#### Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 09, 2016, 12:50:46 PM »
İntikam posted a new topic in the Flat Earth Information Repository section which we might enjoy debating.  Since that isn't the Debate section I did not reply to it there, but brought it here instead.  Quoting exactly as presented by İntikam, all emphasis and format choices in the original:

It is a knowledge that almost everything pushes others. To catch and to pull are not real acts. As a magnetic illusion. Magnetic illusion is the only exception. But it is still not a complete pulling, because a full merger does not occur.

When you kept a cup, actually you don't keep it, you are forcing to it to pull up. It is theorically like this, because no one of the particles never touches to the others.

This situation shows us almost everything on the nature pushes to the others.

This situation explains us two main events:

1- Difusion
2- Sky thrust (opposite theory of gravity)

1- difusion: All of objects pushes others so if one side is empty, almost all objects pushes the object which on the edge. This causes to object to move to the gap. Science calls it as diffusion".

2- Sky thrust : All of objects pushes the others.

So on the ground, Most of the objects are above on the chosen object on the ground. So the propulsion is the the greatest value. This makes the object as heavier. When the object go up, then some objects start to push it to up, though they were pushing down it Shortly before.

if an object passes the equilibrium position by going up continuously, The balance of power changes to outward then the object starts to fly with no way to return.

This theory has some challenges, to put it mildly.  The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

"Sky thrust" is a preposterous concept too.  Let's unpack it!
"on the ground, Most of the objects are above on the chosen object on the ground"
Really?  Most of WHAT objects?  Seems to me the very large object that is Earth is BELOW the chosen object, and the vast collection of earth-bound stuff is at best horizontal to (rather than above) the chosen object.  Only far, far away objects are above the chosen object.

"So the propulsion is the the greatest value. This makes the object as heavier. When the object go up, then some objects start to push it to up, though they were pushing down it Shortly before."
Why then do objects fall back to earth?  How high up does one have to be to begin seeing this?

"if an object passes the equilibrium position by going up continuously, The balance of power changes to outward then the object starts to fly with no way to return."
Has this ever been observed?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2016, 03:18:18 PM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2016, 01:24:53 AM »
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.

See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2016, 02:03:10 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2016, 05:17:16 AM »
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.

See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.
Of course we know about Miles Mathis! I believe he is wrong about Cavendish, nevertheless his claims certainly can't be made about the more recent measurements.

When you claim that "Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces", you are completely wrong. He was a meticulous experimenter and had done much other work measuring very small forces. So that his own movement and breathing would have minimal effect he used a telescope to take readings once the experiment was in progress.

Similarly, in the YouTube videos that I have seen, once the demonstration was underway all observations were made by video camera.

You always conveniently forget that similar experiments have been performed dozens of times since Cavendish's work, as described in What did Henry Cavendish Measure?

If Cavendish''s result was so influenced by random influences it would not have agreed with the current figure to within 1%.

And, yes I am quite aware of that the results have varied by much more that these experimenters would like, but they are certainly close enough to show that gravitation is real and measureable.

So, you claims are quite unsupportable.

#### CableDawg

• 201
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2016, 07:27:17 AM »
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.

See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.

Really Tom?

All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?

His opinion on the subject is no more valid than your opinion on the subject.

Him believing the same as you doesn't make him right.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2016, 02:08:54 PM »
When you claim that "Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces", you are completely wrong. He was a meticulous experimenter and had done much other work measuring very small forces. So that his own movement and breathing would have minimal effect he used a telescope to take readings once the experiment was in progress.

Cavendish and others did not account for any small forces in the experiment. The only extra step he does is to perform the experiment inside a shed to avoid the wind. The experimenters have not studied the non-gravitational forces which may exist between the masses, the evenness of the mass beneath them, or the masses around them. They have to prove, through controlled experimentation, that there are no external or internal forces which may be an explanation to the movement.

From Miles Mathis's paper:

"This is clear, I think, with Cavendish, and it is equally clear with Walker and all modern machines and environs. Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it. We should have to show that unequal masses are not skewing or wholly creating our outcomes."

You always conveniently forget that similar experiments have been performed dozens of times since Cavendish's work, as described in What did Henry Cavendish Measure?

If Cavendish''s result was so influenced by random influences it would not have agreed with the current figure to within 1%.

I clicked on your link and it appears Sandokhan had slapped you down in discussion on that earlier this year:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767225#msg1767225

"In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes.

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia."
« Last Edit: September 11, 2016, 07:39:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2016, 05:42:01 PM »
All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?

So? Thomas Jefferson claimed knowledge in many fields. Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar because one can only be acquainted with one field at a time?

#### Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2016, 05:49:51 PM »
I read the paper you linked.  TL;DR: This is not the first time I have read about this 'blocking repulsion' theory to explain the apparent force gravity.  I found this paper interesting, but in the end unconvincing.

Long version, did read: I knew we were in for a bumpy ride when he said "You cannot find anything against Cavendish on the internet".  What 'internet' is HE using?  (Reading a few more sentences make it clear that he meant "You cannot find anything scholarly against Cavendish on the internet" and implies a conspiracy by the scientific community to suppress information damaging to Cavendish's reputation and results.)

Another signal that we did not have a serious paper on our hands was the amount of text devoted to mockery of the 'tuna can' demonstration.  That demo was never meant to exhibit scientific rigor, you don't need to waste everybody's time talking about it.  But since he wants to talk about it, let's do that a little: he is less than accurate in his own description of the apparatus: "What John Walker finds is that even with a separation of about 9”, same as Cavendish, and with much smaller masses, he is able to get a motion of the small weight all the way over to the large weight, achieving contact.  Some will say this is because his hanging wire or string has no twisting tension, or a twisting tension much smaller than Cavendish’s, but his water brake provides that tension."  This is a gross misunderstanding.  Cavendish's wire did provide tension, all the time, more and more the farther his moving arm turned; the tension is why his moving arm oscillated.  The tuna can brake does not provide tension, it provides friction (essentially).  This is why the tuna can apparatus does not oscillate.  If he wants to be taken seriously as a scientist he should not make a basic mistake like this, even in a paper aimed at laymen.

In his critique of the C.V. Boys experiment, he says this: "Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply.  Ten percent times 3 percent.  That's a thirty percent error."  That's not how percentages multiply.  10% times 3% does not equal 30%, even though ten times three is thirty.  No, 0.10 x 0.03 = 0.003, or three tenths of a percent.  Or maybe you are supposed to multiply the accuracies, not the error?   90% accurate times 97% accurate (0.90 x 0.97) would give you 87.3% total accuracy, or 12.7% error.  Still greater than 10%, but nowhere near 30%.  All of this might be moot anyway: he does not address why those two errors, one in measured position and the other in frequency, actually SHOULD multiply.  The 1910 Encyclopedia Brittanica (I know how TFES loves ancient reference material) gives a good illustration of his apparatus, and an explanation of why the attraction weights are at different heights.

As to the repeated refrain, the theme of the document: unmeasured weight in the vicinity of the experiment.  The reason it can be ignored is that it is fixed and unchanging, and therefore is "baked in" to the static gravitational force balance.  (This is really no different than his explanation for why he can ignore all these unmeasured blocking things.)  In a properly conducted quantitative experiment, the apparatus would be allowed to come to rest at the lowest energy state extant under the ambient gravity environment, and only then would the attracting weights be moved into the attracting position.  It is only the added attraction weights that need to be considered.

He begins his presentation of his thesis, at long last, with the statement "To begin, we must go back to one of my first postulates. That is that there can be no attractions". He says this with (presumably) a straight face, in a world where magnets are a thing, and makes no acknowledgement of the observable apparent attraction of north and south poles.  While at the same time claiming that what looks like gravitational attraction is in fact some kind of E/M field repulsion effect. (Later on there is a link to another of his papers which promises to address it, but I haven't had time yet to read it)

Then we get a side discussion about straight lines and curves, how curves cannot produce straight motion.  This ignores (or mangles) the fact that some forms of curving motion in curved space-time might appear straight to an observer who is himself embedded in the curved space time.

He gets credit in my eyes for proposing an experiment that could produce different results for attractive gravity vs repulsive field, but immediately loses it by pre-excusing the failure he obviously expects to occur.  He then demonstrates his round earth belief (I wonder if it bothers you at all that he accepts the round earth model?  If he's right about repulsion, why is he wrong about the earth's shape?) by proposing to conduct the experiment in orbit.

Really Tom?

All the proof you demand of us and you point us to an article by someone trained in philosophy, latin, history, politics and management?

His opinion on the subject is no more valid than your opinion on the subject.

Him believing the same as you doesn't make him right.

So? Thomas Jefferson claimed knowledge in many fields. Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar because one can only be acquainted with one field at a time?
Not calling Jefferson a liar, nor claiming that "one can only be acquainted with one field at a time" (straw man, much?).  But suppose a paper surfaced in which Jefferson gave a theory pertaining to a field in which he had no known expertise.  We would not consider it proof of anything, especially if his theory ran counter to the experts in that field.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2016, 07:16:39 PM »
Quote
So? Thomas Jefferson claimed knowledge in many fields. Are you calling Thomas Jefferson a liar because one can only be acquainted with one field at a time?
Not calling Jefferson a liar, nor claiming that "one can only be acquainted with one field at a time" (straw man, much?).  But suppose a paper surfaced in which Jefferson gave a theory pertaining to a field in which he had no known expertise.  We would not consider it proof of anything, especially if his theory ran counter to the experts in that field.

