motion. Energy always manifests itself in the form a moving body. And without mass and without motion there can be no energy. Potential energy is not a real energy. It just indicates the potential of a body to acquire the said quantity of energy when it is set free in a particular scenario. Just like potential energy, we can also propose potential velocity!

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Avril Styrman  On October 18, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    I’ll comment about (1) the constant speed of light first. Its postulation in special relativity is a metaphysical postulate: it is deduced from perceptions, but perceptions can be explained by non-constant speed of light as well. It is easy to arrive at a constant speed of light. Suppose first that the energy state of an object (its combined state of gravitation and motion) determines the local velocity of light. Given this, the speed of light is naturally always measured to be constant, because the measuring device is in the same energy state. Thus, supposed that the velocity of light changes depending on the energy state, it can be explained easily why most of the contemporary physicists believe in the constant velocity of light, and why they suppose it is an empirically verified fact.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Galacar  On October 19, 2016 at 3:24 pm

      @Avril Styrman

      Have you seen the video of Rupert Sheldrake I have put on this site, about ‘constants’ in physics? He also talsk about the speed of light.

      Furthermore, the speed of light is measured different times as much much higher then the ‘accepted’ speed of light/

      I think that “contemporary physicists” believe this non-sense about thje speed of light because they are indoctrinted with this crap.

      Just find some intervieuws with ‘scientists’ and you see they have no logial
      bone in their body (anymore).Dawkins comes to mind, and also Hawkings.

      Dawkins even stated in one of his books that .one needs no evidence
      to accept evolution! Oh and they have do NO REASEARCH into e.g. ESP,
      but they have the audicity and the arogance to reject it by reflex,

      But.. people are waking up to this!

      Galacar

      Liked by 2 people

    • Avril Styrman  On October 19, 2016 at 6:23 pm

      Dear Galacar, I’ll have to check out the video. But I grasp the indoctrination. Paul Feyerabend complained about it for many decades. It is very real, and it seems that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the worse it is. There is no internal inspection in physics departments. People can still just say “I am a physicists and this is an empirical fact”. That ‘s why Feyerabend insisted that theories should be evaluated against one another. I’ve looked into the question of what is that objective evaluation criterion, and come up with an old one: the principle of economy.

      Economy favours the theory which gives the most accurate predictions; of two theories with equally accurate predictions, economy favours the one which incorporates the least sum of metaphysics.

      If you fix the theory by incorporating more and more metaphysics (like dark energy), your theory gets worse.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Johan F Prins  On October 18, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    Einstein’s derivation of E=mc^2 is wrong since it is not a result of the Lorentz transformation but follows directly from Newton’s second law when also differentiating the mass of the momentum.

    One then obtains that the force F=m(dv/dt)+v(dm/dt). When this force moves through a distance dx it does work dW=Fdx=m(dv/dt)dx=v(dm/dt)dx=m(dx/dt)dv+v(dx/dt)dm=(mv)dv+(v^2)dm.

    Thus the increase in dE energy caused by the work dW causes an increase in both the speed (dv) and the mass (dm). Thus mass must be energy. By setting dE=(c^2)dm, where (c^2) is a proportionality factor, one obtains that:

    (c^2)dm=(mv)dv+(v^2)dm

    Which can be rearranged to give c^2-v^2=vdv

    (dm/m)=(vdv)/[c^2-v^2] Integrtaing this from v=0 and m-m(0) one obtains that:

    m=m(0)/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] and integrating dE=(c^2)dm gives E=m(c^2).

    Thus if Newton did not assume that the mass stays constant when increasing the speed of a matter object, he would have derived E=m(c^2) more than 200 years before Einstein guessed that it must be so.

    Furthermore, if Einstein did not incorrectly “derive” length contraction, he would have found that the length of a matter-object increases with speed, since it becomes a de Broglie wave which accommodates the increase in mass-energy as electromagnetic wave-energy.

    Einstein could have derived derived the de Broglie wavelength from the Lorentz transformation if he was not so stupid to propose “length-contraction” and ‘time-dilation” which, as you correctly point out, are both impossible.

