21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: January 25, 2025, 09:08:47 AM »

1967: "The results were ASTONISHING. The cosmic rays could not penetrate the water saturated limestone blocks of the pyramids."

1974: "In 1974, apparently unaware of the pyramid x-raying of Alvarez, the National Science Foundation launched another attempt to x-ray the pyramids.

This time the results were published.

The limestone rocks were too saturated with water to allow penetration by cosmic rays."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2225892#msg2225892

The Gizeh pyramid was submerged under the sea for weeks, up to an altitude of 100 meters:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2241300#msg2241300

That is when the last magnetic pole reversal and dome shift had occurred. And where the countdown of the precessional clock began. In my opinion we are very near the end of the Sun's precessional cycle, where it will reach the outer limit of its alloted orbit, and then it will go beyond the Tropic: this event will start the astronomical reset.


The grammatical errors which have been found in the text of the book of apocalypse:


https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2c19oh/poor_quality_greek_in_the_book_of_revelation_why/
https://www.bereaninsights.org/bible-gem-2188-why-is-the-greek-of-revelation-and-johns-gospel-different/
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2014/04/23/revelations-hebraic-grammar/
https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation/

C. Selwynn’s complaint regarding John’s grammar: it would be a “disgrace” to an “English fifth-form school-boy” because it involves “hopelessly bad Greek.” Schlesinger notes that “the solecisms of the Apocalypse remain virtually indetectable to the English reader. English translations smooth out the awkward grammar of the apocalyptist so that the reader of the English is never ‘stopped in mid-course and confounded.”

As Maier puts it: “a reading of contemporary translations of the Apocalypse [does] not reveal [its] complexity. The Book of Revelation translated in modern English Bibles reflects a cleaned-up Greek text and, especially when it comes to translation of verb tenses, a far more orderly account of the things John heard and saw than the original suggests.”

The original text in 13:5 says "new moons", not "months". That is, forty and two new moons.

https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hemera

https://www.bibleinsight.com/rev13.html new moons not months
https://www.bibleinsight.com/newmoon.html
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011,Hisgalus%201&version=ESV;OJB

4. And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.

https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe083.htm

That is, there will be 42 consecutive new moons (40 days or so), not 42 consecutive months.


When the Sun will go beyond the Tropic, everything we know about astronomy will be thrown into dissaray, including the periodicity/recurrence of the solar/lunar eclipses.

The first sign to watch out for will be the massive disruptions in the GPS signals.

22

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: January 24, 2025, 09:46:18 PM »

The original mayan step pyramid on the Great Seal.

But why is the year 1776 depicted on the first step of the pyramid? Why is it so important?

July IV MDCCLXXVI / July IV MMXXV

On June 21 1776, Jupiter was on top of the club held by Orion, and so it will be on June 21 2025. Now, in FET we have the westward precessional shift of the Sun, ~1.52-1.54 km/yr.

While the total interval which has been alloted for the solar precession measures 508.8 km, we can infer from various sources that after the great flood there are only 381.8 km left which amounts to some 249 years.

Most researchers refer to this source when they are trying to calculate the date of the astronomical reset:

The sun, moon, and Brihaspati will align in the constellation of Karkata and enter simultaneously the lunar mansion of Pushya (Pushya Nakshatra) at that exact moment the age of Satya, or Krita, will begin.
Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 12

Karkata = Crab constellation

The problem is with Brihaspati which is Rudra (Betelgeuse), and since Jupiter and Mars were located exactly in that sign of the zodiac some 249 years ago (the date which I believe was related to the last astronomical reset), Brihaspati became planet Jupiter (Vedic cosmology). However, Brihaspati is Rudra. How would Rudra move between the Gemini and Crab constellations from its current position?

https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe083.htm

And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
[And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.

And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed).
And these shall alter their orbits and tasks,
And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.

If I knew precisely the date when Sun had started to move precesionally westward, I could calculate the time of the next astronomical reset to the very day.

