The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Max_Almond on May 25, 2018, 06:43:55 PM

Title: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 25, 2018, 06:43:55 PM
Similar to the ways we can calculate the altitude of the sun by measuring our viewing angle to it, it ought to be even easier to do the same to the north star, which doesn't orbit above us like the sun does.

For some reason, though, I've never seen an answer to this question.

Anybody know what it is?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Huge on May 25, 2018, 07:07:04 PM
Are you asking the distance between Polaris and Earth? if that's the case a simple google search will tell you that people are debasing 434 to 323 light years.
Also my knowledge of astronomy is limited but i think that up and down is relative only to humans and in outer space is not an actual thing
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 25, 2018, 07:17:08 PM
Thanks. I was wondering what the flat earth answer is.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Huge on May 25, 2018, 08:10:49 PM
Ohh i'm sorry, i'm just here because i'm curious about flat earth theory. They don't believe in space?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 25, 2018, 09:23:17 PM
I'm not sure.

But given that we can all see the north star - well, 90% of us - I think it's pretty safe to say they believe in that.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 29, 2018, 05:07:34 AM
Think of it this way: if you've got three guys in a field and they're looking at a floodlight, if they have a tool to measure the approximate angle to the floodlight and a way to measure how far they are from the base of the floodlight, then they can get a good idea of how high the floodlight is.

Guy A is 50 metres from the base of the floodlight and measures an angle of 22°.

Guy B is 30 metres from the floodlight and measures an angle of 34°.

Guy C is 20 metres from the floodlight and measures an angle of 45°.

The results they get are: 20.2m, 20.24m, and 20m.

Given they were only measuring to a whole degree, that's not bad: the floodlight was actually 20 metres high (well done Guy C!)

Now do the same for the north star: a point of light above us at a measurable angle.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 29, 2018, 02:56:08 PM
Not a maths whiz, but will try. Circumference of earth about 40,000 km. Suppose we are looking up at the pole star from 80 degrees north. Then about 10 deg from the pole, therefore 10/360 times 40,000  =  1,111 km. Also assume that I am looking upwards at 80 degrees, per the pole star rule.

OK everything so far assumes round earth, but anyone could replicate these measurements, even flat earthers, although they would have a different explanation.

Then I work out tan(80), which gives opposite/adjacent of about 5.5. Finally, to get the adjacent, i.e. height of Pole start = 5.5 * 1,111  =  6,000 km  =  3,800 miles.

This is within the range of what FEers claim is the height of the celestial plane.

Problem: I saw a RE YouTube which said this was problematic. The further you go South, the more distorted it gets.


[edit]
degrees lat    80    70           60          50          40          30           20           10
km                  6,301    6,106   5,774   5,297   4,662   3,849   2,831   1,567

Works OK for northerly lats, seems to break down at southerly ones. Need to check my calculations :(
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2018, 03:15:25 PM
Shouldn't the size of stars vary quite significantly depending on where you are on earth?
If you're at the north pole and Polaris is pretty much right above you then that's a lot closer (if the starts are mere thousands of miles away) than if you're in England looking at it because you're then at an angle to it, you could work out the new distance using Pythagorus.

I know there's this "atmospheric magnification" thing but I thought that was only for bright lights, for dimmer stars they should change size or not be visible at all as you move away from them, shouldn't that? In the RE model this is not an issue because the stars are many light years away so moving a few thousand miles here and there doesn't make any difference.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 29, 2018, 03:25:37 PM
One thing at a time: this is looking at the altitude, rather than the size (for that, see: issues with the sun not changing size during the day (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9487.0)).

Edby makes a good point: unlike the fellas looking at the floodlight, the angles at which people at different distances look at the north star don't intersect.

What's going on there then?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 29, 2018, 05:51:27 PM
Sirius - Earth distance: less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Sirius meridian transit points data:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662

Solar disk:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Earth - Sun distance 15-20 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818

Earth - Sun distance 10 km:

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

Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 29, 2018, 05:55:32 PM
[..irrelevant claims..]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.
And please tell us how we solve the problem above.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 29, 2018, 06:18:58 PM
The author of the video is a physics illiterate.

He has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361


in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

Then, there are different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether.