    Like

  • Avril Styrman  On October 19, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Comment about (2). You are absolutely correct in noting that the equivalence principle is weird. Consider another way of arriving at the problem. In GR, an object’s inertial mass increases along with the increase of velocity in both cases: (a) when an object is accelerated at a constant gravitational potential; (b) when an object’s velocity increases in free fall. Now, (a) is intelligible, for we can understand the increase of the inertial mass of object x to be proportional to the decrease of the inertial mass of object y, where y accelerates x. However, in the case of (b), such as when an asteroid falls on Earth, the question runs: Where did the additional inertial mass come from? We could answer the question in terms of energy balance between potential energy (in this case gravitational energy) and energy of motion, but in GR and in FLRW, the conservation law is completely ambiguous. For comparison, DU is built on the conservation law, and explains (b) not in terms of increasing mass, but in terms of gravitational energy transforming into energy of motion, where the conservation law is sustained.

    See section 4:
    http://physicsfoundations.org/data/documents/The_Dynamic_Universe_e-book.pdf

    Like

  • cadxx  On October 19, 2016 at 10:12 pm

    I have a problem with the first law but I don’t use math, I use logic.:
    From NASA Spaceflight Systems, Education: “Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.” https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton.html

    When we deconstruct the first law, we observe that nothing in the universe is in a state of rest – everything is moving. Everything is in orbit about something else and so nothing moves in a straight line. Additionally, every body in the universe is affected by every other body in the universe. One would need to be outside of the universe to test Newtons law; therefore it is impossible to check the validity of the first law. It begins to become apparent why it was so difficult to land the first probes using 300 years-old science. NASA actually uses Newton’s laws as he wrote them, no Einsteinian updates just the original.

    I have just been looking at this on another forum that tells us that this has all been checked out over the years by physicists and proven to be true. The fact is that it has all been calibrated to fit the law, not checked for accuracy.

    Hope you like this from Charles Fort: It is our expression that nothing can attempt to be, except by attempting to exclude something else: that that which is commonly called “being” is a state that is wrought more or less definitely proportionately to the appearance of positive difference between that which is included and that which is excluded. http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/book_of_the_damned.pdf

    Fort is making his own version of a law: In order for something to become true, it must exclude that which was thought to be true. This is scientific methodology – exclusion of the awkward question.

    cadxx

    Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On October 22, 2016 at 12:29 am

    I found the following at the Energetic Forum (link below) They are discussing the possibility of bouncing longitudinal radio transmissions off the Moon to disprove Einsteinian relativity:

    Given that the propagation speed of longitudinal electric waves (which according to the current theory cannot propagate through a vacuum) is about 1.6 times the speed of light, it would be a very interesting experiment to see whether or not moon bouncing could be achieved practically with longitudinal electric waves. If Tesla is right, we would see an Earth-Moon-Earth roundtrip time of in the order of 1.6 seconds, while normal EM waves would take more than 2.5 seconds. Since the distance between the Earth and the Moon is on average 384,400 km, on average we would have a return path of over 750,000 km, which would take more than 2.5 seconds at the speed of light, which is the speed with which EM waves propagate. However, longitudinal waves could make the round-trip in just 1.6 seconds, a difference of 0.9 seconds!…

    …So, if we were to make a longitudinal transmitter of considerable power (Wikipedia says you need over 100W for EM waves, but the higher the gain of your antenna’s, the less power you need) and we would connect that to a computer (transmitting f.e. audible morse code or something), you could setup a system whereby any (radio amateur) could enter a message trough the Internet to a server, connected to a transmitter which sends the signal to the moon. Now since any decent Internet connection should be able to get the message from the amateurs computer to the transmitter computer well within half a second, any radio amateur that builds a receiver should be able to determine that the signal he himself entered on the computer is being received from the moon well before any EM wave could possibly travel back and forth between the earth and the moon.

    That way, it could be experimentally proven that:
    a) longitudinal waves exist,
    b) they travel at much a faster speed than the speed of light.