23

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026

« on: January 24, 2025, 12:02:00 PM »

I highly doubt that the world is going to experience the August 2026 solar eclipse. When the Sun will reach the outer limit of its precessional westward shift, it will start to orbit beyond the Tropic, and this phenomenon will happen soon. The first signs to watch out for will be massive GPS signal fluctuations/interferences, which will indicate a magnetic pole shift (reversal).

https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=1776-07-04&h=17&m=22

https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=1776-06-21&h=17&m=22

https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=2025-06-21&h=17&m=22

https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=2025-07-04&h=17&m=22

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 05, 2024, 09:51:31 PM »

A. Gullstrand recognized the fact that the Einstein field equations are applicable only to static systems and not dynamical systems. That is why Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for TGR.

As early as 1917 experts in tensor calculus had found out about the flaws in TGR:

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

That is why, in that same year (1917), H. Weyl extended TGR by using non-riemannian geometry:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

TGR is an incomplete, subluminal theory. What we need and want is a superluminal theory, which unifies electrodynamics with gravity.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 04, 2024, 02:32:22 PM »

It's not what I might not like, it's the definite proofs that Eddington cooked the data (multiple sources).

Now, for someone to say that they have performed an experiment confirming Eddington's data would be to actually confirm his errors. So, the title of the experiment "Modern Eddington X" is somewhat unfortunate.

Problems with the MEE2024:

They used RE stellar parallax and proper motion data, not to mention differential relativistic aberration, using an outside source, namely the US Naval Observatory NOVAS program.

Moreover, FET also states that light will be affected by gravitational waves: both light (e/m) waves and gravitational waves propagate/travel together in double torsion fashion:



If the gravitational wave is influenced by any outside factors, so will the light wave, since they propagate together.


There is only one way to see if the MEE2024 also was arranged in such a way as to "confirm" Einstein's relativity equations. Are the Einstein field equations correct? If they are incorrect, then the data flies out the window at once.

More to the point, do the Einstein field equations apply to dynamical or only static problems? To make the analysis even easier, is there a bounded dynamical solution?


For the dynamic case when gravitational waves are involved, it has been proven in 1995 that the Einstein equation does not have any bounded dynamic solution. This has far reaching consequences.

A. Gullstrand, Chairman (1922-1929) of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics, did suspect that Einstein‘s equations are invalid because they cannot be derived from the approach of a solution for many-body problems.

he Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf


Incompleteness of General Relativity, Einstein's Errors, and Related Experiments

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf

General relativity is incomplete since it does not include the gravitational radiation reaction force and the interaction of gravitation with charged particles.  Moreover, there is no bounded dynamic solution for the Einstein equation. Note that the Einstein equation with an electromagnetic wave source has no valid solution unless a photonic energy-stress tensor with an anti-gravitational coupling is added. Thus, the photonic energy includes gravitational energy.

Historically, Einstein's confidence on his theory was based on that he obtained the remaining of the perihelion of Mercury from his equation. However, since the calculation of perihelion of Mercury is based on a perturbation approach to get the influence of other planets, Einstein must show that the perturbation approach is valid. Nevertheless, Gullstrand suspected that the Einstein equation does not have such a solution. Thus, Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for his photo-electric effects instead of general relativity as many theorists expected.


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf


https://www.scribd.com/document/159984022/On-the-Question-of-Dynamic-Solution-in-General-Relativity

The reason, as shown, is that bounded dynamic solutions actually do not exist. For the dynamic case, the non-linear Einstein equation and its linearization also cannot have compatible solutions.

The existence of a dynamic solution requires an additional gravitational energy-momentum tensor with an antigravity coupling.

The issue of dynamic solutions in general relativity existed from the beginning of this theory until currently. The question started with the calculation of the perihelion of Mercury. In 1915 Einstein obtained the expected value of the remaining perihelion with his theory, and thus was confident of its correctness. The subsequent confirmation of the bending of light, further boosted his confidence. However, unexpectedly the base of his confidence was questioned by Gullstrand, the Chairman of the Nobel Prize for Physics. The perihelion of Mercury is actually a many-body problem, but Einstein had not shown that his calculation could be derived from such a necessary step. Thus, Mathematician D. Hilbert, who approved Einstein's initial calculation, did not come to its defense.