(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*ql_mBFyTqTH8BG2p_jYDUw.jpeg)

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: AATW on May 29, 2018, 07:49:00 PM
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

Right. So if you're at the North Pole it is 50km above your head, straight up.
If you're in London, 4,000km away from the north pole, it's nearly 100 times further away, but you see it the same size and brightness?


Wow...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 29, 2018, 09:15:35 PM
So the refraction makes a body appear higher than it should.

And at the equator the pole star appears to be on the ground, ergo it appears higher than it should.

Ergo the pole star is underground.  8)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 08:27:45 AM
The author of the video is a physics illiterate. He has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment:
 
Interesting. The video was about the height of the Pole star. You assume he has no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment because he does not mention the Ruderfer experiment, and you would expect him to have knowledge of this because he is discussing the Pole star.

But does Ruderfer discuss the implications for the Pole star in that paper? If not, which subsequent paper by him or others discusses an effect which would clearly have wide ranging implications for the astrophysics community. Citations please!
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 08:42:25 AM
Relativists are abandoning in droves Einstein's relativity because they have to explain the missing orbital Sagnac effect.

They have two choices: either admit that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, or else embrace the Lorentz ether theory.

Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally the first null result in the history of ether drift: since both the orbital Sagnac effect and the solar gravitational potential effect are missing, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

Between the Sun and the Earth, the GPS satellites and the Earth, we have a FIELD OF ETHER, each layer having a different index of refraction.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

This extremely important fact was obviously overlooked by the author of the video: he is assuming a perfect vacuum of outer space, which is completely wrong.

Most definitely Sirius orbits above the Earth at a distance of less than 50 km.

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.


Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 08:49:16 AM
Where did Martin Ruderfer prove mathematically and experimentally that previous scientific beliefs about the Pole Star were incorrect? If it was not he, which subsequent paper came to this conclusion?

Can you point me to any published work on this? Please no links to flat earth websites, or YouTube videos etc. You have claimed that the author of the video is a physics illiterate. Then show me peer reviewed papers that back your claim up.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 08:58:04 AM
Martin Ruderfer, another great scientist... Published later in journals like "Journal of Parapsychology" or "Speculations in Science and Technology". Now I understand, why I never heard about that guy up to now...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 09:37:09 AM
"Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society. As also confirmed by various measurement standards, which include the Journal Citation Reports impact factor and the journal h-index proposed by Google Scholar, many physicists and other scientists consider Physical Review Letters to be one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics."

Ruderfer's classic experiment was published in the Physical Review Letters Journal in 1960.


The author of the video has not done his homework at all. He is assuming the existence of the vacuum of outer space. He should have made sure that this is an absolute scientific fact, because otherwise he would expose himself to criticism. A brief incursion into the subject of ether drift is linked to the works of Ron Hatch, one of the world's leading experts on GPS technology:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070315063351/http://egtphysics.net/Index.htm (select the Ether Drift article option)

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf

He reviews the Ruderfer experiment in the context of the missing Sagnac effect: just like Dr. Su, R. Hatch has to accept the existence of a local-aether model.

The Ruderfer experiment means that there is a field of ether above the atmosphere of the Earth.

As such, the basic assumption made by the author of that video is false: he simply had no idea of the Ruderfer experiment and of the missing Sagnac effect, which prove immediately the existence of ether.

Ether = A DIFFERENT INDEX OF REFRACTION

All of you, so far, have been avoiding the fact that Sirius has to orbit above the surface of the Earth at an altitude of less than 50km:

HOW or WHY does Sirius keep up so precisely with the exponentially increasing rate of precession?

How can Sirius' proper motion stay synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing?

If any local force in here the "heliocentrical" solar system drove up the rate of precession, it would NOT also drive up the proper motion of Sirius across the sky.

Sirius - Earth distance: less than 50 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032

Sirius meridian transit points data:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662


The existence of Koronium has changed everything:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

A lighter than hydrogen element which is found between the Sun and the Earth in abundance.

(http://paulbourke.net/fun/solar_eclipse_2002/corona/green_line_corona.jpg)

The first state of ether made visible: a confirmation of the Ruderfer experiment and of the acceptance by many relativists of the local-aether model.