    This would mean that it could be experimentally proven that the current Maxwell equations are wrong and that therefore the Lorentz transform is rubbish after all and thus Einsteinan relativity can finally be put where it belongs: the trash can.
    http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/9727-who-performs-first-longitudinal-moon-bounce-history.html

    The aether and aether waves were considered to be practical and theoretical probabilities until the 1930’s when consensus gave way to Einstein’s theories, the existence of the electron and what became known as the New Physics.
    Do you realise that all of our modern technology was originally based upon a debunked theory?
    cadxx

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On October 23, 2016 at 12:46 pm

      caddy, even if someone manages to show that your longitudinal waves just take 1.6sec for the round trip, relativists would interpret that as proof of time dilation and space contraction. So your experiment is only going to prove their religious beliefs!

      Basically to prove that relativity is nude, what one requires is clear mind and not experiments. All the experiments which the relativity claim as proof of their religion actually disprove that if interpreted with clear mind.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Aether  On October 22, 2016 at 1:57 am

    Thus if Newton did not assume that the mass stays constant when increasing the speed of a matter object, he would have derived E=m(c^2) more than 200 years before Einstein guessed that it must be so.

    John F Prins,

    Why would Newton have assumed otherwise?

    So much of today’s goofy physics stems from the baseless acceptance that the SOL is the same in all reference frames. Once one accepts that bizarre notion of course you can mathematically “prove” length contraction and time dilation.

    IMO, Einstein and the other relativists had/have no basis for such an assertion.

    Early on, Richard Feynman gave some insightful, yet simple, lectures wherein he stated that no matter how elegant the math behind the theory appears, if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong. Of course he then went on to propose “theories” that couldn’t be verified by experiment. Progress?!?!

    Publish or perish!

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On October 23, 2016 at 6:14 am

      Basically what increases with the speed of a moving object is its INERTIA but not its MASS. Inertia of a body depends upon its mass and the resistance offered by the environment i.e. medium (water, air, ether) in which the body moves. And the faster an object moves, the greater the resistance it faces from the medium. That explains why a body’s inertia increases with increasing velocity.

      Relativists having ‘disproved’ ether, had no choice but to confuse inertia with mass. So for them an increase in inertia means an increase in mass!

      Like

  • cadxx  On October 23, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    drgsrinivas
    I like your space contraction/time dilation idea it made me think. What is the formula and the verbal rationalisation for space contraction when the very basis of relativity has crashed in flames? Which way would time go at a speed beyond the Einstein limit? Would space expand or contract? It would be fascinating to do the experiment if only to watch the headless chickens running in circles.

    BTW: No scientist would attempt this as consensus has denied the existence of the aether; as there is no aether scalar waves are therefore not possible in space. But there are several people who have managed to construct a scalar wave transmitter. Tesla’s Wardencyffe transmitter for example was being built at around the time Einstein was pushing his theory. Remember Fort, ‘to make something real it is necessary to make something unreal’.

    I do however agree with your sentiment that nothing will change. Too much money invested.

    cadxx

    Liked by 1 person

  • Aether  On October 24, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Inertia of a body depends upon its mass and the resistance offered by the environment i.e. medium (water, air, ether) in which the body moves.

    drgsrinivas

    Not sure I agree. Bringing the medium into the discussion seems to just further muddy the water. The same mass experiences different resistances from the same medium depending on the shape of the mass.

    I don’t even know why we need the term “inertia” in physics at least as it pertains to mass. Mass is mass, we can all understand that. More mass, more resistance to force, be it against gravity, friction or whatever.

    Moment of inertia? Momentum? Absolutely. Relative mass, rest mass, gravitational mass??? Not necessary to have three terms. There is only one mass and it doesn’t vary imho.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On October 30, 2016 at 7:13 pm

      Aether, I can understand why you think so.

      Of course mass is mass. But how do you measure mass? Obviously there must a way to quantify that. And that is where we need the concept of Inertia.

      Yes, the more the mass, the more the resistance. And that resistance is what we call as Inertia. In other words Inertia is the resistance offered by a body to motion.