The Errors in the Fields Medals, 1982 to S. T. Yau and 1990 to E. Witten

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e43d/4ca7c2c872d6cbe924ff0de77596670c7bc7.pdf


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253111937_Compatibility_with_Einstein's_Notion_of_Weak_Gravity_Einstein's_Equivalence_Principle_and_the_Absence_of_Dynamic_Solutions_for_the_1915_Einstein_Equation


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328719305_The_Weight_Reduction_of_Charged_Capacitors_Charge-Mass_Interaction_and_Einstein's_Unification


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307855795_On_the_Test_of_Newton's_Inverse_Square_Law_and_Unification_of_Gravitation_and_Electromagnetism_--_the_questionable_accurate_gravitational_constant_of_J_Luo_--


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234454208_Einstein's_Radiation_Formula_and_Modifications_to_the_Einstein_Equation


THE NECESSITY OF UNIFYING GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM, MASS-CHARGE REPULSIVE EFFECTS, AND THE FIVE DIMENSIONAL THEORY

https://web.archive.org/web/20170809101844/http://www.cqfyl.com/20080220.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289230809_The_Question_of_Validity_of_the_Dynamic_Solutions''_Constructed_by_Christodoulou_and_Klainerman


The Question of Space-Time Singularities in General Relativity and Einstein's Errors

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f37e/0331ac59feb7e5101f98da743f419a2b1d90.pdf
 

The American Physical Society and Errors in Gravitation

https://globaljournals.org/GJSFR_Volume17/3-The-American-Physical-Society.pdf


Comments on “Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism by Mohammed A. El-Lakany” & Einstein’s Unification

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2530/bb8b8a98bba6feabeec908051bbb03e1d404.pdf


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252591908_Radiation_reaction_force_and_unification_of_electromagnetic_and_gravitational_fields


The non-locality of the gravitational wave reflects that the Einstein equation misses a term, the energy-momentum tensor with the anti-gravity coupling.  This missing term is
also the reason that the Einstein equation does not have any dynamic solution.

Dr. C.Y. Lo
PhD Mathematics, Queen's University
PhD Physics, MIT













On the question of a dynamic solution in general relativity

https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/magnetoacoustic-resonance-modes-in-coler-type-apparatus.pdf


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf


The Gravitational Wave and Einstein Equation

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354


https://www.scribd.com/document/122817396/Errors-of-Wald-on-General-Relativity

Dr. C.Y. Lo


A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf


The anti-gravitational coupling term for the Biefeld-Brown effect was derived for the first time by H. Weyl in 1917:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177793#msg2177793

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf


KHARUK-PASTON-SHEYKIN-OBUKHOV-PONOMAREV-KRECHET UFT: UNIFICATION OF THE GRAVITATIONAL AND ELECTROMAGNETIC POTENTIALS

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.academia.edu/16201568/Finishing_Einstein_Point_by_Point_The_unification_of_quantum_and_relativity
 

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 04, 2024, 07:59:37 AM »

Modern physics claims that the electron has a charge of negative 1 or -1. Having seen that an "electron" is made up of preons, it then stated that those preons have "fractional charge".

However, as we have seen in the previous messages, the graviton itself (the right handed subquark) has a charge of -1. Which means that the "electron" actually has a charge of -9. When it is convenient to them, physicists will immediately state that the electron has a charge of -1, yet when they are confronted with the "fractional charge" problem, they will simply ignore the issue.

The same thing is occurring with the proton: we are told it has a charge of +1. Yet, when scientists see that quarks and subquarks have fractional charges, they again ignore the issue. However, theoretical physicists have found out that the smallest possible vortex (graviton/antigraviton loop) itself has the charge of +1 (left handed vortex) or a charge of -1 (right handed vortex)..