The author of the video had no knowledge, no idea of the existence of a lighter than hydrogen element, found in abundance, Koronium, which defies the accepted only vacuum of outer space model.

Mendeleev's table of periodic elements did include Koronium:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2045088#msg2045088


Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 09:41:08 AM
Again, for a third time, if Martin Ruderfer did not prove mathematically and experimentally that previous scientific beliefs about the Pole Star were incorrect, which subsequent paper came to this conclusion? Which paper made this precise statement, and how was it received by the astrophysicist community?

Given the widespread implications of this, which other papers have taken it up?

Quote
All of you, so far, have been avoiding the fact that Sirius has to orbit above the surface of the Earth at an altitude of less than 50km
We can come to that, when you have replied to the query above.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 09:48:13 AM
Trolling is not allowed in the upper forums, please take notice of this fact.

The missing orbital Sagnac effect = the existence of ether, since the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

The existence of ether means a different index of refraction than that assumed by the author of that video: the claims he made in that miserable video are totally debunked.

It is as simple as this.

You are going to have to explain the fact that Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 09:54:21 AM
Trolling is not allowed in the upper forums, please take notice of this fact.
Sorry, what trolling? I simply asked for an answer to a question. You have claimed something tremendously important, and which would have widespread implications for science. Where then is this discussed by scientists?

Regarding Sirius, the title of the thread is "What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?".
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 10:44:00 AM
"Physical Review Letters (PRL), established in 1958, is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal that is published 52 times per year by the American Physical Society. As also confirmed by various measurement standards, which include the Journal Citation Reports impact factor and the journal h-index proposed by Google Scholar, many physicists and other scientists consider Physical Review Letters to be one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics."

Ruderfer's classic experiment was published in the Physical Review Letters Journal in 1960.

You don't have to explain me the value of PRL, I have published there some papers myself. But not all papers in such journal are of the same value. You have to look also for the impact of the specific paper on the scientific community. And his paper (anyway the only one in a Journal of that rank) has more or less no impact. It's cited by himself, some conference contributions, nothing outstanding. Overall about 30 citations in 60 years, most of them in the early years after the publication.

Around that time it was still quite popular to speculate about the ether, but that was not a discussion with high impact on the field of relativistic physics.

This Ruderfer guy seems to noticed that himself. His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

He was never member of any university. His affiliation for the PRL paper is "Dimensions, Incorporated, Brooklyn, New York". Whatever this is, a least not a scientific institute with any reputation.

His first paper from 1952 is titled "TELEPATHY AND THE QUANTUM". I think it's not worth spending any time on whatever this guy measured or calculated...   

Edit:

I have to add, that he published a paper in Science already 1949. Also something very wired. It seems he tried to measure the validity of the conservation of energy law over life span of a living being. I think that already laid out the path he was following throughout his whole "career"...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 11:55:08 AM
Hexagon, this is very useful. It seems odd then to say that ‘The author of the video has not done his homework at all’. This usually means that there is some elementary fact the author should have known, but didn’t know because s/he hadn’t ‘done the homework’. In this case, I think we can clearly conclude that the author cannot be blamed in this case. No one could reasonably be expected to know the existence and conclusions of this obscure paper.

Separate from this is the supposed bearing this would have for the altitude of Polaris, and the widespread implications for astronomy and astrophysics. We need citations for subsequent work on this.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 12:01:10 PM
His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

Then, you'll be enthralled to find out that the existence of ether was proven mathematically by one of the top scientists of the 20th century: E.T. Whittaker.

FRS
Copley medal (the most prestigious honorary award in British science)
Sylvester medal

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (five consecutive messages)

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

"Whittaker proved the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control.
 
In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."

Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that,

"the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an ondulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity ... [and] the waves will be longitudinal (top) ... These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."

“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039

Fields can be described by a U(1) group transformation: the modified Maxwell equations (actually, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations).

Potentials (ether theory) can ONLY be described by SU(2) group transformations (and higher).

The group algebra underlying the commonly used Maxwell equations is U(1): but this only relates to the ripples in the sea of ether.

The Sagnac effect, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect can only be described by SU(2) group transformations (the quaternion formulation of the Maxwell equations).

Whittaker managed to show the hidden structure of the potential: the set of bidirectional longitudinal waves which rule electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity.