      And, how do we measure the inertia of a body? Obviously by noting the amount of force required to move that body from rest. So ultimately, to quantify the mass of a body, we need to measure the force required to move/accelerate that body. But that force not only depends upon the mass but also upon the resistance/viscosity of the medium.
      https://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/#comment-6754

      The more the mass of a body, the more the inertia. Also, the more the viscosity of the medium, the more the inertia.

      i.e. Inertia ∝ mass.viscosity

      It implies that, in absolute vacuum (i.e. in the absence of a medium), inertia becomes zero for any object. So even the slightest force would cause infinite acceleration, irrespective of the mass of a body. That is obviously bizarre. Thus, in absolute vacuum (i.e. without the medium) inertia becomes meaningless and mass becomes unquantifiable. So to speak of mass, it is essential that we take into account of the medium and its viscosity.

      I believe that our universe is filled with/permeated by Ether and there isn’t anything like absolute vacuum. Otherwise we will have to accept that our universe is bizarre (and so is our science) and hence chant all the absurd theories that our physicists had put forward!

      Of course, shape of a body influences the inertia of a body and so are relative motion between the body and medium, size of the body, density etc. There are always going to be many factors that influence the measurement of any parameter, not only inertia. That’s why it is important that we standardize the conditions before measuring anything.

      Like

  • Bill Green  On October 25, 2016 at 10:26 am

    drgsrinivas,
    You wrote: “But if we manage to add the mass of all the individual photons that are released, that would probably add up to the original mass of the substance which released them.”
    That makes perfect sense! Then we have a conservation of mass.
    But do you know why relativists insist photons have no mass? Because of their absurd notion that the mass of an object increases with the speed of that object. Since photons move at the speed of light if they had mass they would have to have infinite mass! So relativists invent the notion that photons are massless just to fit their theory.
    Let me ask this, if photons are massless then how are they affected by gravity? The famous experiments of star light being bent around the sun would prove that the photons from that star light would be affected by the gravity of the sun’s mass and therefore photons must have mass in order to be affected by gravity.

    Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On October 27, 2016 at 6:51 pm

    Just a few random thoughts to help get my head straight. Please feel free to correct my logic.

    Einstein removed the thorn in the side of physics that was aether and this is the sole reason he was so popular with the administrators of science. Having removed the aether he cancelled the speed of light through the aether and made it the speed the speed of light in a vacuum. In doing so he transferred all the properties of aether to a vacuum that previously had no properties.
    A vacuum cannot have properties or it is not a vacuum, hence the confusion we now have that made Einstein into a genius and a hero.

    The phrase space(/time) has replaced the aether in a materialistic science that claims everything is matter/energy. But time cannot be defined as matter/energy; time cannot be defined at all. We also have space that is assumed to be empty and so we have a medium space/time that cannot do anything or be anything tangible. Space/time is metaphysics. This is all put to rest by giving it a name – counterintuitive.

    Merriam-Webster: counterintuitive: different from what you would expect : not agreeing with what seems right or natural http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterintuitive
    Counterintuitive in scientific parlance means that you need a scientist to explain it – the emperors new clothes. Science is not natural (nature) as it claims to be.

    We all carry this baggage around thanks to an education that is totally controlled by science – everything in education has to be scientific. Now it must have long ago occurred to educators that it did not matter that what was taught was a load of shit, as long as all the educators are reading from the same hymn book, as long as the examinations reflect the same excrement. Education is a means of control and the last thing it is intended to do is to tell us the truth, as that would put the educated in control rather than the intended power and money hungry oligarchs who provide funding for science…
    cadxx

    Liked by 1 person

    • drgsrinivas  On October 27, 2016 at 10:00 pm

      In doing so he transferred all the properties of aether to a vacuum that previously had no properties.

