Don’t think Issac Invented gravity

LMFAO!

So fucking true

Whatever floats your granite.

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

badum tssh

Lol

I gotta clean out my vacuum soon.

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

@@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.

@@waltertchapman32 lol - sick, underrated burn

@@itnaklipse1669 Very good point.

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

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

just awful

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

@@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

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

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

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.

@@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.

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.

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

Wanna become friends?

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

@@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!

@@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!

An annihilation reactor... Bismuth is your friend

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

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.

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

its flatearth nonsense ROFL

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

@@KenTheoriaApophasis 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.

@@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.

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

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

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

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

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

Agree

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

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

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

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

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

You know what I mean.🙂

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.

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

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.

Flerf ftw

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

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

its not a force, never was

@@KenTheoriaApophasis peace on the plane brother! Have you measured any anti gravitas? Upward acceleration with a force pressing against the inverted scales. Oh so very natural! No constants here, way more complicated.

thats absurd, how are objects NOT propelled FROM a car going 200MPH? .... unless it STOPS, they DONT.

@@KenTheoriaApophasis If you were standing on top of a train that slowly accelerated to a speed of 200 mph , would you not be eventually propelled from it ?

@@KenTheoriaApophasis that's linear motion, not angular. We are propelled by a change in velocity, or a change in direction, ie acceleration; uniform circular motion is constant acceleration. We are not propelled by the centripetal acceleration because we are not in motion, we are stationary.

​@@KenTheoriaApophasis Yet, we are told that the Earth has an equatorial bulge due to the spin of the Earth!

if sun travels through solar system, how can light travel 300 000km/h + speed of sun through solar system?

I wonder if this black hole is like your consciousness?

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."

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

That's gotta be ironic

the phenomena called gravity cannot be denied son, wake up

@@KenTheoriaApophasis also, the phenomenon of FALLING DOWN is the base motion of the Aether in downwards direction, there is no energy exchange divine geometry BS. That is nephilim teachings, you like to quote Newton but completely ignores that he was never a "scientist" but a Masonic Occultist and pupil of John Dee someone who literally communicated with so called "angels". The guy who created the universe decided which side is down and put a basic motion for the basic energy that fills space. Nothing more than that. This is simple, not some divine geometry bs. You sound like a complete grifter by your comments.

@@FVLMEN 😂🤣🤣🚰 water needs a container to be held in.... You can't have water stick to a spinning ball 🤔... You are believing in pseudoscience and not actual science.... Let me educate you for a minute I'm not going to indoctrinate you .... They say the Earth's circumference is roughly a little under 25,000 miles... They tell us the Earth curvature formula is that the Earth drops 8in in 1 mi.. They also say by using geometry the Earth curvature can be seen A 6-ft drop and 3 MI.. 66.7 ft in 10 Mi or 666 ft in 100 MI.... Don't believe what they tell us go out and test it for yourself... The longest photography shot is over a hundred miles and there's no curvature..... They say ships disappear over the curves over the horizon but yet when they get out of your physical view you can use a powered telescope or a good camera to zoom it back into place...... And if you truly believe ships this appear over the curve then tell me at what altitude do you have to be to see the curve? Don't believe me.. Don't believe pseudoscience go out and test these things for yourself..... The United Nation is the shape of our Earth.. They are hiding it in plain sight.. NASA's budget is over 60 million a day... If you paid me $60 million dollars a day.... I could convince you the Earth is paired shape..... Think about it..... What is your evidence not evidence that you think someone smarter than you figured it out... What is your scientific repeatable provable evidence........? 😁 On my KZfaq channel I even have a scientific proving working scale model with working ties and it is a 1600 square mile model.... Scientific proven...... What is YOUR evidence?

the phenomena called gravity cannot be denied son, wake up

@@KenTheoriaApophasis I don't think it can be proven. Those who claim to have all the answers have the most to learn. Maybe it's you that is asleep. That's a pretty lame response lacking any facts to back it up. I'm willing to have a discussion about our reality with an open mind but you're going to have to do better than that generic response.

@@KenTheoriaApophasis stop repeating this BS in every comment. The phenomenon is falling down. Gravity is the name of the theoretical force that tries to explain this phenomenon. Grifter.

👍

Space is fake. No one has bèn thru the firmament

looks flat to me

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.

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

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.

That's flatty power right there! 😉

@@ScubaDracula was thinking of you last night bro.

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.

@@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.

@@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?

@@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.

@@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.

yes i do know what he said about same, so thats incorrect. EU is a Plasma religion

@@KenTheoriaApophasis I guess i disagree *D

@@Kybalion868 cool! I think he comes closest yet ... There is a channel called Thunderbolds project, worth studying ...

@@KenTheoriaApophasis Some of us would appreciate more detailed feedback from you about what Thornhill hypothesized. His KZfaq video about it is called The Long Path to Understanding Gravity. He would welcome constructive criticism, IMO. I don't think the religion insult is called for. It sounds like deflection, after you said eu didn't produce a hypothesis and were called on it. With Gratitude, R

​@@KenTheoriaApophasis oooooook I see. This is the clash you have with them. Yes in lots of circumstances they replace matter with plasma. I too found it odd to just reinvent atomistic cult ideology.

@@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.

i said hyperboloid

“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.

@@tinyear926 did you check for significant digits?

@@zbnmth lol like the number 6?

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

And he is calling it "gravity" even tho gravity is the name of a Theoretical force trying to explain why things fall down, not the name they give this observation.

@@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.

Don't forget the monkey Ken; don't want to have to scrape an upside down flat ken pancake off the ground.

Algae. Oxygen