The interferometer of the Sagnac experiment is a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED region and is an example of a topological obstruction.

That is, the Sagnac experiment can only be described by the SU(2) group of transformations, by the original set of the Maxwell equations, by potentials (ether).


There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 12:27:29 PM
But this is pre-Einstein stuff... Of course at that time the ether was under discussion. People tried to proof it or argued against it. But now we are more then 100 years later and all this has be shown to be not correct and irrelevant. Only some freaks are digging out old stuff like this and convince themselves they made some great discoveries. And also this guy is meanwhile forgotten, no one cares which prizes he has won. And he is definitely not one of the top scientists of the last century. 

That's science, if something is new you go through a time of controversial discussions. Several ideas, models, theories, experimental data and so on are published, some of them in heavy contradiction to each other. But over time you see how this converges into a coherent picture. And the question of ether is long ago solved and shown to be irrelevant. 

That's how it goes. Look at Einstein, he started a revolution in our view on the universe, but when the next revolution that completely changed our understanding on a very different scale started, he never accepted it. Suddenly he was the old guy, sticking to old concepts.   
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 12:44:25 PM
Thanks Hexagon. And returning to topic:
There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.

Why? The observations of the video seem like standard textbook stuff, and almost self-evident. It is pointing out simply that as our latitude changes, so does the angle of Polaris. At 90% it is directly above, at the equator it is level with the horizon, at 45o, 45o and so on. That’s exactly what you would expect to see if it was a very long way away.

The objection is that the ether exists, and that refraction causes Polaris to seem far more distant than it actually is. But (a) if the ether exists, no subsequent paper has recognised or discussed such an astonishing effect and (b) how on earth do we explain the coincidence that latitude exactly corresponds to the altitude of Polaris. How could refraction explain that incredible coincidence?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 01:16:08 PM



One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)



Just to add something to this guy... I checked on Web of Science and Research Gate. And the result makes me a bit suspicious. There is a T.W. Barrett who indeed worked at Universities with high reputation, but not in physics or something related, but e.g. in Stanford at the Department of Psychiatry and Neurophysiology... All this papers (by the way its only 133 articles according Research Gate) are about some neuroscience stuff and related things. All papers 30-40 years old.

And then there are Papers by a Terence W. Barrett about stuff related to electromagnetism. But with a private address in Vienna VA as affiliation. I'm a bit suspicious that this are different guys, which can easily happen on Research Gate. Or he changed his research interest after his retirement, which could be. In any case he is not the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time. His work on this field has more or less no citations. Therefor no impact to and acknowledgment by the relevant scientific community. 

A cross check with Web of Science is also very interesting. A search for "Barrett, TW" and the affiliations given on Research Gate results in 78 publications, 70 of them until 1984. After that there is a gap of twenty years with no publications. Anyway, none of this publications are related to "electromagnetism". This is a really wired "greatest experts of all time"...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
But this is pre-Einstein stuff...

You still don't get it.

Whittaker PROVED mathematically the hidden structure of the vector field: it is composed of a set of bidirectional longitudinal waves (scalar waves), the potential.

In 1959, Aharonov and Bohm proved the existence of the potential experimentally.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even  in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in  charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference  of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the  experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence  of EM force fields.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/

The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)

(https://image.ibb.co/c0CeLd/ton1.jpg)

The Maxwell-Lodge effect also proves the existence of the potential:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998993#msg1998993

Yes, Dr. Terence W. Barrett is one of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism ever:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terence_Barrett

Here is his introspective analysis of the topology of the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

(https://image.ibb.co/evfifd/barrett1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jjFifd/barrett2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jCBdDy/barrett3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hyEb0d/barrett4.jpg)

Look at Einstein, he started a revolution in our view on the universe

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity.

Please update your knowledge on the subject.

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (fake TSR experiments)

The easiest way to show that TGR is totally incorrect, is to derive the FULL set of the original Maxwell equations, which are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations"

A. Einstein, 1905

The unimaginable full ignorance of your idol, Einstein, is in full display.

He had no knowledge of the original set of Maxwell equations.

(https://image.ibb.co/koWr3y/md1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cSTM3y/md2.jpg)

We proceed to solve the common Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12).