      Totally agree. That’s exactly what Relativity did.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On October 28, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    cadxx wrote;

    “We all carry this baggage around thanks to an education that is totally controlled by science – everything in education has to be scientific. Now it must have long ago occurred to educators that it did not matter that what was taught was a load of shit, as long as all the educators are reading from the same hymn book, as long as the examinations reflect the same excrement. Education is a means of control and the last thing it is intended to do is to tell us the truth, as that would put the educated in control rather than the intended power and money hungry oligarchs who provide funding for science…”

    Amen to that!

    People have to realise that the WHOLE ‘educational’ system is put up to indoctrinate us with lies, lies and lies from cradle to grave!
    Yep, all this is ‘by design’.
    It all has to do in the end with control.
    And, as I always say, the rabbithole goes deep, very very deep indeed.
    But it is fascinating, but also, if we don’t wake up to all the lies,
    we will be in trouble soon!

    We are in “the end game” of “the work of ages”.

    let’s stop them in their tracks!

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

  • cadxx  On October 28, 2016 at 6:03 pm

    I hope this is not too far off topic, but there appears to be a clear indication of scientific conspiracy at the time of Einstein’s General relativity and JJ Thomson’s electron “discovery”. It was my own discovery of the two following quotes that whetted my apatite:

    “To the electron — may it never be of any use to anybody.” — JJ. Thomson’s favorite toast

    Einstein: “I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged, though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed.” Albert Einstein explaining why physicists don’t like electricity and why astronomers call cosmic electricity magnetic fields.

    It seems that the Thomson group at the Cavendish would gather for occasional relaxation and a piss-up. Thomson would call the scientists to order – ‘Gentlemen, a toast, “To the electron — may it never be of any use to anybody.” The group would raise their glasses and repeat “To the electron”. This may sound strange for a Nobel prizewinner who’s prize was (more or less) for the same electron.

    The reason was that the coming of the electron had caused an idealogical split between the physicists and the electrical engineers, a gulf that remains today. The amazing fact is that Thomson sided with the engineers – he was doing the same research as Tesla and Steinmetz as may be confirmed if you are able to find one of his books. It is this that accounts for the quote above by Einstein.

    One example is that a current will flow in both directions in a conductor and this cannot be explained in terms of electron (billiard ball) flow. It is well documented that both Tesla and Steinmetz said that the electron did not exist and even Thomson admitted that he did not know what it was that was beaming in the cathode ray tube.

    Notwithstanding, the cathode ray tube kick-started particle physics as a science with a particle that did not exist according to the top men of the day. Who exactly it was who was able to pull-off this scam I have no idea, although I can clearly see why it was done.

    There are many people who can’t get their heads around this – they can’t envisage an electronics without an electron (back to education), but Thomson had all the electronic circuitry that we have today before he did his electron work. Tricky?
    cadxx

    Like

  • Aether  On October 28, 2016 at 8:32 pm

    “The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.” – Tesla

    Mass<b\/b> of error AND deceptive ideas indeed! Brilliant.

    Einstein was and is a well agented phony. A so-called pacifist that advocated revolution and genocide.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On October 28, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    cadxx,

    Thanks for that.

    Far off topic? No!

    There is a “Global Conspiracy” going on for years and years.

    But we are conditioned by the mainstream media and ; education’

    to deny that something like that is going on.

    So, not ‘far fetched’ but very close to the truth of what is really going on in this

    world.

    btw may I recommend a very very good book about how ‘science’ really works?

    I never understood when I was at school why there was nothing in the books

    about the ways dicoveries were made. It looked all too smootgh for me.

    Now I know why.

    https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Luck-Greatest-Scientific-Discoveries/dp/0198607199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1477678036&sr=8-1&keywords=einstein%27s+luck

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On October 29, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    I may have caused confusion in my last post, it should read: One example is that a current will flow in both directions simultaneously… I’ve known about this since I was a kid and I was naive enough to assume that everyone else did.

    There is a wonderful example of this here where college teaching is in conflict with what realy happens ((reality) I don’t like the word because nothing is real per se.)
    http://www.overunity.com/9778/can-electrons-flow-in-opposite-directions-on-the-same-wire-see-schematic/
    Even in the face of a simple schematic and the results of a real-life experiment they try to rationalise it in terms of what they have been brainwashed to believe.

