Thursday, November 13, 2008

Fluid Dynamic (Ether) Sink Gravity

So this might be my most bizarre post yet but my ego is not really involved in this since I can just blame it all on people much smarter than me.

"The most reasonable mechanism for planetary expansion, in my opinion, involves fluid-sink views of gravity which involves the collection (not the spontaneous generation) of ultra-mundane matter at the cores of astronomical bodies." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

"There is no known physical principle, no known physics law, no known physics theory, and no known physics equation which remotely suggests that planets and stars cannot gain mass via collection of sub-sub-sub atomic particles. None. There is no violating regarding known laws of physics. Indeed, the Earth does gain some mass (a small amount) due to being pelted with solar wind, neutrinos, etc. Does this change all of physics? It does not change or alter basic physics -- or even modern physics. It merely reinterprets the equations of general relativity. It is consistent with mass conservation and energy conservation. I really can't state this any more simply." -- Dennis D. McCarthy, geoscientist, October 2003

This model specifically predicts the spiral shape of galaxies which is a failing of mainstream views of gravity.

Ether is actually quite mainstream: "With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether." -- Albert Einstein, physicist, 1920

And, as Anaconda notes, every 8 minutes we have an electromagnetic "flux" transfer event.

Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth

Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.
Nope no mass there.

Le, et al., The Magnetic and Plasma Structure of Flux Transfer Events, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 104, Number A1, Pages 233–245, 1999

Visser, M., Acoustic Black Holes: Horizons, Ergospheres, and Hawking Radiation, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 15, Pages 1767-1791, Jun 1998

Volovik, G.E., Induced Gravity in Superfluid 3He, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, Volume 113, Numbers 5-6, Dec 1998

Barcelo, C., et al., Analogue Gravity from Bose-Einstein Condensates, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 18, Pages 1137-1156, Mar 2001

Visser, M., et al., Analogue Models of and for Gravity, General Relativity and Gravity, Volume 34, Pages 1719-1734, 2002

Jacobson, T.A., and Parentani, R., An ECHO of Black Holes, Scientific American, Pages 69-75, 2005

Thornhill, W., Electric Earthquakes, Dec 2005

"Many strange phenomena precede large earthquakes. Some of them have been reported for centuries, even millennia. The list is long and diverse: bulging of the Earth's surface, changing well water levels, ground-hugging fog, low frequency electromagnetic emission, earthquake lights from ridges and mountain tops, magnetic field anomalies up to 0.5% of the Earth's dipole field, temperature anomalies by several degrees over wide areas as seen in satellite images, changes in the plasma density of the ionosphere, and strange animal behavior. Because it seems nearly impossible to imagine that such diverse phenomena could have a common physical cause, there is great confusion and even greater controversy." (Freund 2003)

"Based on the reported laboratory results of electrical measurements, no mechanism seemed to exist that could account for the generation of those large currents in the Earth's crust, which are needed to explain the strong EM signals and magnetic anomalies that have been documented before some earthquakes. Unfortunately, when a set of observations cannot be explained within the framework of existing knowledge, the tendency is not to believe the observation. Therefore, a general malaise has taken root in the geophysical community when it comes to the many reported non-seismic and non-geodesic pre-earthquake phenomena. There seems to be no bona fide physical process by which electric currents of sufficient magnitude could be generated in crustal rocks." (Freund 2003)
Barcelo, C., et al., Analogue Gravity, Living Reviews In Relativity, Dec 2005

Thornhill, W., Electric Gravity In An Electric Universe, Aug 2008

Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy. “Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it's wrong.”[9,10]

Decades later, Paul R. Heyl wrote in Scientific Monthly, May 1954:
“The more we study gravitation, the more there grows upon us the feeling that there is something peculiarly fundamental about this phenomenon to a degree that is unequalled among other natural phenomena. Its independence of the factors that affect other phenomena and its dependence only upon mass and distance suggest that its roots avoid things superficial and go down deep into the unseen, to the very essence of matter and space.” —Gravitation: Still A Mystery.

This sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:
“ may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]
Bryner, J., Strange Portal Connects Earth to Sun, Live Science, Nov 2008

Also see: Sansbury, R., PlasmaCosmology.Net


Quantum_Flux said...

This is all very impressive. Changes in physical theory have a trickle impact on everything I suppose, this is an exciting time for science no doubt, but also a heavily competitive one too.

