121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 13, 2019, 09:04:44 PM »

Re-read the paper I linked
http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf

It looks like they observed the B-B effect in atmosphere, but didn't observe it in vacuum. What part of the experiment is badly performed, considering that it was good enough to measure the B-B effect in atmosphere? It looks like the only difference is turning on some pumps.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 13, 2019, 08:50:59 PM »

Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong.

It should be easy, and yet I cannot see. Please enlighten me.
All I see is a single unrepeatable result from 60 years ago.

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 13, 2019, 07:58:45 PM »

If it could be measured in a vacuum, then it would be repeatable. Given those 3 links I sent you earlier, it's clearly not repeatable.

I guess you've already read this as well:
http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf

You can believe in it if you want, I guess, but experimentally the B-B effect doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is known.

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 13, 2019, 04:53:55 PM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

I have included several videos with the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum, look for them.

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.

One of the links you provided, https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html directly shows a strong negative correlation between energy required and pressure. The guy only has to go down to 700 mbar (525 torr), which can hardly be called a vacuum, and he already can't even lift his lifter.

This link you provided also can't get his lifter to work below 500 torr: https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm

This link actually does get some motion at 1e-6 torr, although it is visibly much worse in a vacuum. Can't say much more since there are no numbers. Also the whole thing is written in comic sans lmao.
http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm

So it looks like the better the vacuum, the less this effect works. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it probably barely works at all in the vacuum of space. Am I missing something?

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 13, 2019, 08:32:04 AM »

Well I guess we cracked it then.
I found this article about B-B effect and how it apparently doesn't work in a vacuum:
https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/

If this article is correct, then the B-B effect couldn't be used to levitate satellites (unless FE satellites are inside the atmosphere?). I also couldn't find any published articles about the B-B effect in a vacuum, which is disappointing.

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 12, 2019, 08:52:58 PM »

So, any estimate must use at least these figures: d = 0.5 cm, e = 10,000 (if not more), surface area for a 45 cm  diameter of the plate, and the voltage at least 60 Kv per capacitor.

Okay, now that I understand this better, let's try again;
I'm using https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf (equation 72, page 11)

We have
d=0.5cm
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u=2.7 g/cm^3 (aluminium)
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

This gives F=2.2e10 dyne [cgs] = 2.2e5 N [SI]
Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

So that's around 30% of the force required to lift a B2 bomber directly upwards. I'm actually really impressed, the force from these capacitors is almost the same thrust produced by the main engines. Did I make a mistake somewhere? CGS units can die in a fire.

127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 12, 2019, 08:29:19 PM »

I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever.

For such important formulas, I always include the sources.

With the addition of the Weyl vector potential theory, the formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect can now be derived:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

Using your numbers, for a plane at 9km, with a voltage of 20MV:
For some reason it's all in CGS units...
d=9e5 [cm]

Brilliant.

d refers to the distance between the PLATES OF THE CAPACITOR.

And there are some 300 capacitors, if not more, on board the B-2 bomber (if they are not using the wings themselves as some huge capacitors to start with).

What we need is the dielectric constant for those capacitors, the distance between the plates, and the voltage applied for a single capacitor (that is, we also need to know the surface area of the plate of the capacitor).

So, any estimate must use at least these figures: d = 0.5 cm, e = 10,000 (if not more), surface area for a 45 cm  diameter of the plate, and the voltage at least 60 Kv per capacitor.

To use the formula for the entire aircraft, in case just a single very large capacitor is utilized, we'd need to know how the 20,000,000 volts are distributed across the wings, the distance chosen between the upper and lower plate of the capacitor, the entire surface area underneath the wings used for the capacitor, the dielectric being used.

This is actually quite interesting. Thanks for linking the source - it was a good read. And also sorry that I got the distance d wrong.
Presumably you'd need to know the mass of the aircraft as well. The equation (21) in the paper you linked just gives an acceleration, but that's not very helpful in the plane scenario. You'd need to convert it into a force and then you could work out the acceleration on the plane from there.

Fancy doing some maths?

