Gravity is Not Electric nor is it Space-Time Curvature

I have a very different view of how gravity operates. Gravity is Not electric. Just like how light is not electric unto itself. It's neutral. Yet both light and gravity are produced by electrons dropping energy levels, but in different ways.

When you talk about "gravity" with people, what specifically do you mean?You have to give an accurate definition based upon a given model or combinations thereof in order to do a question justice.
It is known what gravity does. No one is denying that when you jump up, you come back down. But it's the mechanism that is not understood and the explanations for why and how that happens that are not complete.
So... do you mean Newtons model which says gravity is a force? That mass attracts mass (without any electric influence)?

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses..." --Newton
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Albert Einstein said gravity is not a force. Relativity and Lorentz invariance define gravity as the curvature of space-time itself. The deformation of a 4th dimensional medium that simultaneously has and does not have properties like a condensed matter medium. There is no attraction, no pull, and no work exerted on anything whatsoever according to the model of gravity under relativity. Like the ol’ bowling ball on a mattress visualization. The curve in the mattress does not exert any force on anything else on, above or around the mattress.

No Space-Time Curvature Gravity is like displacement in Relativity
Relatvity vs Reality 24/71:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1770586058767614422

When you speak about gravity... are you saying gravity is more like what Nicolas Fatio and Georges LeSage speculated, with ultra fine particles of matter subject to Casimir like forces?

LeSage Push Gravity?

Dynamic Casimir Effect with Coded Magnets:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2056899469699055936

Or when you talk about gravity... are you saying gravity is more like a push from the outside rather than a pull from the core like Walter C. Wright's model?

Gravity Is A Push:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_01ueS0Y28YQUdLa2NHeWFxdFk/view?usp=sharing

Or are you saying gravity is more like Aberration and Refraction of energies analogous to massless “gravitons” like Dr Edward Dowdye's explanations?
In which earth is rotating/ orbiting through, and immersed in/ cutting through energies at a constant rate around the Sun.
And the more energy dense the atmosphere of plasma surrounding a celestial body will amplify (or diminish) the effect at angles and tangents.

Earth is not orbitting the exact center of the Sun. Earth orbits where the center of the Sun used to be 8.33 minutes ago. There is an offset and delay of the gravity propagating from the Sun and affecting Earth by about 20.5 arc seconds.

Or.. when you talk about gravity are you saying it's an emergent phenomenon resulting from a secondary electrostatic force?
R.C. Gupta - Gravity as a Secondary Force:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505194.pdf

Or are you saying gravity is like what Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and other Russian scientists have speculated?
That space, or rather, the energies IN space are LIKE a superfluid. Can't interact with it because there's no resistance with standard mass, pressure, voltage, etc. Suggesting it's there isn't emptiness between planets, but rather it is more like an ocean. (Dirac Sea/ All pervasive Electrostatic Influence)

The Russians scientists here speculate that space (or energies In space) behave like a crystalline superfluid. And that the deformation of the crystalline-like nature of the surrounding pervasive energies is analogous to a gravitational influence. (It's another glorified space-time/aether medium.)
Visualization from about 10 minutes 15 seconds to 15 minutes 15 seconds.

If you don’t speak Russian, put on the subtitles if you can.
If not.. put it on mute and just observe, digest and compare.
Russian Crystal Medium Model:

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov:
https://rumble.com/vdcupd-dr.-eugene-podkletnov-full-interview-rotating-superconductors.html

Gravity Impulse Generator:
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnovs-gravity-impulse-generator

Podkletnov Lawrence Livermore Labs:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005

Dr. Podkletnov describes his “force beam generator” experiment and his improvements to increase the experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated bypassing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field. He described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab as well as capable to punch holes in solid materials. After careful testing, Podkletnov found the speed of the impulse to be approx. 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates doesn't conflict with interpretations of Relativity.
(You cannot violate what doesn't apply)
Podkletnov Info:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170501005744/

“Someone in the laboratory was smoking and the smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. We placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect increased.”