(https://image.ibb.co/k98M3y/md3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/n87EOy/md4.jpg)

This is the classic solution of Maxwell’s equation for a planar electromagnetic wave. As expected, the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic waves is the nominal speed of light c since there is no motion relative to the RCS (due to the restriction in the derivation of the common form of Maxwell’s equations).

What happens when a radiation source moves with respect to the RCS? It follows from the assumption of the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations (1.20) and (1.21) (namely: that they are valid in any inertial coordinate system) that the speed of propagation of any electromagnetic wave in all inertial coordinate systems is constant

and equals to the nominal speed of light c [solution (1.23) to equation (1.21)]. Thus, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves being constant in all inertial coordinate systems is not necessarily a measured observation. It is an assumption, a consequence of the assumed universal validity of the common Maxwell’s equations even for dynamic systems.

Suppose that a radiation source moves at a speed u in the positive direction of the x axis of the RCS. As engineers (hopefully with some common sense), and in agreement with the Galilean transformation where velocity vectors are additive, we would expect the electric field vector, of the propagating planar electromagnetic wave parallel to the x axis, to have the following form with respect to the RCS:

(https://image.ibb.co/hFwcAd/md5.jpg)

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."


ONLY the original set of Maxwell equations, written in quaternion form, can describe the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the Sagnac effect.


How could refraction explain that incredible coincidence?

Let us take a look at another incredible coincidence.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

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


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


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



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  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.

(b) how on earth do we explain the coincidence that latitude exactly corresponds to the altitude of Polaris.

Because the field of ether is LATITUDE DEPENDENT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791 (Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift experiments)

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024144#msg2024144 (ten consecutive messages)

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 02:32:50 PM
Let us take a look at another incredible coincidence.
This refers to alleged faking of data. Are you saying the measurement of latitude is faked? How?
Quote
Because the field of ether is LATITUDE DEPENDENT.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791 (Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift experiments)
Nowhere in that linked wall of text is any explanation of how ether is latitude dependent, nor how the observed measurements are consistent only with a parallel light source from the north.

Also, why have you not published work on this?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 03:00:07 PM
But this is pre-Einstein stuff...

You still don't get it.



It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand), mix up physics buzzwords and call mediocre scientists world leading experts. You're discussing things that (beside not being relevant for the topic here) simply outdated, not relevant in actual discussions.

I believe you, that you are honestly convinced to be into something big, but you aren't. If physics is your hobby, go to a university, take some lectures and discuss with the people there to get e feeling for what is really going on.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 03:08:18 PM
This refers to alleged faking of data.

It refers to the incredible gullibility of the RE who do accept the fakery of the data for the 1919 and 1922 solar eclipses, and yet will not agree that there are different indexes of refraction for each latitude.

Nowhere in that linked wall of text is any explanation of how ether is latitude dependent

I always include the necessary details.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

On page 218, a formula for the latitude dependent ether drift.

This is the formula published by Michelson:

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/MangG1.jpg)

sinΦ, where Φ is the latitude

This turns out to be the CORIOLIS EFFECT of the ether drift on the interferometer.

nor how the observed measurements are consistent only with a parallel light source from the north.

The author of the video made certain conclusions and deductions based on FAULTY and ERRONEOUS total vacuum of outer space model.

The existence of the ether shows that there are latitude dependent indexes of refraction.

This changes everything.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 03:19:08 PM
It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand)

I understand them.

I was able to derive the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Here is my global arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


and call mediocre scientists world leading experts.

Dr. Maurice Allais, the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

"...the failure of the world's physicists to find such a (satisfactory) theory, after many years of intensive research," says Dirac, "leads me to think that the aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future".

Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933
Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

“What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you how
much magnetic field there is inside of here by measuring
currents through here and here – through wires which
are entirely outside – through wires in which there is no
magnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experiments
there can be situations in which classically there
would be no expected influence whatever. But nevertheless
there is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A is
as real as B-realer, whatever that means.”