I'll keep my eye out for this one, although I don't quite see all the ways in which it would be able to invalidate the observations in favor of Special or General Relativity: Quantum Foam

diatreme said...

"So this might be my most bizarre post yet.."


"...collection (not the spontaneous generation) of ultra-mundane matter at the cores of astronomical bodies."

Leaves, coffee grounds, pan-fried liver?

"There is no known physical principle, no known physics law, no known physics theory, and no known physics equation which remotely suggests that planets and stars cannot gain mass via collection of sub-sub-sub atomic particles."

"Sub-sub-sub-atomic particles"???? That is because there are no laws that constrain the behavior of non-observed or imaginary entities. Such laws are generally written after they are observed. But that problem aside, how about conservation of momentum. Real particles capable of creating the fact or appearance of planetary expansion would likely have mass and therefore momentum. Such mass possesses potential energy and this would heat the recipient body during accretion. This type of capture cannot be a significant, ongoing driver of planetary expansion without impacting the orbit and thermodynamics of the capturing body.

Try a hydridic core of a gas-giant protoplanet. That idea has a chance of success.

OilIsMastery said...


Your curt and flippant one liners do not communicate anything let alone scientific references.

Welcome to the website.


BF said...


OilIsMastery said...

Haha I like that.

Anaconda said...


Thanks for the post, I realize not everybody reads the comments, so I appreciate your including Plasma Universe theory in a post so more readers can see the theory and follow up with the links if they are interested.

You posited: "You might also be interested in Dennis McCarthy's fluid-dynamic (ether) sink view of gravity."

Yes, I wanted to check it out. Also, you stated in a previous Oil Is Mastery post: Biogeographical Falsification of Subduction, November 8, 2008:

"UPDATE: Dennis D. McCarthy is an important genius and I put him up there with Tassos. His website is called The Fourth Revolt."

I was intriqued, "genius" is a weighty word to describe an individual.

Here is the McCarthy scientific paper that caught my eye and I read: Lorentzian fluid dynamics and general relativity /
Using an acoustical analogy to uncover the ether frame of reference, 2005.

An interesting paper. It seems to be a paper that atttempts to cover the gap between Plasma Universe theory and General Relativity and Special Relativity theory by Einstein.

In a previous comment I expressed my doubts about Relativity theory because there is too strong a tendency to invent phenomenon to fit the theory (black holes, "big bang" and so on) that have never been scientifically observed, and my lingering doubt that light speed is the terminal velocity of the universe.

Contrary to what readers might think, I'm a conservative scientific observer: I resist the temptation to invest in supposed objects and phenomenon predicted by abstract mathematical equations, but never scientifically observed.

While McCarthy mentions electromagnetism, that seemingly is not the thrust of his paper. Most of his time is spent discussing the existence of ether in terms that don't upset the relativity theories (his thesis, they are compatible).

I can appreciate McCarthy's attempt to bridge the gap.

And while ether phenomenon is part of Plasma Universe theory, most of Plasma Universe theory deals with objectively observable phenomenon.

The plethora of observable phenomenon is the reason I'm comfortable with the theory.

The existence of ether is the "big rub" part of the Plasma Universe theory.

The proceeding discussion was in way of background before responding substantively to the idea of Fluid Dynamic (Ether) Sink Gravity theory, and it's corollary: "The most reasonable mechanism for planetary expansion, in my opinion, involves fluid-sink views of gravity which involves the collection of ultra-mundane matter at the cores of astronomical bodies."

I'm not sure what "ultra-mundane matter" is.

It seems speculative to suggest, "ultra-mundane matter" is added to the planet when it's never been objectively observed in the first place (although, that's never stopped anyone before). At this point, it's a bridge too far, that I'm not willing to cross.

The difference between the above hypothesis and my hypothesis which relies on Plasma Universe theory, is that electromagnetic forces have been observed and scientifically documented and the identity of the matter is KNOWN -- charged particles, ions, atoms stripped of their electrons, but most important, having a known mass.

Electromagnetic force is exceedingly strong: Electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. That is:

000,000,000,000,000 stronger.

That's a hard figure to get your head around!

NASA announced the energy for the Aurora Borealis comes from a stream of charged particles...ions.

Mass -- ladies and gentlemen.

I maybe being too tough on Mr. McCarthy, he seems to be trying to bridge the gap between relativity theoies and Plasma Universe theory, so in that sense I should give him a break and maintain an open-mind.