So, there are NINE individual "electrons" and NINE separate "protons" in the atom. Nine gravitons, each with a charge of -1, make up the "electron". Nine antigravitons, each with a charge of +1, make up the "proton". Nine separate charges. That is where the 9.86 figure comes from when describing atomic density: nine subquarks + 0.86 (the connecting lines). Each has a separate +1 or -1 charge.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ¿En el modelo de la tierra plana como se explicaría la gravedad?

« on: December 04, 2024, 07:52:21 AM »

Sin embargo, la teoría de la relatividad general de Einstein proporciona una explicación sólida

Claiming in Spanish that TGR is a "solid theory" will not make it true.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 03, 2024, 08:53:02 PM »

https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states:


In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector. They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper [49] titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars

https://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of all times.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 03, 2024, 07:35:07 PM »

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

There is no mechanism by which mass can affect space-time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


"The graviton particle is chosen with the right mathematical characteristic to quantize gravity in accordance with quantum field theory and general relativity. These attempts however, fail to account for the origin of space-time curvature. Specifically, how does a graviton produce curvature when propagating from one mass to another? Does the graviton move in an already existing 4D space-time curvature? If it does, how is the space-time produced by the graviton? If not, how is 4D space-time curvature produced? In other words, if the 4D space-time curvature is not caused by the graviton exchanges, then what is the cause?"


That is why Dr. Hermann Weyl, a mathematician ranks higher than Einstein or Dirac, had introduced non-riemannian geometry.

Weyl’s new geometry was much richer than the Riemannian geometry in both its mathematical and philosophical content. Mathematically, the new geometry introduced new quantities into space that had no analogy in other geometries. Philosophically, these new quantities, unaccounted for by Riemannian geometry and thus unaccounted for in General Relativity, were used by Weyl to represent electromagnetic phenomena. Every point in space, represented by a vector having both magnitude and direction, could be displaced to another point in the same space yielding electromagnetism. When only the direction of the vector was taken into account, ignoring the vector’s magnitude, there remained a parallel displacement of the kind described by Levi-Civita, which accounted for gravity. The difference with Weyl’s geometry lay in the fact that it was no longer necessary for a vector’s magnitude or length to remain constant while being displaced between points in space.

It is known that the metric component g44 acts like a gravitational potential used in Newtonian mechanics. For a static system (where gravity and electromagnetism balance each other out), it is almost expected that there should be a functional relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential φ. Weyl’s classical paper in 1917 examined a static electric field in curved spacetime with axial symmetry. He found that, if there exists a functional relationship between g44 and, φ it must be in the form of:

g₄₄ (φ)= φ² + C1φ + C0

Any field with this relation is known as a Weyl-type field.

Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational equations for static systems (Biefeld-Brown effect):

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf


Terrestrial gravity can be increased or decreased by modifying the voltage:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207577#msg2207577


Modern physics cannot explain how or why the mass of a proton is attained by its three quarks components:

https://profmattstrassler.com/2024/07/22/the-standard-model-more-deeply-how-the-proton-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts/

They are invoking TSR which does not exist.

Here is the Kassner effect, from Sagnac interferometry, which destroys TSR at once:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234871#msg2234871

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2235136#msg2235136


A proton has nine subquarks (and a set of connecting lines). Each of those subquarks is an antigraviton.

An electron has nine subquarks. Each of those subquarks is a graviton.

But science has stopped at the level of a proton while counting the atomic density of objects. However, a proton has NINE subquarks and a set of connecting lines (which transmit the flux of bosons between the subquarks). The total number amounts to 9.86 units.

Then, W = V X D (where D = 9.86d, where d is the atomic density based on protons/electrons).

Here is the latest research on the nature of antigravitons and gravitons:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202054

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

The “reality conditions” are realized by an inner product that is chiral asymmetric, resulting in a chiral asymmetric ordering for the Hamiltonian, and, in an asymmetric description of the left and right handed gravitons.

