Gravity versus buoyancy/density

[Breizh]

So there would be a field, called ether, that permeates everything, perhaps even (probably) atoms and electrons, and that field could possibly be the source of all energy, thus also matter in the universe.
...
The field, ether, is what we observe, at least the result of the movements within that field. And we call these observations matter, light, magnetism, and so on.

I'm reminded of the notion that matter/atoms are 99.9% empty space. Somewhat of a simplistic observation but yet.
The ether could be perceived as a sea in which everything exists. Currents and eddies occur in the sea which might give rise to different phenomena like wind, tornadoes, magnetism etc. It's also likely that ether tek (aka Antiquitek) engages these ether currents more directly than conventional modern-day batteries.

 

[jeenam]

One could even argue that nothing exists, but that everything is an illusion of our senses, and that's why we can't (or don't) understand certain aspects, because then science might merge into spirituality. And that step is impossible for many. Because we are the thing, the instrument that research and examines the thing.

I disagree with anyone who would say nothing exists. And regarding our senses, folks need to understand that our senses are the inverse of how we think of them. They are actually limiters that limit our perception of reality. Anyone who has done DMT will understand this. Our sensory organs are only capable of detecting a small sliver of the spectrum of vibration that permeates the reality that we exist within. This was done on purpose, to limit our capacity for understanding.

 

[reverendALC]

I like the tack of that, but I’m really not sold on “mass attracts mass” for some reason. It’s not testable or reproducible here on earth. If you’re not sold on the “moon” then there’s really no evidence that mass attracts mass.

I know I’m always banging the “electromagnetism” angle, but I’ve been thinking about mass and density. I’m no scholar, but the denser/heavier elements; their atoms have more electrons right? If we’re dealing with electromagnetism, couldn’t the elements with more electrons be drawn toward the earth with greater force?

Admittedly, I have no hypothesis about what’s beneath the ground to generate the attraction.

 

[AntiSoof]

I disagree with anyone who would say nothing exists. And regarding our senses, folks need to understand that our senses are the inverse of how we think of them. They are actually limiters that limit our perception of reality. Anyone who has done DMT will understand this. Our sensory organs are only capable of detecting a small sliver of the spectrum of vibration that permeates the reality that we exist within. This was done on purpose, to limit our capacity for understanding.

I like the tack of that, but I’m really not sold on “mass attracts mass” for some reason. It’s not testable or reproducible here on earth. If you’re not sold on the “moon” then there’s really no evidence that mass attracts mass.

I know I’m always banging the “electromagnetism” angle, but I’ve been thinking about mass and density. I’m no scholar, but the denser/heavier elements; their atoms have more electrons right? If we’re dealing with electromagnetism, couldn’t the elements with more electrons be drawn toward the earth with greater force?

Admittedly, I have no hypothesis about what’s beneath the ground to generate the attraction.

If light is an electromagnetic wave, then that wave must (therefore) pass through an electromagnetic environment. (Compare a water wave, this wave consist of water and energy.) And that environment would be the aether.
And indeed, masses wouldn't attract each other, gravity would be a push from the aether-waves from all over the universe towards the earth and other masses. And that push apparently arises from the incredible amount of energy that is constantly being 'processed' in the universe; one star explodes and another is born, entire galaxies are blown up, but then reborn. And then perhaps billions of times simultaneously, continue. That energy, these waves ( background radiation ?), might cause the pushing force that is also directed to Earth.
So there could indeed be no g-force between two masses.
(Perhaps, therefore, there is indeed an extremely strong gravitational force at the center of our Earth, making it superhot and creating new elements.)

Read: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341219567_The_Aether

 

[jeenam]

I agree with the idea that there needs to be a medium through which things travel. There are numerous sources out there that propose the reason objects fall down to earth is because of the difference in voltage between the surface of this place we live (ground) and the air above. It is an undisuputed fact that the higher you go above the ground the greater the voltage differential. Think of an electric circuit - the positive charge is always moving towards ground (negative).

 

[reverendALC]

What’s wrong with Aether after all? Here’s a brief synopsis of the scientific consensus:

1. Proposal and Early Development

• Ancient & Medieval Roots: The idea of aether goes back to Aristotle (~4th century BCE), who described it as a “fifth element” filling the heavens.
• 17th Century: With the rise of mechanical philosophy, scientists (Descartes, Huygens, Newton) proposed some kind of invisible medium to explain how light and gravity could act through “empty space.”
• 19th Century: Aether became central to physics as the assumed medium that carried light waves, much like air carries sound waves.

2. Acceptance as Mainstream Physics

• Early 1800s: Thomas Young’s double-slit experiment (1801) and Augustin-Jean Fresnel’s wave theory of light strengthened the case for aether.
• Mid-1800s: James Clerk Maxwell’s equations (1860s) described light as an electromagnetic wave, reinforcing the need for a medium—the “luminiferous aether.”

3. Challenges and Experiments

• Late 1800s: Physicists tried to detect Earth’s motion through the aether.
• Most famous: Michelson–Morley experiment (1887), which found no measurable “aether wind,” contradicting expectations.
• The failure led to increasing doubts about aether’s existence.

4. Discarding the Concept

• 1905: Albert Einstein’s Special Relativity eliminated the need for aether, showing that light’s speed is constant in all frames of reference—no medium required.
• 1920s: Although Einstein briefly suggested a redefined “aether” as spacetime itself, the classical idea of a luminiferous aether was discarded from mainstream physics.

Einstein “revolutionized” a lot of physics. “Evangelized” might be a better word.

EDIT: fun side note, the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed to prove globe earth by identifying and measuring the earth’s spinning in the aether. When that wasn’t identified, it didn’t disprove the globe it disproved the aether. LOL

 

[reverendALC]

This may be old news to some, but I’ve never heard this before.

Gravity pushes down instead of pulls:


View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TgQjZiJxdDE