128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 12, 2019, 04:28:06 PM »

Exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:

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

Okay, I used equation (21) in your link. I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever. Using your numbers, for a plane at 9km, with a voltage of 20MV:
For some reason it's all in CGS units...
d=9e5 [cm]
e=1e4 [not sure units, got this value from your link]
V=6.67e4 statvolts [this is the CGS unit of voltage apparently]

gz(max)=0.002 g

That's right, the force provided is 0.2% of the force of gravity. Is my maths wrong?

129

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 12, 2019, 07:43:08 AM »

Some of this stuff is drifting dangerously into debate again.

Sorry.

130

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 11, 2019, 11:36:37 PM »

Yes. Proof does exist in science! Spontaneous Generation was proven false. People studied the matter. Flies don't pop out of nowhere. People did experiments. You know, science?

So if I do a single experiment that doesn't observe Spontaneous Generation, that means Spontaneous Generation is impossible? Maybe it just didn't occur in that one experiment. Maybe the experiment was poorly designed. Maybe my equipment malfunctioned. Maybe it just doesn't happen very often. The only way to prove that Spontaneous Generation false with 100% certainty is to have perfect fly detectors covering 100% of the universe. Even if "people" did 100 experiments, that doesn't prove anything. This is why any semi-serious experiment will put a lot of time into determining reasonable error bars.

Per your redshift query, it is based on multiple hypothesis'.

As is any observation.

Blueshift and redshift as we experience on Earth doesn't occur with stars and galaxies. The theories need to be modified. Most galaxies we see are redshifted to a degree that doesn't really make sense

Most galaxies lie on a nice straight line. How does that not make sense?

The cosmological redshift is known as Hubble’s law, and postulated that the known universe is expanding. Hypothetical mechanisms were put in place to change the observation and its implications into an expanding universe.

[...]

If your science is merely about getting things to seem to work, then you are basically just telling me a story. Astronomy is a contest of who has the best explanations and stories. It is simply not a science like other science.

You're now quibbling about the interpretation of the results. My question was about the observation itself: what part of my observation of redshift is not scientific? You're acting like astronomy is the only field of science where there are multiple possible interpretations for a single observation.

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 10, 2019, 09:50:16 PM »

The high-voltage differential is measured between the B-2's positive leading edge and its negative ion exhaust stream.

The four engines of the B-2 bomber put out a thrust of 140,000 HP (25 MW, assuming a 30% conversion of efficiency).

A 35-ft electrogravitic disc would need to have access to 50MW.

The B-2 has 72 metric tons, when empty. This works out to 32 grams/sq.cm when fully loaded.

T.T. Brown's 18 inch diameter disk was generating an upward thrust of 125 grams when energized at 170 Kv.

That is 0.08 grams/sq.cm.

So, to generate a force capable of lifting the B-2, a thrust per unit area four hundred times greater would be needed. This is accomplished by using a high-K dielectric.

This is would provide 100 times more thrust at 1000 Kv. If the Pyrex insulator is replaced with barium titanate, there would be an additional 32-fold of thrust.

That is, instead of the 125 grams of force, Brown's thruster would have provided 400 kg of force. If we now distribute 380 of these capacitors over the wing surface they would provide an upward thrust of 152 tons.

*munch crunch* This salad is really good! *munch* I really like the dressing, what's it called? You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour? *crunch*
Have you got any more, buddy?

132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 09, 2019, 10:00:36 PM »

Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

Okay, so what force would the Biefield-Brown effect produce if V=20M?
Is this voltage measured between the airplane and the Earth?

133

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 07, 2019, 11:55:14 PM »

It is the responsibility of science to prove itself absolutely

I think that's an oxymoron. If I do an experiment a single time, that's clearly not absolute proof. What about 3 times? 5 times? 100 times? At what point does "maybe true" morph into "probably true" and then finally into "absolutely true"? Science can't give absolute truths, just the most likely explanation given the results of repeated observation.

Can you go into more detail about why you think astronomy is a pseudoscience? Let's say I'm trying to measure the redshift of some galaxy by pointing my big telescope at it and measuring the wavelength of the light that comes off. Which part of this observation isn't scientific?