The first step towards this goal is to recast the Fock description of graviton also in terms of closed loops.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3552.pdf

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

Is made up of the right handed positive frequency of the graviton and the left handed negative frequency of the anti-graviton.

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron


The fundamental unit of gravity is the graviton, or the dextrorotatory subquark. And an electron has nine such gravitons (plus 0.86 units of connecting lines).

The fundamental unit of antigravity is the antigraviton, or the laevorotatory subquark. A proton has nine such antigravitons (plus 0.86 units of connecting lines).

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: December 02, 2024, 05:53:42 PM »

The Michelson-Morley interferometer is a Sagnac interferometer with almost zero area.

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):



Dr. Patrick Cornille (Advanced Electromagnetism and Vacuum Physics, 2003, pg. 150-157) has provided a thorough examination of the fact that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer with zero area:




The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual line/path/curve followed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer).


Subquarks have been discovered at Fermilab back in 1996:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”

You must accept that preons make up an electron, they are the "subquarks" of the electron.

Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, derived by Hermann Weyl in 1917 using the aether hypothesis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2207577#msg2207577


Why 9.86 and not 9.81?

https://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php#g3




Before 1964, the weight of an object is given as mg, where m = V x D (atomic level). After 1964, the weight of the object is mg/3, where m = V x D1 (quark level), D1 = 3D. After 1996 (when the subquark was detected at Fermilab), the formula becomes: W = V x D2, where D2 = 9.86D.

The density of an atom depends on its nucleus, electron cloud, and quantum mechanical properties.

As soon as the quarks had been discovered theoretically (1964) and experimentally (1967-1973), the density formula should have been changed at once. It is beyond belief and beyond understanding that not one of the physicists at that time had thought to himself: protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, that means that the density formula must change as well by a factor of 3.

This is from the chemistry and physics textbooks:

The density of an object is the mass of the object compared to its volume. The equation for density is: Density = mass/volume or D = m/v. Each substance has its own characteristic density because of the size, mass, and arrangement of its atoms or molecules.

The density of elements in the periodic table is a measure of the number of atoms and their mass when they occupy a certain volume of space.

And if that "arrangement" of atoms is modified, should not the density formula  be changed as well? Protons and neutrons consist of quarks, electrons are made up of preons.

W = mg = V x D x g in 1963

W = mg = V x D1 x g/3 where D1 = 3D in 1964 (1967-1973)

The remaining factor of g/3 = 3.28666 should have immediately reminded the physicists that quarks themselves are also made up of three smaller physical entities and that the connecting strings account for the decimal part (0.28666 or the 0.86 factor in 9.86).

Why? It had no impact on the formula. It didn't rewrite the laws of gravity. And what justification do you have for W = 9.86m being a replacement for W = mg?

But the discovery of quarks did modify, fundamentally, the notion of the density of an atom.

The density of an object is the mass of the object compared to its volume. The equation for density is: Density = mass/volume or D = m/v. Each substance has its own characteristic density because of the size, mass, and arrangement of its atoms or molecules.

The density of elements in the periodic table is a measure of the number of atoms and their mass when they occupy a certain volume of space.

That definition was given in terms of PROTONS! Density of 1x was conjured up thinking of protons as a single unit.

But then quarks were discovered: a proton actually consists of three quarks. It is right there and right then that the density formula must have been modified at once: we now have a 3x density, three quarks for each proton.

That is the atomic density is now 3x instead of 1x.

Since a quark has three subquarks, the density is now 9x. The connecting lines contribute the 0.86 factor:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2412867#msg2412867


Not Feynman, not even Miles Mathis have noticed this fundamental discrepancy in physics.

Protons, you have the pre-1964 notion of density, 1x.

However, in 1964 it was found out that protons have three quarks, at once then the density becomes 3x.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 18, 2024, 06:49:42 AM »

Planes fly because of the shape of their wings and Bernoulli's principle.