R. Feynman


“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”

C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate

“...the vector potential appears to give the most direct description of the physics. This becomes more apparent the more deeply we go into quantum theory. In the general theory of quantum electrodynamics, one takes the vector and scalar potentials as the fundamental quantities in a set of equations that replace the Maxwell equations: E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ”

(Feynman et al, 1989, chapter 15, section 5, The Feynman Lecture on Physics (Vol. 2), 1989)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 03:29:39 PM
I always include the necessary details.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."
That website is by a disciple of Wilhelm Reich, i.e. orgone therapy. Not generally accepted by the scientific establishment, as I am sure you know. Perhaps the establishment is wrong, but in any case the reference does not establish any determinate relationship between latitude and refraction, which needed to be proven.

You need a formula which demonstrates that rays coming from a nearby Polaris will be refracted in a way precisely consistent with the actual observations (which I assume you don’t dispute).

I see one problem already. At the equator, Polaris appears on the horizon. So how was the light from a nearby source high up above the earth’s surface refracted so that it became parallel to it? How is that possible? The refraction, according to you, is at the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere and the ether.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 30, 2018, 03:30:02 PM
It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand)

I understand them.

I was able to derive the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2n x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)1/2]1/2...}1/2))1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2n x (V1/2n+1 - 1/V1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Here is my global arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)



Looks like soon you will get the Fields Medal...

It really doesn't help that you put together random out of context citations. Also linking other post by you or links to pseudoscience institutes does not help...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 03:41:57 PM
That website is by a disciple of Wilhelm Reich, i.e. orgone therapy.

Trolling again.

The quote is from Dr. Dayton Miller from Princeton University, Einstein's main rival.

He derived a clear and precise correlation between the dynamics of the ether drift and latitude of the Earth.

You need a formula

I need no such formula.

All I need to prove is the existence of ether. The rest is up to you.

The refraction, according to you, is at the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere and the ether.


The refraction is CONTINUOUS all the way to the surface of the Earth.

The Michelson-Gale interferometer was placed right on the ground in Clearing, Illinois, and yet recorded the latitude dependent ether drift (the Coriolis effect).

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 30, 2018, 03:42:32 PM
This topic on the "other" board to which sandokhan is linking goes back 9 years, and holds some fascinating stuff.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0)


Edit: And this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183 (https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 03:45:27 PM
I need no such formula.
There we go again. Not up to FE to establish a model that works.

The refraction is CONTINUOUS all the way to the surface of the Earth.
So most of the refraction is not at the boundary of the ether and the earth's atmosphere?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 03:56:44 PM
Not up to FE to establish a model that works.

No.

Such a formula would mean a appreciable investment of time and effort in order to derive it.

Once the existence of the ether drift is proven, we can also assume the existence of such a formula; to actually derive it for the sake of a simple thread is not worth it.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 03:58:35 PM
Moreover, the model would have to explain why, despite the latitude-dependent effects of refraction, the apparent angular distance of the same pair of stars is the same at any point on the earth. For example Polaris and Beta ursae minoris. On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

[post crossed]  Ah OK, still not up to FE to respond to any fatal objection. Fair enough.

Quote
Such a formula would mean a appreciable investment of time and effort in order to derive it.
I am sure it would.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 04:08:43 PM
On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

You haven't done your homework on the atmospheric physics of the northern region.

An example.

The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.

The auroral displays are caused by the celestial object that orbits above the North Pole region.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NZlfxWMr7nc/maxresdefault.jpg)


http://hollowplanet.blogspot.ro/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html

NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."

Imagine the effect on the index of refraction of these surprising new findings on plasma/ether physics.

Neither you, nor the author of the video had any clue of the existence of the ether drift or of the fact that the Aurora Borealis is actually caused by an upward flow into space.

Obviously, both of you thought that the Aurora Borealis was caused by an external stream of ions/plasma. It is not.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 30, 2018, 04:19:24 PM
On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole. But they don't. Right?

You haven't done your homework ...

You didn't answer the question.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
Not for the first time.
Quote
Quote
Quote from: sandokhan on December 08, 2016, 10:51:23 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1789875#msg1789875 (Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon)
Unless you can describe the link between your copy paste and this thread in less than 100 of your own words, no one is going to read it.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 04:39:46 PM
You didn't answer the question.

The RE have failed to provide an explanation for this fact, so far:

Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.

While I had to answer each and every question.