More Podkletnov Info:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

“Podkletnov claims the gravitational beam is generated by a 3 to 5 megavolt drop onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, which is enclosed in a wrapped-solenoid to create a magnetic field around the apparatus.”
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnov-on-gravity-shielding

Pulses are powerful enough to punch through brick, concrete, and deform light-metals, "like hitting it with a sledgehammer".
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnovs-gravity-beam-generator

“The beam doesn't disappear rapidly with distance -- in fact, it’s been measured at distances of up to 5 kilometers and seems to penetrate all materials without a decrease in force.”
https://www.americanantigravity.com/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity

Boeing and Podkletnov:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

NASA, Dr. Ning Li and Podkletnov/ Project GRASP:
https://huntsvillebusinessjournal.com/news/2023/07/30/solving-the-mystery-of-huntsvilles-brilliant-scientist-disappearing/

And again here by the ESA:
http://phys.org/news12054.html

They didn't have the superconductor in a cryostat or a magnetic field... yet, the article states:
“Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.”

So... what exactly do you mean by "gravity?"
Which particular model are you basing your statement on when you speak on a given example?
I personally think it is a multitude of factors and combination of these scenarios. And more.
I also think the rate of decay of the Sun's core in relation to the accelerated expansion of the Earth's core somehow generates "gravity" between those two bodies. From the sum and/or difference of the emissions between each body.

Pari Spolter has clues to this connection as well:

I found this short 12 page pamphlet on the Biefeld-Brown Effect and the work of Thomas Townsend Brown. It was written by Mason Rose, Ph.D., President of the University for Social Research:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIXZqdZS62oz_AqXMLqkyi5q_xnpl8e0/view?usp=sharing

I don't think gravity is electric, but I do think it comes from electrons.

Wait... how can gravity and light not be electric if it comes from electrons?

Electrons are the very definition of electricity for the most part. The randomized/ Brownian motion of electrons in 3 dimensions is static. (voltage with no amps) Electricity can be produced from a stream of protons or any charged particles. But we're talking about electrons for now.

Those same electrons with a given direction is the definition of an electric current. (volts are proportional to amps). But in any case... all of the electrostatics, electric currents, magnetic fields, ion wind, etc.... All of that comes from single electrons in 3 dimensions.

Gravity, however, comes from electron pairs... and those pairs are initially produced in a state of coherence from pressure, Lorentz force and other factors. The electrons are bound to two dimensions. Like a sheet or like Saturn's rings.

As the electron pairs exit that coherent boundary... (confined to 2 dimensions... spring-loaded) ... they decouple and split. As the electron pair splits, it- drops energy levels and produces gravity.
Those single electrons drop energy levels further from there to produce the electrostatic fields, magnetic fields and emissions of light. Serving the illusion that gravity is electric.

No... the electrostatics are a secondary effect after the electron pairs split.

In addition... I feel that gravity might have a spectrum.
Not like fictional “gravitational waves” as LIGO fraudulently claimed. (Have volumes of info on that one)
So it wouldn’t just be as simple as Gravity/Anti-Gravity.
(anti implying a cancelation of gravity)

Or Gravity/Inverse Gravity
(implying a flipping of gravity like polarity... rather than a canceling)

If Gravity had a spectrum, then lenses might effect the properties as they do with light, but the lens in this case would be an energy dense plasma or extreme high voltage discharge.
(not necessarily arcing, but rather producing anomalous magnetic walls to contain certain forces – “Plasma Double Layers.”)

And simultaneously act as a lens to refract/ deflect or manipulate surrounding/ incoming “gravitons” (not particles) or specific spectra of gravity.

But generalizing and saying, "Gravity doesn't exist" is ineffective and an easy way to get people to stop listening to you. Gravity obviously exists… But the mechanism by which it operates is not understood. Semantics matters in the Scientific community.
I think there is a similarity between Illumination and Gravity.
It doesn't matter if a room is lit by a dim red light or a bright blue light or white light, etc. The effect of Any range of Illumination allows you to observe the room in real time.