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar day v sidereal day

« on: June 07, 2019, 11:44:11 PM »

A few points:

• RET has had the advantage of time, being developed and refined over centuries, in order to mathematically describe and predict the motions of celestial bodies and also integrate this data with the round earth assumption.
• As I explained above to tellytubby, predictive power doesn't guarantee or necessitate explanatory power. Even the Aztecs, who were FEers, predicted these motions reasonably well; however, as an REer, you would not say their model correctly explained their underlying dynamics.
• I don't believe in gravity.
• I don't believe all massive objects must deform to spheres. While I won't make any definite claims as to the distances and masses of the celestial objects, I do believe they're much closer/lighter than REers claim and don't think their mass has anything to do with their shape.

Okay.

• I would argue that FE has had just as much time, just much less progress.
• I think that predictive power is highly indicative of a good model. Good models will always have high predictive power and bad models will always have low predictive power. Maybe you could come up with an argument about fringe cases but realistically I think it's hard to argue against this. The Aztecs may have been able to predict some things, but ultimately it can come nowhere close to predicting the kinds of things that RE astronomy can predict today. This means that it is a worse model.
• I don't think that I get to choose which model I believe to be true: RE demonstrably works, and no other models currently do. The only rational thing to believe is RE until another model surpasses it. Of course I think that skepticism is great, but the fact is that almost all FE theory is just unproven hypotheses. I will believe FE when it can demonstrably show where RE went wrong, and has experimentally shown that the Sun is 3000km above the Earth, that gravity is actually Universal Acceleration etc. etc. etc.
• I can give you some links about mass attracting mass in a lab setting, if you're interested.

135

Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business

« on: June 07, 2019, 11:15:45 PM »

Do you really think that would suddenly change everyone's mind?

What if the FE community all pooled together and sent up someone "trustworthy"? Yeah, I don't think this is super realistic, but let's imagine for a bit. Let's say that there was some FE paragon that went up there and relayed their experiences back to the rest of us. Maybe that could change some minds?

136

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: South Pole as the FE center?

« on: June 07, 2019, 11:03:44 PM »

I wish we could investigate why it needs to be the North Pole on the center of the FE ?

This logic is extremely backwards. You assume that the Earth is round, and that you can therefore arbitrarily redefine its projection onto a flat plane. There is no "need" for the world to be the way it is - it just happens to be.

The "need" comes from the fact that almost every single FE map has the North pole at the centre. I don't see how this can be backwards logic. I interpreted OP's post as asking why the North pole should be in the middle and not the South pole in your "standard" FE map.

137

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 07, 2019, 10:57:24 PM »

[lots of words]

Since you're such an expert on the Biefield-Brown effect, why don't you tell me the voltage that you would need to apply to a 10 tonne aircraft to keep it levitating at 30,000 feet?
I would say that I'm eagerly anticipating your reply, but that's a total lie since we both know that you won't be able to give me a sensible answer, since you actually know nothing about the Biefield-Brown effect, and the chance that you will be able to produce a meaningful calculation is zero.

I can almost taste the word salad that you're about to post. Please prove me wrong.

138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 06, 2019, 07:21:39 PM »

The Biefield-Brown effect requires the Earth to be charged. Since the net charge of the Earth is 0, your argument is null.

139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 06, 2019, 12:41:02 PM »

All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the surface of the Earth.

Interesting claim. Fancy going into more detail?

140

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: GPS and the Orbital Coriolis Effect

« on: June 06, 2019, 12:42:21 AM »

Re-posting my comment from another thread here, since it's much more relevant here.

He's already posted about this in another thread. It comes from this article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

Sandokhan is going to try to claim that the fact that GPS satellites don't take orbital coriolos into effect shows that GPS doesn't exist, or the Earth doesn't orbit the sun or something equally ridiculous. If you actually read the article, however, you'll see that this coriolis force doesn't exist because GPS satellites are almost exclusively considered in Earth-centered frames of reference.

The paper even states:
, if the receiver velocity is referred to a heliocentric inertial frame or even to a frame beyond the
solar system, the Earth’s orbital motion should be taken into account in addition.

So sandokhan's claim that the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun is based on mathematics that explicitly takes the Earth's motion around the Sun into account.

@sandokhan maybe we can discuss this in the other thread, if you want to get into this in more detail
EDIT: I just checked, and that thread had nothing to do with this topic either, so it's equally unrelated in both this thread and the other thread. ex deee