Tesla was right, classic electromagnetic theory is wrong.

[Chet]

Chet
If we were to look at the force of gravity rationally we would see it is a reaction to something not an action which is missing. Something is acting on the objects and the force of attraction is the reaction. This is why all the real scientists are looking for unknown particles or fields as a rational explanation. They are looking for the push which balances and is responsible for the apparent pull. So far as I'm concerned if the forces don't balance or sum zero the theory is probably bs.

Yes!

Here are some quotes from Cole Prather’s dissertation …

From Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, the electric field has positive divergence and thus acts as a source. From the gravitational analogy, the gravitic field has negative divergence and thus acts as a sink. This is the mathematical expression of the intuitive fact that like masses attract while like charges repel.

… and …

The Energy Paradox
In the electromagnetic case, a charge confined to a circular orbit experiences force (acceleration) that causes it to radiate energy away. Mathematically, this is indicated by a positive Poynting vector, causing the orbit to decay. The resulting Poynting vector for gravitation, however, is negative. This means that an accelerated mass appears to radiate away negative energy—which strangely implies that masses are continuously absorbing energy. Where does this energy come from?

This “negative field energy” paradox discouraged Maxwell from further pursuing the analogy. Rather than coming closer to understanding gravity, Heaviside remarked in his paper that the analogy “only serves to further illustrate the mystery”. This work extends the analogy and leaves open the fundamental questions: What is the true nature of gravitational fields? What is the actual speed of gravitational propagation? And how should we interpret negative energy flow in a gravitational system?

Gravitational Radiation: Maxwell-Heaviside Formulation - Peirastes

… and …

Negative Field Energy
After evaluating the energy flux for gravitation, the Poynting vector is found to be negative. This result agrees with those of Maxwell and Heaviside. To evaluate the implications of the negative field energy, first consider the effects of positive field energy for charges. In electromagnetism, the Poynting vector is positive which indicates that the field emits radiation and loses energy. For the case of an orbiting charge, this loss of energy decreases the radius of orbit. In gravitation, the Poynting vector is negative which indicates that the field gains energy. And for the case of an orbiting mass, this gain in energy would tend to increase the radius of orbit. This could possibly describe the observed expansion of orbiting bodies (i.e., the average orbit of the moon around the earth increases at a rate of approximately 3.8 cm per year).

GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION: MAXWELL-HEAVISIDE FORMULATION By COLE B. PRATHER

[paul cotter]

NO.

[Chet]

NO.

Wow! That's a classic no-brainer counterpoise illustrating the principle of balanced opposites: gravity vs electricity.

I say, Yes.
You say, No.
You say: potatoes, I say: potatoze, ....,
Potatoes, potatoze, tomatoes, tomatoze, ..., oh ... let's call the whole thing off!

[paul cotter]

Simple statement of fact.

[Chet]

Simple statement of fact.

We are the personification of the fact of counterbalance.

[IanB]

The previous few posts about gravity are complete nonsense (i.e. they make no sense). They are not worth debating, because "they are not even wrong".

[paul cotter]

Thank you, Ian, I was beginning to think I was alone in countering this nonsense.                     

[Xena E]

Thank you, Ian, I was beginning to think I was alone in countering this nonsense.                     

Not alone, it's just a fact that there is no answer for patent ignorance. Arguments against it are most often unproductive, as per Dunning Cruger...

I maintain that trolls and sockpuppets are often worthwhile on a technical forum as the resulting discussions are sometimes very interesting or informative. However not with these crackpot sensationalists, it's just one pile of verbose shit after another.

They will never discover anything worthwhile  because they don't do practical work past faking up some weird collection of magnets coils and flywheels to prove their claims.

[UnijunctionTransistor]

NO.

Wow! That's a classic no-brainer counterpoise illustrating the principle of balanced opposites: gravity vs electricity.

I say, Yes.
You say, No.

Reminds me of the Beatle’s song; hello, goodbye.

https://youtu.be/rblYSKz_VnI

[Electrodynamic]

Thank you, Ian, I was beginning to think I was alone in countering this nonsense.                     

Not alone, it's just a fact that there is no answer for patent ignorance. Arguments against it are most often unproductive, as per Dunning Cruger...

I maintain that trolls and sockpuppets are often worthwhile on a technical forum as the resulting discussions are sometimes very interesting or informative. However not with these crackpot sensationalists, it's just one pile of verbose shit after another.

They will never discover anything worthwhile  because they don't do practical work past faking up some weird collection of magnets coils and flywheels to prove their claims.