Just as it doesn't matter if a body is emitting different spectra of "gravitons"/ emissions. The effect of Any range of gravity allows other bodies to be influenced. Looking at gravity as being binary or "on or off" or positive/ negative doesn't cut it. But Imagine if someone wasn't able to see ANY color. Just that illumination allows the observer to see in real time.

This is how the world views gravity currently. No discernment between wavelengths/ frequencies OF gravity. Which follow the same rules as light. And many people still have misconceptions of light.

I found this short 12 page pamphlet on the Biefeld-Brown Effect and the work of Thomas Townsend Brown. It was written by Mason Rose, Ph.D., President of the University for Social Research:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIXZqdZS62oz_AqXMLqkyi5q_xnpl8e0/view?usp=sharing

I don't think gravity is electric, but I do think it comes from electrons.

Wait... how can gravity and light not be electric if it comes from electrons?

Electrons are the very definition of electricity for the most part. The randomized/ Brownian motion of electrons in 3 dimensions is static. (voltage with no amps) Electricity can be produced from a stream of protons or any charged particles. But we're talking about electrons for now.

Those same electrons with a given direction is the definition of an electric current. (volts are proportional to amps). But in any case... all of the electrostatics, electric currents, magnetic fields, ion wind, etc.... All of that comes from single electrons in 3 dimensions.

Gravity, however, comes from electron pairs... and those pairs are initially produced in a state of coherence from pressure, Lorentz force and other factors. The electrons are bound to two dimensions. Like a sheet or like Saturn's rings.

As the electron pairs exit that coherent boundary... (confined to 2 dimensions... spring-loaded) ... they decouple and split. As the electron pair splits, it- drops energy levels and produces gravity.
Those single electrons drop energy levels further from there to produce the electrostatic fields, magnetic fields and emissions of light. Serving the illusion that gravity is electric.

No... the electrostatics are a secondary effect after the electron pairs split.

In addition... I feel that gravity might have a spectrum.
Not like fictional “gravitational waves” as LIGO fraudulently claimed. (Have volumes of info on that one)
So it wouldn’t just be as simple as Gravity/Anti-Gravity.
(anti implying a cancelation of gravity)

Or Gravity/Inverse Gravity
(implying a flipping of gravity like polarity... rather than a canceling)

If Gravity had a spectrum, then lenses might effect the properties as they do with light, but the lens in this case would be an energy dense plasma or extreme high voltage discharge.
(not necessarily arcing, but rather producing anomalous magnetic walls to contain certain forces – “Plasma Double Layers.”)

And simultaneously act as a lens to refract/ deflect or manipulate surrounding/ incoming “gravitons” (not particles) or specific spectra of gravity.

But generalizing and saying, "Gravity doesn't exist" is ineffective and an easy way to get people to stop listening to you. Gravity obviously exists… But the mechanism by which it operates is not understood. Semantics matters in the Scientific community.
I think there is a similarity between Illumination and Gravity.
It doesn't matter if a room is lit by a dim red light or a bright blue light or white light, etc. The effect of Any range of Illumination allows you to observe the room in real time.

Just as it doesn't matter if a body is emitting different spectra of "gravitons"/ emissions. The effect of Any range of gravity allows other bodies to be influenced. Looking at gravity as being binary or "on or off" or positive/ negative doesn't cut it. But Imagine if someone wasn't able to see ANY color. Just that illumination allows the observer to see in real time.

This is how the world views gravity currently. No discernment between wavelengths/ frequencies OF gravity. Which follow the same rules as light. And many people still have misconceptions of light.I found this short 12 page pamphlet on the Biefeld-Brown Effect and the work of Thomas Townsend Brown. It was written by Mason Rose, Ph.D., President of the University for Social Research:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIXZqdZS62oz_AqXMLqkyi5q_xnpl8e0/view?usp=sharing

I don't think gravity is electric, but I do think it comes from electrons.

Wait... how can gravity and light not be electric if it comes from electrons?