(http://www.dailygalaxy.com/.a/6a00d8341bf7f753ef0147e146d47a970b-600wi)

Polaris seen from Mt. Kilimanjaro.

the apparent angular distance of the same pair of stars is the same at any point on the earth. For example Polaris and Beta ursae minoris. On the latitude-dependent model, these stars would appear closer at the equator than at the Pole.

If by closer you mean the "apparent angular distance" you'd have to provide a reason why on the latitude-dependent model they'd appear "closer" at the equator than at the Pole.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 30, 2018, 04:47:50 PM
If by closer you mean the "apparent angular distance" you'd have to provide a reason why on the latitude-dependent model they'd appear "closer" at the equator than at the Pole.
I think you misunderstand the question. (Or maybe I do.)

"Closer" as in closer together. The "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.

Agree?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 04:50:42 PM
The person who posed the question has to provide more details on why the "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 30, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
The person who posed the question has to provide more details on why the "apparent angular distance" between the two stars ought to be different when viewed from the equator than when viewed from the poles, given a latitude-dependent model.
Fair enough, I guess. But your response citing authoritative findings from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center plasma scientists based on DE-1 satellite data seemed like a non-sequitur, particularly given conventional FE suspicion of NASA and disbelief in satellites.

But ball's back in edby's court, if he so chooses to pursue this. I'll shut up.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 05:04:50 PM
Sorry I was having a nap.

OK. Two observations on which we should agree, namely that Polaris is directly above when we are at the Pole, and on the horizon when we are at the equator. This is easy to explain in RE. In FE ether refraction model, we must suppose that as we move towards the equator, the refraction causes the light to become increasingly parallel to the earth’s surface. Now consider a star just ‘below’ Polaris, say Beta ursae minoris. According to FE it is not actually below, being the same height as Polaris, but simply a bit further away.

So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. they appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have decreased (to zero in this case).

Of course we can get out of this, as we can by any ad hoc explanation, by supposing that the laws of ether refraction are different for Beta than for Polaris. But why? Principle of Sufficient Reason kicks in.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 05:10:33 PM
conventional FE suspicion of NASA and disbelief in satellites

Satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit at a much lower altitude than the official figure provided to the public.

This is easy to explain in RE.

But it is not.

The RE have to explain why Sirius stays synched up so precisely with precession, when the rate of precession itself is changing.

Now consider a star just ‘below’ Polaris, say Beta ursae minoris. It is not actually below, because it is the same height as Polaris, but simply further away.

Not in the correct FE model. They orbit much closer to each other (altitude) above the surface of the Earth.

So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. the appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have increased.

Not if they orbit at about the same altitude.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 05:29:49 PM
So, assuming that rays from that star become increasingly refracted and hence more parallel to the earth’s surface, the rays of light from Beta will eventually become parallel as well. So there must be some point where the rays from Beta and Polaris will be at the same angle to the viewer, i.e. the appear to line up. Ergo the angular distance must have increased.

Not if they orbit at about the same altitude.
So Beta and Polaris are the same altitude. What is the plane of their orbit please? In the standard FE model, the plane is a disc above the Earth whose centre of rotation is close to Polaris. That means that when Beta appears 'below' Polaris, it is further away.

Note also I said 'Ergo the angular distance must have decreased (to zero in this case)'.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
In the standard FE model, the plane is a disc above the Earth whose centre of rotation is close to Polaris.

The standard FE model is wrong.

I was the first to offer a solution to the intractable FE "celestial gears" problem: there are three kinds of stellar orbits, northern circumpolar, southern circumpolar, and regular orbits.

The distance between Polaris and the other stars nearby is measured not in light years, but in hundreds of meters or very few kilometers.

The other FE should take notice at the maneuvers used by the RE.

They cannot explain the Sirius precession, the Whittaker potential waves, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, and much more, so they avoid providing any kind of an explanation for these issues, while at the same time trying to narrow the discussion to a very specific topic. Once the existence of the ether is proven, the FE do not have to provide any other kind of explanation regarding the Polaris angular distance; if they choose to, they can do so, but they are not under a certain obligation to answer difficult specific issues, which require a lot of research and time and effort.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 05:59:21 PM
The standard FE model is wrong.

I was the first to offer a solution to the intractable FE "celestial gears" problem: there are three kinds of stellar orbits, northern circumpolar, southern circumpolar, and regular orbits.