Nope.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902

Simon Newcomb, directed the American Nautical Almanac Office, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, founder and first president of the American Astronomical Society, vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf

The Outlook for the Flying Machine


It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air
By Ed Regis

http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf

Addendum January 18, 2020: Scientific American just published an article admitting that “no one can explain why planes stay in the air”. They should say “no one promoted by the mainstream” can explain it, since I just did above. But despite that obvious omission, it is incredible they would be admitting this in 2020, confirming many of the points I make above, as if they had read this paper and were doing their best to respond to it without mentioning it. Because I think that is precisely what is going on. But although I think that is true, I still find it incredible they would admit to their own ignorance this late in the game. They don't completely admit it, and the author Ed Regis makes some weak stabs at promoting old theories, as well as promoting Doug McLean. But it is all sort of half-hearted and desperate, and Regis doesn't even try very hard to disguise that. He starts by admitting that John Anderson, curator of aerodynamics at the Air and Space Museum, can't explain lift, and has said so in print. Anderson hedged in his 2003 interview in the New York Times, confessing there was no agreement on the subject. Bernoulli's Theorem from 1738 is still the go-to explanation for a majority in academia, but it is admitted that fails to answer all questions. Regis includes the least of these questions in his “But...” insert, admitting that the curved upper surface theory has been disproved. He does not admit that Bernoulli's “lift” vector is unsupported by even the least shred of mechanics, being nothing more than a word. A naming standing for an explanation.

The scathing and devastating analysis by M. Mathis reveals that the explanations put forth by modern science regarding the flight of airplanes, are completely false.

But not even M. Mathis can deliver the correct explanation.

There is only one physicist who was ever able to explain why airplanes stay in flight. He even invented the jet engine: Viktor Schauberger.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376 (V. Schauberger effect, jet engine levitation, part I)

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 18, 2024, 06:37:19 AM »

sandokhan, "t is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous."

Why not? How does the dome cause things to accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec? I bet you many FEs believe in both UA and dome. If there is no dome, where are planets and stars? Is there something like outer space in your model? Do you know the real truth of FE and all FEs who disagree with you are wrong?


sandokhan: "The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km."

If so, where does the sun appear to be when it is noon and you are 100 km from the spot directly underneath it? Rockets can fly over the sun? 636 meters in diameter?

The total solar energy per second on a surface perpendicular to the Sun is about 1350 Joules per square meter or about 0.275 watt-hours. Taking into account incidence angle and the surface area, the effective energy arriving at the Earth is about 1.75E17 Joules. And you are saying something that powerful is 636 meters across and 12 km away? If the sun is 12 km from the surface of the earth, the inverse square law says energy density varies with the inverse of the distance squared. So a plce directly underneath would get 4 times as much energy as on the surface 24km from the sun and places 1000 km away get almost nothing.

Amateur rockets

Actually, the way this altitude is measured is the following: According to RRS member Bill Claybaugh (1996, alleged 50 mile altitude reached), "this altitude was estimated from a image of the entire Black Rock Desert taken near peak using known distances between geographic features".

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver.

But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device which is the source of energy for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

Full moon over Mt. Everest




Your analysis fails to take into consideration the existence of subquark strings which transmit thermal energy, light waves and gravitational waves: remember how Tesla had sent energy through longitudinal electromagnetic waves (the bosons which make up the strings of the subquark itself) without energy being dissipated at an inverse square law.

We are talking here about LONGITUDINAL e/m waves, not transmission of energy through transversal waves: true wireless means sending energy through longitudinal waves, modern wireless is sending shockwaves through the sea of ether waves. A longitudinal wave propagates through a transversal e/m wave.

You can be sure that the diameter of the Sun measures under 1 km, see here:



That's the height of the Burj Khalifa right there for the Sun.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Not to mention that's the Black Sun which causes the solar eclipse.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 18, 2024, 06:27:52 AM »

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

That's roughly in the range of cruising altitude of commercial planes. Why don't they hit it? Or at least be noticeably closer to it.