Electrons are the very definition of electricity for the most part. The randomized/ Brownian motion of electrons in 3 dimensions is static. (voltage with no amps) Electricity can be produced from a stream of protons or any charged particles. But we're talking about electrons for now.

Those same electrons with a given direction is the definition of an electric current. (volts are proportional to amps). But in any case... all of the electrostatics, electric currents, magnetic fields, ion wind, etc.... All of that comes from single electrons in 3 dimensions.

Gravity, however, comes from electron pairs... and those pairs are initially produced in a state of coherence from pressure, Lorentz force and other factors. The electrons are bound to two dimensions. Like a sheet or like Saturn's rings.

As the electron pairs exit that coherent boundary... (confined to 2 dimensions... spring-loaded) ... they decouple and split. As the electron pair splits, it- drops energy levels and produces gravity.
Those single electrons drop energy levels further from there to produce the electrostatic fields, magnetic fields and emissions of light. Serving the illusion that gravity is electric.

No... the electrostatics are a secondary effect after the electron pairs split.

In addition... I feel that gravity might have a spectrum.
Not like fictional “gravitational waves” as LIGO fraudulently claimed. (Have volumes of info on that one)
So it wouldn’t just be as simple as Gravity/Anti-Gravity.
(anti implying a cancelation of gravity)

Or Gravity/Inverse Gravity
(implying a flipping of gravity like polarity... rather than a canceling)

If Gravity had a spectrum, then lenses might effect the properties as they do with light, but the lens in this case would be an energy dense plasma or extreme high voltage discharge.
(not necessarily arcing, but rather producing anomalous magnetic walls to contain certain forces – “Plasma Double Layers.”)

And simultaneously act as a lens to refract/ deflect or manipulate surrounding/ incoming “gravitons” (not particles) or specific spectra of gravity.

But generalizing and saying, "Gravity doesn't exist" is ineffective and an easy way to get people to stop listening to you. Gravity obviously exists… But the mechanism by which it operates is not understood. Semantics matters in the Scientific community.
I think there is a similarity between Illumination and Gravity.
It doesn't matter if a room is lit by a dim red light or a bright blue light or white light, etc. The effect of Any range of Illumination allows you to observe the room in real time.

Just as it doesn't matter if a body is emitting different spectra of "gravitons"/ emissions. The effect of Any range of gravity allows other bodies to be influenced. Looking at gravity as being binary or "on or off" or positive/ negative doesn't cut it. But Imagine if someone wasn't able to see ANY color. Just that illumination allows the observer to see in real time.

This is how the world views gravity currently. No discernment between wavelengths/ frequencies OF gravity. Which follow the same rules as light. And many people still have misconceptions of light.

Readers of Jason Verbelli's Galilean Variance will uncover the flaws in iconic claims for the M87 "black hole", Stephen Hawking's erroneous evaporation math, LIGO's false detections, and introducing alternative explanations for the same data. The content in this book may also reveal part of the reason for Dr. Paul Brown's mysterious death regarding his resonant nuclear battery. The author also details Professor John Searl's unconventional magnetic technology and gives context for its significance.

Packed with sharp philosophical critiques of scientific dogma, calls for returning to empirical reason, and technical depth accessible to both curious lay readers and advanced physicists, this volume provides more tools to rethink the mechanism for gravity and energy entirely - clearing the path for Book 3 on TIME.

Addressing Gravity - Segment from an interview with Bob Tuskin:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/2032198955812208821?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg

This slide is from a larger presentation I gave years ago.
The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity:
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/the-rebirth-of-classic-physics-light-time-and-gravity-jason-verbelli

But T.T Brown, Hal Puthoff, Tom Bearden, et all... they all believed gravity was electric. But it's not. It's an illusion.

A... B... C.

A - Electron Pairs Split ....
B - Gravity is Produced ....
C -The Single Electrons Produce Light/Magnetic Fields and Electrostatic fields from there, etc.

A - is not even considered. That is my original and heretical model of gravity. There are distinctions to be made and illusions to discern.