Have you read Micheal Faraday's lectures from the archives?. Not the watered down crap in most textbooks or on wikipedia I mean his original work?. I remember reading Faraday and Ampere and it was amazing how they could explain everything using words as if we were there with them doing the experiments. I would get off a 12hr shift, catch a few hours sleep and start replicating those experiments. I couldn't wait and I couldn't believe it without proving it for myself. When I tell most people I was doing experiments their eyes glaze over and they seem to have no conception of taking the time to prove a matter for ourselves.

The problem I found with real experiments is that the results can be uncertain. Yes Faraday's thoughts about mutual induction work but not so much when the primary experiences a rapid charging effect at 600kV and starts blowing charged material off it's surface producing a net charge on nearby objects. I would hope you realize the difference. Yet many seem determined to dumb everything down supposing nothing can change no matter how far one experiment is removed from the original. This is why a concept or rule can only apply specifically in the context it was given. No more no less and we cannot generalize in this matter imo.

I would agree to disagree.

[Xena E]

Faraday was a great man, the father of electricity if there is one. Yes, and I have read his writings he is to be admired, successful despite... or perhaps because of never having a formal education, or little understanding of mathematics, and yes I have recreated some of his experiments.

However that is immaterial to the subject, quoting posts then making unrelated references and implying some equivalency between obvious charlatans who are unable to prove their claims, or willing to admit them as conjecture, and proven hard working engineers and physicists, is disingenuous. I'm disappointed, and hoped you would know the difference.

Incidentally, I was standing by Michael Faraday's grave a week ago during a visit to London:




(Aside... Genuine question: the charlatan N Tesla or mathematician and scentist C P Steinmetz: who to your mind made the greatest lasting contribution to practical power distribution in N America?)

Then making narcissistic comments about personal expertise ^{note 1}, assertions about the agenda of others, putting words into their mouths having no relevance to the original point is just pathetic straw man, bait and switch rhetoric.

(Aside... I hope you would know that even with a G suit, sustained acceleration above 8G for more than a few seconds is likely fatal ... just thought I'd add that  I hope you will understand why)

Also, why is it that you new science believers/ defenders want to put the work of proof on the skeptic, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, if you want to defend this shit... prove it yourself! ^{note 2} (Hint: progress in science is a glacially slow turn over of new ideas, present an idea for peer review and get it validated)

^{note 1} there's nothing wrong with being a one man band, part time tradie if that's what you are:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/aliexpress-makita-batteries-18v-fake/msg6108045/#msg6108045

^{note 2}
One experiment/proof of concept I was genuinely looking forward to, that you may have forgotten about:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/honda-1996-townsend-brown-experiment/msg6233909/#msg6233909

[paul cotter]

Every time I refresh my knowledge of Faraday I am simply amazed at what he achieved. I reckon Humphrey Davy felt upstaged by Faraday, to some degree. We were lucky we did not lose him prematurely: I was just reading how Davy delegated the work on nitrogen trichloride, a highly treacherous explosive with a long rap sheet, to Faraday after he was injured by the same sustance.

[TimFox]

From memory, there is an anecdote that after Faraday presented a demonstration at a popular lecture series, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer asked of what possible use was this interesting development, to which Faraday replied, “You, sir, may tax it.”

[Electrodynamic]

The history relating to Faraday, Einstein and Tesla follow a similar pattern imo.

Faraday was a bookbinder and educated by reading the books published by some of the greatest minds. Einstein was a patent clerk and educated by reading patents by some of the greatest minds and Tesla was also an avid reader. None just stumbled onto anything and as Einstein claimed the secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.

For example, Faraday knew of work being done by Orsted, Ampere and Henry. Henry supposedly demonstrated induction before Faraday but was slower to publish. Faraday just tested to see if one coil can induce another based on others work and published faster than the rest. Which makes sense because Faraday was involved in the publishing industry and had a clear advantage. As always, the right place right time and an advantage go a long way. The fact remains that if Faraday was a couple months slower publishing he probably would not have be credited with "discovering" induction.

It reminds me of Jay Harman the inventor from Australia would invented the revolutionary Lily impeller in 1996. The problem is an Austrian named Viktor Schauberger invented the identical impeller and published pictures 50 years prior. Harman was labelled a genius and Schauberger a quack. Weird how that works.

[TimFox]

Einstein graduated from the Polytechnic in Zurich (ETH) in 1900, then took his job at the Patent Office.  While there, he worked his way through graduate school, earning his PhD in 1905 from the University in Zurich.
1905 was a good year, publishing four famous papers.
The Patent Office was a job:  his formal education was academic.