Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Do you have a point?
Yes they have - https://youtu.be/9ZEdApyi9Vw
A bit more interesting than a balloon floating on the surface of a sink full of water...
Have you reproduced this yourself?
Has anybody heard of or been able to reproduce this experiment? The implications are staggering.
https://www.facebook.com/100008896901875/videos/1479554505684432/
If some garlic will kill cancer, then lots of garlic will cure cancer. It's not really such a difficult leap. You might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
Right now, I am really happy you are not a doctor (specifically an oncologist)... you would kill a lot of patients.
If I were an oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of my patients would be dead within 5 years.
According to that same article, in the 1930's before modern oncology, 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years. 1 in 4 would people would have survived by their own natural survival mechanisms without any medical help at all.
Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whooping 15% survival rate, and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. So how great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?
Cancer is a defense mechanism response to parasites and disease. Tumors are usually benign, and go away, but if the body is too compromised with disease, those growth genes will not switch off and the cancer will grow and spread as the body's last ditch effort to survive.
See this article by Andreas Mortiz: Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism
I still see no deceit,but there is more! That clip says "EARTH'S ROTATION" too!!
Message to honorable and intelligent folks:
Was I right to stop the video at that time?? Did I miss anything?
The part that shows up at the end of 0:16, throughout 0:17 and ends at the beginning of 0:18?Yes, that one exactly. The 18-second mark shows it quite clearly.
the 18-second mark is 1-second long. Something that shows up for a tenth of a second can hardly be said to show something clearly.0:17 would have made more sense then.It would have certainly helped prevent your blunder. Then again, so would you exercising the bare minimum of competence.
Ahh... there we are. Insults. The retort of the unintelligentLike I said, anyone who doesn't want to learn can simply not watch.Certainly. Similarly, if you don't want to hear dissent, you can simply not read the responses to your threads.
At 0:18 into the video you see the words "Space Time" superimposed over a space-themed background.He was presumably referring to the 0:18 mark, as opposed to another point in time that happens to be shortly after the mark.
Here, let me help:
Which deceit are you referring to?I already said: at time 0:18seconds. What do you see at that time??!??
Now having re-watched the 1st 20 seconds of that video, I realize that I should have turned it off much sooner: as soon as the actor-shill mentioned the word "gravity" in his leading question.
Here is the best video I have seen: Tides & The Electromagnetic Energy of the Sun & MoonBut he didn't start with the deceit until later on in the video.Best ......??
I turned it off at time 0:18seconds. I have no patience for artists of deceit.
I believe in the FET because the Vatican burned people at the stake for not believing it.
But the image was flat until you proved that it was round.
The people who proved the earth was round are proven liars. There are many inexplicable things in the photos and footage from space. Therefore, those sources cannot be trusted and the earth is flat until proven otherwise.
But it is not attractive, not now, not in the past, not ever in the future.
Gases do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”
One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW
The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:
“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”
Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?
Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
Liquids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”
As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.
Solids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.
According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".
In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:
Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776
(Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation)