C does Not produce B.
A produces B which then produces C. Here is another example following this formula. Where A does not directly affect C. A affects B... B then affects C. Trying to directly link A with C is destined to oblivion. Trying to directly link electromagnetism with gravitation is destined to oblivion. Which is why I say there can be no Theory of One or a Unification Theory. Because there is No direct link. Only indirect!

Gravity and Light - A, B, C:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1977057204571439254?s=20

Gravity is not some mythical curvature of space-time.
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1974985998749819334?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg

No Aether:
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1863275517862125670?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg

Is Aether Real?
Relativity vs Reality Part 3/71
https://x.com/therealverbz/status/1767274194407219663?s=46&t=JhcGFRVj667kIEx6GxtHvg

Models of Gravity and Misconception of "Aether":
https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/models-of-gravity-and-misconception-of-aether

Gravity is indeed a force! And it propagates like light at the velocity of c. Being born from electron pairs. I use the same rules of optics but applied to gravitation. Here is an excerpt from my Book 1 on LIGHT. Leading a Segway into Book 2 on GRAVITY.

The entirety of general relativity hinges on gravity being the curvature of space-time itself, that gravity directly bends light and warps orbits. This book proves that model false - revealing a new mechanism for gravity as an emission, similar to light.

Ebook for Book 2 on GRAVITY by Jason Verbelli - Barnes & Noble
https://barnesandnoble.com/w/gravity-jason-verbelli/1149166971?ean=9781969175053

Link for Book 2 on GRAVITY - Paperback purchase US/UK
https://shop.ingramspark.com/b/084?params=QVmpCsckcTuJtm4DBeiTeDtwL3IkoAoYuTreiwQOQoA

Amazon link for Book 2 on GRAVITY by Jason Verbelli
https://a.co/d/ji62rSl

Gravity propagates like light. Anything light can do... gravity can do.

Optics, Electrodynamics & Gravitation based from Re-Worked classical physics/ Galilean Transformations under Euclidean Space:
https://www.extinctionshift.com/short_present/ViewGraph_English.pdf

Dr. Edward Dowdye's "Extinction Shift Principle" - No Relativity!
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/2061591781180076186

Extinction Shift Principle: A Pure Classical Alternative to General and Special Relativity, Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Physics Essays, Volume 20, 56 (2007) (11 pages); DOI: 10.4006/1.3073809
http://quantumrealism.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/1c1q1qcoh_33307.pdf

Propagation and Re-Emission of Light:
https://www.extinctionshift.com/details03.htm

More Gravity Related Links from Dr. Dowdye:
E.H. Dowdye, Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General Relativity and Gravity with Dr. Edward Dowdye:
https://x.com/TheRealVerbz/status/1706007563731673218?s=20

Challenges to Gravitational Lensing and More:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

Gauss' Law for gravity and observation reveal no solar lensing in empty vacuum space:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1807.0149v1.pdf

Gravitational Light Bending History is Severely Impact-Parameter Dependent:
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6523.pdf

Gravitational Lensing in Empty Vacuum Space Does Not Take Place:
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5973.pdf

The Shapiro Delay: A Frequency Dependent Transit-Time Effect:
https://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6105.pdf

E.H. Dowdye Jr., 2018, The Solar Plasma Limb is found to deflect Microwaves from Extra Galactic Radio Sources at Lowest Impact Parameter Corresponding to the Solar Plasma Limb.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/PaperSubmittedToAstronomischeNachrichten.pdf

"Time resolved images from the center of the Galaxy appear to counter General Relativity", Dowdye, Jr., E.H., Astronomische Nachrichten, Volume 328, Issue 2, Date: February 2007, Pages: 186-191. Published on-line at:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/search/allsearch
(Search under author: Dowdye)

INFINITE ENERGY * November/December 2009 * Issue 88
"Are the Conventional Concepts of Gravitational Lensing Adhering to the Observational Evidence and Mathematical Physic Fundamentals?", Infinite Energy, Volume 15, Issue 88, 2009
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue88/index.html

Thank you for your interest.

Respectfully,
Jason Verbelli
Founder of Galilean Variance
https://galileanvariance.com