Who is more likely to write a paper debunking Astrology; someone who believes in it and has been practicing it for many years, or someone who begins investigating it and immediately sees it for what it is?

I would give Jefferson a lot of credit if he debunked something outside of his expertise, actually. Being a polymath is distinguishable in itself.  Arguing that Jefferson can't debunk Astrology because he hasn't been practicing it for many years would be a most ridiculous argument. In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2016, 09:09:32 PM »
You always conveniently forget that similar experiments have been performed dozens of times since Cavendish's work, as described in What did Henry Cavendish Measure?

If Cavendish''s result was so influenced by random influences it would not have agreed with the current figure to within 1%.

I clicked on your link and it appears Sandokhan had slapped you down in discussion on that earlier this year:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767225#msg1767225

"In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes.

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia."

I will only comment on the Sandokhan bit here, the rest needs more time as the other experiments use quite a number of different approaches, form Cavendish's own right through to effect of 510 kg masses on the fall rate of super cooled Rubidium atoms.

You jest!

Of course "it appears Sandokhan had slapped you down".

Why then does not TFES follow Sandokhan  theory of gravitation?  When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.

If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?

Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!

Here is what I think is the "short version" of his explanation on gravitation:

My body doesn't have comparable electric currents running through it.

But it does, that is why you are able to walk upon the surface of the flat earth.

This electricity (bioelectricity) is called biohomochirality:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624

Electricity = flow of bosons through strings of subquarks

Those subquarks form a baryon, a meson, a quark - at the finest level, telluric currents/ether, electricity (flow of bosons) propagates through the subquarks themselves.

This is what modern science now calls bioenergy, which has been detected numerous times in the past 100 years.

Terrestrial gravity = the effect of dextrorotatory (right handed spin) subquarks upon matter

Antigravity = the effect of laevorotatory (left handed spin) subquarks upon matter

Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

Radioactivity = the influence/effect of dextrorotatory waves upon matter (disintegration, decay, decomposition)

Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.

In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.

Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.

Man walks upon earth because of the spin/vibration of laevorotatory subquarks located in his aura which encompasses his/her body.

These L-spin subquarks counteract the effect of gravity upon living matter.

"The charge of matter is due to its interchange with aether. The electron as well as the other subatomic particles are basically self-sustaining vortices in a fluidic particulate aether.

The electron is a vortex of aether caught in a rotating standing wave due to the vibrating flow of aether which flows into and out of the atom's nucleus.

Matter absorbs and re-radiates energy from the medium (ether) which is responsible for the phenomenon known as gravitation.

Therefore, an intrinsic property of matter is that it absorbs energy from the ether.

The rate of acceleration of a falling object, which acquires kinetic energy is a measure of energy flow via conduction through the ether.

Gravity, far from being a force of attraction, is actually created by the pressure of the "aether wind" as it continues to flow into the Earth from all directions moment by moment, pushing down or "curving in" all objects equally from the space around it."

Another striking example of the effect of dextrorotatory waves: "global warming".

This means that the vibration of the dextrorotatory subquarks (terrestrial gravity) has increased to some degree with the following effects: the "melting" of the Greenland/Antarctica ice sheets (due to the surge of the immediate effects of terrestrial gravity, decomposition/disintegration, AND NOT due to an increase in global temperature/emission of gases; that is, the ice sheets are disintegrating faster and not melting more speedily), the exacerbation of the desertification process (W. Reich was the first to understand that this is due to the increase effects of terrestrial gravity [what he called DOR], and was able to nullify these same effects by raising the level of the vibration of the laevorotatory subquarks strings [ORGONE], using the Cloudbuster), the changing rates of radioactive decay.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2016, 12:19:27 AM »
Quote
Why then does not TFES follow Sandokhan  theory of gravitation?  When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.

If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?

Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!

Sandokhan is welcome to create a section in the Wiki for his model. He is the most qualified to create such a section. No one is turning him away, and this has been expressed to him before.

#### Rama Set

• 8996
• Round and round...
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2016, 12:33:10 AM »
Quote
The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

The Cavendish Experiment is not a proof of gravity. It is very flawed. This experiment is incredibly sensitive and at this scale forces such as the electrostatic force are significantly more powerful than the weak force of "gravity". The slightest external or internal force could affect the device. Cavendish made no effort in his experiment to account for such forces.