    Galacar: Thanks for the book, I will certainly read it if I can get a copy.
    If anyone wants to investigate the global conspiracy a good place to start would be with this guy – Arthur Stanley Eddington. He was foremost in the push to make Einstein into a genius. Science has to have geniuses and because it no longer atracts them they have to manufacture them. They are patsies for the men behind the curtain.

    Aether: I like the Tesla quote. It’s true that science realy did work prior to the Tesla era, but it did not become totally politicised until the 1930’s with the advent of the Einstein and “New Physics concensus. It is possible to trace the origin of ALL of our modern technology to before this date. I know, I’ve spent untold hours researching it.
    cadxx

    Like

  • Galacar  On October 30, 2016 at 1:19 am

    cadxx

    you wrote:

    ” It is possible to trace the origin of ALL of our modern technology to before this date. I know, I’ve spent untold hours researching it.”

    I totally agree and I have also put it up here,.

    As far as the ‘scientific’ cospiracy goes.
    The whole thing started with the lies of the “Royal Society”.
    It was all designed and built in from the beginning.

    Their goal, among others, was to distract us from any spritual truth.
    hence, for example, evolution, which is very very material.and thus
    anti-spiritual.

    As I have written before, some people higer up want to put us in

    a material, anti-spiritual box.

    O boy, so much to say about the fraud of ‘science’.

    So, I better stop here.

    Namaste

    Galacar.

    Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On October 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Hi Galacar
    Having problems with my PC! need to fix it sometime soon.
    I agree with your assessment of the Royal Society I’ve also been through the history. It has its origins in alchemy and the hidden college, the college set-up to exclude religion. You would need to include John Dee and Francis Bacon, both alchemists, in it’s founding fathers. Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle were alchemists who managed to hide their main interest from the RS. The RS became materialistic when they also excluded alchemy, the very source of their knowledge. When Newton said he was standing on the shoulders of giants he was referring to the old alchemists.

    I was watching a woman professor on Youtube not long ago (can’t recall her name) who says she has spent 14 years researching this stuff and although much of what she said was true, she gives the orign as masonic and Kabbalah originating in ancient Mesopotamia. I wrote to her asking how it is the medieval cathedrals across Europe happen are covered with alchemical symbols if they were built by kabalistic masons? There are records of alchemy in India, China and Egypt but not in Mesopotamia. Rather than an answer, she sent a copy of my question back to me??? There is a load of shit to distract us on this subject. I don’t trust academics.

    Kind Regards
    cadxx

    Like

  • Galacar  On October 30, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    cadxx wrote

    ” I don’t trust academics”

    Yep, tjat’s it! Then if not already, open your mind.

    Namaste

    Galacar.

    Like

  • cadxx  On November 7, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Still on the subject of the electron, if you go to the link below you will find a William J Beaty web page ‘Right angle circuitry – or – AC Electronics for Alien Minds’ http://amasci.com/elect/mcoils.html
    The Wiki wimps call Beaty a crackpot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Beaty something that usually indicates that he is doing something that science finds embarrassing.

    I think I may have already mentioned that physics and electrical engineering parted company some one hundred years ago. Electricity means something completely different to an engineer than it does to a physicist. I would go so far as to say that physics does not have a clue as to what electricity is or how it works. When the physics is taught to students who are training for electrical engineering it confuses them and William Beaty tries to sort-out the mess. This is why he gets a bad press on Wiki.

    At the link above we find that he uses transformers to make a point about electron flow. In the penultimate graphic he shows a transformer split in two and the two halves joined by iron wires that can be any length.
    I would think it possible that a whole house could be wired with iron wire to run all the usual electrical gadgets without the use of a single electron or any fear of electrocution. A supply of normal electricity is obtained by simply attaching the other half of the transformer.

