Claim by Robert Otey: When Newton applied Kepler’s equations to get to his formula of gravity he erroneously added the product of the masses. Kepler only described motion and didn’t talk about masses.

Video made by

# Ryan McMahon

and published on Robert Otey’s channel 77GSlinger:

Remarks: Gravity is 10^-37 times weaker than electricity. The Electric Universe proponents thus follow that it is not a force in its own right at all. We only THINK of it as a force because Newton described it as such and ASSUMED that gravity was caused by MASS.

BTW we still have no idea WHAT GIVES AN OBJECT MASS. We have NO EXPLANATION for inertia. When I once accidentally met a CERN physicist in a train compartment I asked him for confirmation, he said, yes that’s right, we don’t know. And there’s no work being done on that.

Yet Newton claims that it is MASS that causes objects to attract each other.

And: Electric Universe proponents also say that all particles are just apparitions of the pressure gradient caused by electric vortices. Which kinda makes sense given de Broglies interpretation of quantum theory that says that particles are just riders on a pilot wave; and according SED experiments with dancing droplets on the standing waves of a liquid-covered “shaker” table; the dancing droplets corresponding to particles, and by adding mechanical obstacles, these experiments reproduce the double slit experiment with purely classical means… or in other words, this way of thinking helps to explain the mysterious wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. If “particles” are only APPARENT manifestations of oscillating waves, such behaviour becomes possible.

*de Broglie’s interpretation of quantum dynamics is an alternative to the Kopenhagen interpretation. It was not followed up on at the time as it is a non-local interpretation through the pilot wave, so it was not computable at the time with the manual analytic means of humans. It will become more feasible with computer simulations.*

*It makes identical predictions to the Kopenhagen interpretation meaning it is in accordance with quantum equations (Schrödinger field equation); but, as it is non-local, it can profit from more information about the surrounding. Meaning it should have more practical relevance in my opinion if such simulations are undertaken.*

What’s the “shaker” or the driving force in the real universe, what drives the pilot wave? This is in my opinion most likely the ubiquitious vacuum energy or zero point energy (which exists everywhere, not just in the vacuum of space) – as Planck has shown, no frequency component of the electromagnetic spectrum can ever have exaxtly zero energy anywhere. There is always a quantized non-zero energy. Add this up over all possible frequencies (which cut off at a wavelength of the Planck distance – which is the smallest possible distance – space is quantized as well) and you get a non-infinite but very large MINIMUM energy permeating every quantum of space.

Isn’t all quantum theory in contradiction to what the Electric Universe guys propose? No: It’s two different approaches trying to describe the same universe. I’m not talking about decade long failed attempts at formulating a theory of quantum theory, just what Schrödinger, Planck, Heisenberg, de Broglie at the time described.

Notice that that original quantum theory is already entirely in contradiction with Einstein’s cosmology. Einstein tried all his life in vain to resolve the contradiction. Well maybe his cosmology is wrong then.

If planets are stabilized by electricity, not gravity, hollow planets and suns become more thinkable, right? I didn’t watch this by now, just noting it here for later viewing…