McCarthy states: " Indeed, the Earth does gain some mass (a small amount) due to being pelted with solar wind, neutrinos, etc."

McCarthy didn't know at the time of the above quote that a electromagnetic flux process (Birkeland currents) would be streaming huge amounts of ions to Earth from the Sun.

This energy (electric current) not only adds mass to the Earth without recourse to unseen sub-atomic particles, it supplies energy to the crust/mantle where it impacts elemental chemical reactions and mineral migrations.

Abiotic Oil theory.

Other minerals are known to take the shape of spiral formations (Burkeland currents) in the geologic stratigraphic column.

I ask diatreme whether he objects to Plasma Universe theory as a whole or if his objection is only to "ultra-mundane matter"?

Anaconda said...


In NASA's reports on the "flux transfer event", NASA fails to connect this "event" to the known phenomenon of Birkeland currents. The currents were predicted in 1903 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions into the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. In my opinion this fails to give proper credit to the pioneers of Plasma Universe theory.

Given the intense competition in scientific circles for proper credit for scientfic achievements, this seems to be a major ethical laspe.

Hopefully, this laspe can be rectified and proper credit given to Plasma Universe theory and its pioneers.

Anaconda said...


Plasma Universe theory has a lot to say about the weather. Many weather phenomenon have electromagnetic properties: Lightning, tornadoes (dust devils), and cyclones (hurricanes).

This YouTube video is well worth taking the time to watch: Electric Weather Plasma Cosmology Electric Universe.

This may not be an original hypothesis, but it seems that when one observes this diagram titled, "A "magnetic portal" or FTE mapped in cross-section by NASA's fleet of THEMIS spacecraft." (red, blue, and pink diagram, last in article) There seems to be a tornadic formation which suggests to this writer, there is an "exchange of forces" going on. Perhaps, it's this "exchange of forces" which causes the "twisted, braided" effect.

Dust devils have been found to have electric currents.

Hurricanes (cyclones) are a heat exchange between the warm seawater and the atmosphere.

Lightning is a form of plasma.

In the "flux transfer event" between the Sun and the Earth, what "force" is exchanged? I'm not sure. But it seems all the plasma phenomenon whether on Earth or in space, it's this "force exchange" that generates the large amounts of energy that are observed in these phenomenon.

One further note to NASA. In December 2007 when NASA first reported this "event", NASA described it this way:

"New Data from NASA's Thermis mission...found that energy comes from the Sun flowing like a current through twisted bundles of magnetic fields connecting Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun."

If that isn't a description of a Birkeland current, I don't know what is.

Come on NASA, give proper credit where credit is do!

BF said...

"If that isn't a description of a Birkeland current, I don't know what is."

That's exactly what it is, only the orthodox Nasa bods cannot bring themselves to speak his name. They know who he is of course and are fearful of where it will lead.

OilIsMastery said...

Well they should be called Halley currents. According to Chapman and Bartels (1940) the connection between aurora and magnetic storms was first suggested by Halley in 1716.


Anaconda said...


Your point is valid, however, in reading the linked abstract and accompanying first page of the paper, it becomes apparent Birkeland studied the phenomenon in depth and his description of the phenomenon's mechanism was complete and accurate, amazing in its detail. In my judgment it's appropriate the phenomenon is named after Birkeland.


You are a valuble contributor, providing many important links, including the NASA announcement confirming the "flux tranfer event".

I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on why NASA is "fearful of where it will lead"?

OilIsMastery said...


I'll rely on your better judgement...=)

Anaconda said...


I did pick this website to comment on:-)

Mr. Moai said...

Check out Wilhelm Reich, read his letters specifically. Reich believed he found two types of proto-matter during his cloud-busting experiments at Organon after the radium (watch?)needle experiments. He conferred with Einstein who verified his results with regard to a temperature increase above an Orgone accumulator, but Einstein's assistant explained it as "convection from the ceiling" which doesn't make sense as convection rises. A few years later when Reich learned that Einstein had worked to develop the atomic bomb while Reich was meeting with him, Reich thought that perhaps Einstein was probing for something useful toward the bomb itself and rejected Reich because he sensed that he was showing experimental proof of a dynamic ether which was would be "a bombshell" as Einstein put it. Einstein seemed to have a thing about bombs. There is a good German documentary that is mostly in English called "The Strange case of Wilhelm Reich" for those who are unfamiliar with Reich.