See this article by Miles Mathis: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Also, in those Youtube videos, the experimenters aren't even conducting their experiments in a closed environment. People are walking, breathing, and moving all around them. Ridiculous.

Incorrect.  Modern iterations of the Cavendish experiment do account for electromagnetic force by using powerful magnetic dampers.

This pdf gives an example of a modern setup: www.saske.sk/FFK2012/sites/www.saske.sk.FFK2012/.../Milyukov_FFK2012_0.pdf

Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2016, 01:26:03 AM »
Rama, your link comes up as FORBIDDEN for me
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2016, 08:26:03 AM »
Quote
Why then does not TFES follow Sandokhan  theory of gravitation?  When I have more time I'll try to condense his writings a little.

If you trust his thoughts on gravitation so much, why is there no mention of "dextrorotary", "quarks" or even "Sandokhan" in the Wiki?

Yes, that is a very serious question! If you are going to quote his comments on Cavendish and the other measurements you should understand his theory!

Sandokhan is welcome to create a section in the Wiki for his model. He is the most qualified to create such a section. No one is turning him away, and this has been expressed to him before.

Well, he claims:
The official FE wiki contains mostly wrong/false information re: gravity, the physics of the sun, flat earth cosmographia.

Not only I corrected all those mistakes, but wrote up/did the research for the Advanced FET thread, by far the most successful thread ever posted on the FES boards:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.260#.VgGhpNKqqko

Well he claimed that "The official FE wiki contains mostly wrong/false information re: gravity, " yet we still find
Quote from: the Wiki
Universal Acceleration
Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.
This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.

It has nothing to do with gravitons.
UA has been dragging down the entire FE movement for the past 50 years and it will continue to do so for as long as it will be presented here as the official line.
There are plenty of direct proofs which contradict UA:

Another striking example: the UA is totally contradicted by the Allais effect.
"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

I really don't understand you! You seem to claim that UA explains "why things fall".

Then Sandokhan claims that "UA has been dragging down the entire FE movement for the past 50 years and it will continue to do so for as long as it will be presented here as the official line.", yet you are quite happy to use Sandokhan's highly biased arguments against any version of the "Cavendish Experiment".

These include various torque balance types of types, including
Cavendish's deflection measurement,
change in period measurement and
cancelling the torque by an electrostatic torque.
then using a beam balance method and
finally a method that measures the change in rate of falling of super-cooled rubidium atoms.

And yes I know that results far more variation than any modern experimenter likes
Quote
There is a problem with Big G (so called to distinguish it from little g, the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface). Current measurements of it are, frankly, all over the place. Seven separate experiments in the past decade or so have given results that have a spread of about 0.05%. For a fundamental constant of physics, that is extraordinarily imprecise.
From Don't stop the quest to measure Big G.

But what in the Flat Earth model has ever been determined with a spread of about 0.05%?

While there is much more spread in the measurements than an experimenter likes, Cavendish being withing 1% and these modern methods with a spread of about 0.05% seems to prove that they are measuring something real.

Still, carry or with your UA, or is it the "Davis Infinite Plane" or Sandokhan's current wall of text explanation or whatever is the latest guess, if you find one of them satisfactory.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2016, 08:50:56 AM »
Sandokhan is welcome to make additions to the Wiki with his model, but the theory will need to be readily understood by all and heavily debated before the majority adopt that as their model.

I base my arguments in favor of UA on that it is the most empirical explanation for gravity, which I have discussed elsewhere. However, his explanation may provide some talking points in its favor.

Your "Don't stop the quest to measure Big G" article isn't very specific on what the 0.05% spread in results means. Does it mean that they experiments got bunch of errors that were 25%, 25.05%m and 25.1% off, so we have a 0.05% spread in error? It doesn't even say what the experiments are looking at. They could be about looking at orbits in the sky being imprecisely measured by 0.05% for all we know, not a Cavendish-type experiment. Maybe these experiments are just examining falling bodies, and assuming that it's due to gravity, with the accuracy of the experiments being 0.05% off. We really have no idea what that vague phrase means in that zero source article.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2016, 10:23:36 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2016, 10:15:43 AM »
Sandokhan is welcome to make additions to the Wiki with his model, but the theory will need to be readily understood by all and heavily debated before the majority adopt that as their model.

Sandokhan could be correct. Who knows? I base my arguments in favor of UA on that it is the most empirical explanation for gravity, which I have discussed elsewhere.