    Thanks to Beaty, thinking about this causes us to think of electricity in a completely different way.

    cadxx

    Like

  • cadxx  On November 16, 2016 at 7:29 pm

    Looking through the Einstein and general physics debunking on YouTube the other night (I admit I spend too many hours on the Internet), I came upon a video where the narrator went through a very clear-thinking assessment of the Einstein deception and general problems with physics. While I was thinking what an excellent presentation was being given he trailed off at the end into “the earth is six thousand years old” followed by a plug for Christianity that in themselves I could be just as easily debunked. I don’t know why but this video was still in my mind three days later walking the dog this morning. It occurs to me that this stuff actually supports the scientific binary that we are either scientific or religious. Some kind of collusion maybe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9d7bNQsJDQ

    I then started thinking about the early days of the Internet and how much of the good science debunking came from Christian sources. There was a guy who called himself Woodmorrap or some such spelling who also wrote books debunking various scientific subjects – he was quite brilliant but his books were unashamedly Christian propaganda. How is it that these obviously clear thinking individuals are so blind when it comes to a book with admitted thousands of edits, translated into what became standard English by a non Christian occultist, the original (New Testament) compiled by a Roman politician? It’s not a secret.
    See also for more religious debunking: Forgotten: WISTAR: SCIENTISTS DESTROY EVOLUTION https://nextexx.com/history-wistar-destroys-evolution/

    We then have the ‘Deepak Chopra et alii’ who try to combine physics and spirituality. I’ve had my own spiritual experiences and they were nothing to do with physics. For example, I’ve been to Jupiter and I know why NASA cannot find water there – no academic non-science and no modern physics theory involved.

    What is termed Waking-Up for me is simply realising who and what we are and with it an understanding that the world we live in is a sham, a matrix of lies that is not going away and is not going to change. The end is not nigh as the religious would have us believe.

    I look forward to your comments on this fascinating subject.
    cadxx

    Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On November 20, 2016 at 6:30 pm

    cadxx wrote:

    “For example, I’ve been to Jupiter and I know why NASA cannot find water there – no academic non-science and no modern physics theory involved.”

    I believe you completely! Maybe you are interested in the works of the man
    called “Harold Sherman” who has seen things in our universe before there were
    any vehicles there (like jupiter), and his finding were proven to be correct by the
    voyager!

    Maybe you are also very interested in the book by Ingo swan:”Penetration”
    in which he remote vieuws the moon, and found out is in not what is teached to us at schools! (well, what is?! 😉 )

    We are really such great intelligent beings and look at us now!

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

  • cadxx  On November 21, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Hi Galacar
    I just got Einstein’s Luck, just started reading it. I’ve read quite a lot on remote viewing but not the ones you mention, will take a look, although I do know of Ingo Swan. Mcmoneagle’s books are very good, he was one of the original US army viewers.
    I think they call what I did to see Jupiter astral travel, I like to do my own thing. Jupiter has a huge bubble of water floating on denser gas, rolling around the planet. I can only assume that the bubble sweeps-up the water in its path. This thing is big. Don’t forget, when NASA finds it, I was there first 🙂

    It’s a great shame that we don’t get taught this stuff at school but education is suppressed like everything else by the same crowd who are blaming Russia for Syrian atrocities. Russian RT news had it’s bank account blocked in the UK recently so it’s not rocket science to work it out.

    Keep pasting this stuff to the Internet so that others can educate themselves.
    Namaste
    cadxx

    Like

  • Galacar  On November 21, 2016 at 2:31 pm

    Hi Cadxx,

    Good you have the book “Einstein;s Luck”! Like the book so far?

    Thanks for ‘Mcmoneagle’s books’, wasn’t aware of him.

    Cadxx wrote:

    “I think they call what I did to see Jupiter astral travel, I like to do my own thing”

    Yes, it is mentioned by different names, some say you project your consciousnous,
    other call it astral travel, whatever.
    Anyway, I see consciousness as the most important subject in the world, or even universe.

    Cadxx wrote

    “It’s a great shame that we don’t get taught this stuff at school but education is suppressed like everything else ”

    Yes, it is a great shame, but the reason becomes blatantly obvious if you understand that this whole world is filled with a sea of lies. The last thing some people want is peope to see the truth.Hence they surpress those things what can make seeing the truth possible.(like esp, astral travel, remote viewing and what have you.)
    On the other hand, not to scare you but be carefull, is that the ‘governments’ control a great deal of the astral world as well.