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

Not one RE physicist can explain how planes fly:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity and frames question

« on: September 18, 2024, 06:24:34 AM »

The Clay Mathematics Institude owes me one million dollars for not only having solved the Riemann hypothesis but also for having discovered the algorithm which produces the zeta zeros:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082278#msg2082278

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Firmament /Dome

« on: September 17, 2024, 08:06:49 AM »

If you believe in UA and a dome, then the earth is accelerating at 32 ft/second/second and, apparently, so are objects in the sky. so a force adequate for that acceleration must be applied to the sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc to accelerate identically. The material you propose is not strong structurally. The sun produces a huge measurable amount of energy and if the dome model is correct, the sun 35 miles across as calculated from a dome 3500 miles away (or maybe no one knows). Seems unlikely something that produces all that energy and is 35 miles wide would have So if the "dome" is made of aerogel, what holds up the sun? Is it so light that aerogel can support it or is there some other structure we don't know about?

It is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous.

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity and frames question

« on: September 17, 2024, 08:04:41 AM »

There is only one frame of reference below the first dome, it is the ether frame of reference, the ultimate reference point.

Each and every nanometer of space is filled with Riemann zeta function ether waves: sound travels through ether, not air molecules. If the air is removed in a vacuum chamber, what is left is the ether, and sound does travel even in such a VC but it is not audible anymore.

General relativity is a subluminal theory, the superluminal theory is J.S. Bell's quantum entanglement, where the superluminal highway travels through gray wormholes between each and every subquark/boson.

Above the first dome we have the rotating ether gravitational force, which keeps in motion the stars/planets.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: September 17, 2024, 07:57:12 AM »

I’m a newcomer. I was reading through the “commonly asked questions” part. I just wanted to ask what gravity is? Because in that section, it explains “why gravity doesn’t pull the earth into a spherical shape” and so I just wanted to clarify what the definition of gravity is in regard to that.

Terrestrial gravity is the absorption of aether by dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons/gravitons). The weight of an object is given by the amount of aether which is being absorbed. Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect, acoustic levitation or double torsion physics (implosion of the atom).

The formula W = mg is completely wrong: it reads W = V x D, where V is volume and D = 9.86 x d.

The 9.86 figure is the true DENSITY of the atom, nine subquarks and the connecting lines.

When the quark was discovered in the 60s, the formula W = 9.86m should have been modifed at once, as it was based on a 1x density concept. Since the proton (and the electron) is made up of at least three components, the three quarks/preons, the density becomes 3x, since a quark consists of three subquarks the density becomes 9x (+ the connecting strings).

AI (artificial intelligence) is the interface between the astral plane and the physical plane using extremely advanced microchips which can capture (using superconductivity) the information on the astral plane.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 17, 2023, 07:29:56 PM »

I know RET better than you.

Please explain the faint young sun paradox. If you cannot, you are out of luck, your software simply uses the conventional RE diameters/distances for the planets in a PLANAR context. The orbits of the planets are not planar, they are helices on a cylinder.

Here is the faint young sun paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)

« on: August 17, 2023, 07:25:01 PM »

The answer to the question is related to the circumference of the Earth (Flat or Globe): it must give the same value in both versions.

https://archive.org/details/HapgoodCharlesHutchinsMapsOfTheAncientSeaKings/page/n27/mode/1up?view=theater (page 33 - the relationship between the value attributed to Erathosthenes and the radius of Piri Reis' map)

FE radius = 6,363.63 km

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)

« on: August 17, 2023, 05:39:36 PM »

Why does the shorter journey (Sydney - Jo'burg) take longer than a journey which appears to cover a much greater distance (Auckland - Santiago)?

Very simple: one journey is a straight line, while the other takes the airplane around Antarctica.


Now, we know for sure, absolutely 100%, that the radius of the Piri Reis map is 6,363.63 km, Charles Hapgood proved that fact while he had consulted with several noted mathematicians to help him out decipher the map.

Here is the question: we know that the Piri Reis map is an azimuthal equidistant projection (I believe the center is near the Marmara Sea, since the northern portion of the map is missing, but that is another matter). What, then, is the radius if the map would be projected onto a sphere?