Your "Don't stop the quest to measure Big G" article isn't very specific on what the 0.05% spread in results means. Does it mean that they experiments got bunch of errors that were 25%, 25.05%m and 25.1% off, so we have a 0.05% spread in error? It doesn't even say what the experiments are looking at. They could be about looking at orbits in the sky being imprecisely measured by 0.05% for all we know, not a Cavendish-type experiment. Maybe these experiments are just examining falling bodies, and assuming that it's due to gravity, with the accuracy of the experiments being 0.05% off. We really have no idea what that vague phrase means in that zero source article.
Stop being complete ridiculous!
Quote
There is a problem with Big G (so called to distinguish it from little g, the acceleration due to gravity at Earth's surface). Current measurements of it are, frankly, all over the place. Seven separate experiments in the past decade or so have given results that have a spread of about 0.05%. For a fundamental constant of physics, that is extraordinarily imprecise.
Look at this bit given results that have a spread of about 0.05%! Yes, the results have a spread of about, not the errors.

I did not want to overload the post with quotes that were too long, but if you insist. That article does not set out to discuss a single method in detail, but is more general in nature, but here is more
Quote
For a scientist — and a former director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Paris such as myself — the imprecision in G is irritating. Moreover, there is a solid scientific case for sorting it out. The search for a theory of quantum gravity that is consistent with quantum electrodynamics is perhaps the most active field of theoretical physics. One day, we may have to test such theories by comparing the values of G that they predict with the real thing — so we need an accurate experimental value.

The problem for the physicist on Earth who tries to measure G is that, although the strength of gravity is huge on an astronomical scale, it is extremely small in a laboratory. The force of gravity holds the planets in their orbits around the Sun and the billions of stars in the arms of the galaxies, yet this is the same gravitational force that, between a pair of 1-kilogram copper balls that are just touching, is about 10−8 times the weight of each.

To pick up this tiny signal, the laboratory itself has to be mechanically stable, with a low level of ground vibration and tilt, and with the temperature of its apparatus stabilized to a few thousandths of a degree Celsius.

Assuming that there is no hidden physics that can explain why the value of G measured in different places would be different (unlikely), why is there such a spread of results? The problem lies in systematic error — the spectre that haunts every absolute determination of a fundamental constant. No matter how much one tries to take into account every possibility for error in a measurement, it is in principle impossible to demonstrate its absence. The only way to give confidence is to measure the same constant using a number of different methods. This is true in the measurement not only of a fundamental constant of nature, but of anything else.

At the BIPM, we devised an experiment to measure G with two almost-independent methods in the same apparatus. Our results were at the high end of the range. They did not have the smallest level of uncertainty of any G experiment, but they are the only ones that have been repeated and it is the only G experiment in which more than one method has been used (we published the original in 2001 and then the follow-up last year).
from Don't stop the quest to measure Big G

So, you just keep floundering around looking for why things fall down. Wouldn't it be a comedown to have to go with the "Davis Model" and maybe GR?

#### Rama Set

• 8996
• Round and round...
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2016, 11:43:32 AM »
Rama, your link comes up as FORBIDDEN for me

google "cavendish experiment magnetic damper" and you should be able to find it.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### CableDawg

• 201
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2016, 12:22:52 PM »
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9295
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2016, 03:33:26 PM »
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.

#### Rama Set

• 8996
• Round and round...
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2016, 04:27:59 PM »
In fact, Jefferson (or really any intelligent person) would be a far more reliable source than the people who fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Such an ironic thing for you to say.  From all accounts you've fallen for FE hook, line and sinker.  Seems that puts you directly in the unreliable camp.

And that makes me the most reliable person to debunk RET, but perhaps not the most reliable person to debunk FET.

No you are totally unreliable to debunk RET, because you do not engage in the actual science that RET uses, willfully misinterpret it, believe youtube conspiracy theorists over actually doing your own research and often just plain don't understand simple principles sometimes or what you are looking at, like the debacle when you posted the selenelion video.  You claim a NASA conspiracy but have never done something as simple as sighting the ISS.  In fact, it is really strange to find that most everything you make pronouncements on are often misinformed or misguided.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### sandokhan

• 1027
##### Re: Opposite theory of gravity
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2016, 07:47:39 PM »
Certainly the RE think that Newton was and is most qualified to offer an opinion as to the cause of gravity.

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:

[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”

I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/

Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.

Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.

But wait, it gets even better.

Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?

Nobody can advocate the ether pressure theory like Newton can.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.

'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.

"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"

"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, II (Cambridge, 1960)
288-295, 295 (sent 28 Feb. 1679)

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

Westfall, note 10, 91.
R.Westfall, Never at Rest (Cambridge, 1980)

T.Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4 vols (London 1756-7; reprinted Brussels 1968), 3, 1756, 248-60.

Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive gravity.

Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.