    Cadxx wrote

    ” who are blaming Russia for Syrian atrocities. Russian RT news had it’s bank account blocked in the UK recently so it’s not rocket science to work it out.”

    In short:

    Russia is demonised by the media, because TPTSB want a third world war! Hope we can stop these idiots!

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

  • cadxx  On November 21, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Hi again Galacar
    Einstein’s Luck: I’m reading about Millikan and electron charge at the moment – all very interesting. When I was lecturing the most common complaint among other lecturers was that scientific experiments don’t work. This one must be top ten.

    Regarding your other answers: I was listening to an Eric P Dollard podcast online the other night and he was being asked about who it was who was destroying his work. He mentioned an organisation called Commonweal (spelling?) and he was speaking of negative spiritual influences. I did a little research and found them to be a Catholic organisation, specifically Jesuit. Quite a surprise as this stuff is always labeled conspiracy theory – Dan Brown! Dollard was saying that this anti-good-science has been going on since Galileo Galilei – which should have been a clue but I missed it at the time.

    Putin kicked out all those he calls ‘the oligarchs’, the bankers, heads of big corporations etc. and started the BRICS bank. You can see where all the shit is coming from?

    So yes, a big positive spiritual push for change.
    cadxx

    Like

  • Aether  On December 11, 2016 at 3:00 am

    Basically what increases with the speed of a moving object is its INERTIA but not its MASS.

    drgsrinivas,

    That looks a lot like the definition of momentum to me. In my mind, inertia is a quantity of matter – a count of the linked/bound ether-photons if you will.

    Or not!

    Like

  • Aether  On December 11, 2016 at 3:06 am

    John Prins,

    You start with this premise: F=m(dv/dt)+v(dm/dt). Then you jump to this: dW=Fdx=m(dv/dt)dx.

    Logic aside, the math doesn’t look right to me. Did you drop a term? Typo?

    Like

  • cadxx  On January 20, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Hi drgsrinivas Not sure where to put this?
    There has been something wonderfully bizarre going-on on the Internet ever since the announcement of the US Navies electrically driven Rail Gun. It appears that this gun will fling projectiles at speeds fast enough to put them into orbit with no recoil.
    The navy physicists have even done experiments and conclude that ‘we have recoil missing‘.
    http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.research/2008-12/msg00010.html

    I looked at one or two forums and found the self appointed thought police AKA the skeptics having what can only be described as nervous breakdowns – writing gobbledygook in a desperate attempt to explain it all away and the usual “It has to be there somewhere”. This kind of faith would be admirable if they were medieval monks, but this is supposed to be the ‘rational science’ that Newton et al founded exclusively for the exclusion of these same monks.

    Newton was a complex man torn between his first love Alchemy and a desire for money and power. His ‘Laws of motion’ were derived directly from the alchemical law called ‘THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSE AND EFFECT’. http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/kybalion.pdf hence his remark about standing on the shoulders of giants – he was referring to the alchemists of old. He enlarged on the simple alchemical phrase “for every action there is a reaction” and made it into his Three Laws by stating what seemed at the time to be the obvious. Unfortunately living 300 years ago, he knew nothing of electricity, only the motions of cannon balls.

    The method by which the Rail Gun works has been known for a hundred years but neglected by a science that has made a taboo of the study of electricity for an equal number of years. The reader would need to watch Eric P Dollard’s lectures regarding the repulsion of parallel conductors. He uses the words of JJ Thomson, Steinmetz, Tesla, and others of the day, researchers who understood the workings of electricity. I will look for the references for anyone interested.

    I’ve started a webpage on this subject that promises to go on and on and all references will eventually be posted on there: https://nextexx.com/isaac-newtons-three-laws-of-motion/

    Best regards
    cadxx

    Like

  • cadxx  On January 20, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    Professor Eric Dollard – “Theory of Anti-Relativity”

    cadxx

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s