So please explain how Beta orbits around Polaris.

Quote
Once the existence of the ether is proven, the FE do not have to provide any other kind of explanation regarding the Polaris angular distance; if they choose to, they can do so, but they are not under a certain obligation to answer difficult specific issues, which require a lot of research and time and effort.
This is a not a 'specific issue'. The explanation of the Polaris problem is crucial to FE, everything depends on it, as others have noted.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 06:13:33 PM
It is crucial in the context of the unipolar model, not in the situation involving the bipolar model.

The author of the video had no knowledge of the Ruderfer experiment, of the Sirius precession paradox, of the existence of the Whittaker ether waves.

The existence of Koronium means that Mendeleev was right: there are further lighter elements than hydrogen in the periodic table and that each star emits such peculiar/distinctive baryonic/mesonic elements in the form of radiation (just like the Sun emits Koronium), and that there is a certain/special relationship between this kind of radiation and the layers of ether which require a different index of refraction.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 06:25:25 PM
It [i.e. the explanation of the Polaris problem] is crucial in the context of the unipolar model, not in the situation involving the bipolar model.
 
Since this is non-standard FE, please explain how the ‘bipolar model’ works, and also explain how this is relevant to the Polaris problem in any way.

To repeat, the Polaris problem is difficult to explain on the hypothesis that Polaris is directly above the Pole, and appears so when you are at the Pole, yet appears on the horizon at the equator. It is entirely unclear how refraction would explain this, under any model.

[edit] This old post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59769.0) has a bit about the bipolar model. Not sure if it will help.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2018, 07:16:43 PM
In the bipolar model, the North Pole has never actually been discovered.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

In support of the above conception regarding the magnetic pole being situated in the rim of the polar opening, Palmer refers to the following facts: Between each magnetic pole around the Earth pass magnetic meridians. In contrast with geographical meridians, which measure longitude, the magnetic meridians move from east to west and back again. The difference between the geographical meridians, or true north and south, and the direction in which a magnetic compass points, or the magnetic meridian of the place, is called the declination. The first observation made was in London in 1580 and showed an easterly declination of 11 degrees. In 1815 the declination reached 24. 3 degrees westerly maximum. This makes a difference of 35. 3 degrees change in 235 years, which is equal to 2,118 miles. Now if we make a circle around the Pole, with a radius of 1,059 miles, so that it is 2,118 miles in diameter, this would represent the rim of the polar opening along which, in this case, the North Magnetic Pole traveled from one point to its diametrically opposite point on the circle, 2,118 miles away, in 235 years.

According to Marshall Gardner, the rim of the polar opening, which is the true magnetic pole, is a large circle 1,400 miles in diameter.

No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm


No one has managed to travel inside this large circle which measures some 1,400 miles in diameter.

The orbits of most the northern circumpolar stars are inside this large right cylinder.

No one has ever visited this area to actually verify that the Polaris will be observed at an exact 90 degree angle overhead.

This is how the northern star trails looks like from Alaska:

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Wu7MrTp3EE/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fe/ed/6e/feed6ef25aa8b54d454153b652922611.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Galleries/Kodiak/i-9DGnnqS/1/350856b3/L/Aurora_2-2-L.jpg)
(http://rondayvous.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Star-Trails-11-08-12-Stacked-Version-1.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5Wu7MrTp3EE/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i1.wp.com/ianajohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Long-Island-Star-Trails-2.jpg?resize=474%2C317)


While seen from the equator they look like this:

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pXL3yIY5fFQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/71/2b/6a712b2ab51ded556c4c9749bfc21886.jpg)

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 30, 2018, 07:24:49 PM
Quote
No one has ever discovered either the North or the South Pole:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm
No one has managed to travel inside this large circle which measures some 1,400 miles in diameter.
Ah right. Edges towards the door.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 30, 2018, 08:55:50 PM
In the bipolar model, the North Pole has never actually been discovered.


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

It is well known that the North and South Magnetic Poles do not coincide with the geographical poles, as they should were the Earth a solid sphere, convex at its poles. The reason why the magnetic and geographical poles don't coincide is because, while the magnetic pole lies along the rim of the polar opening.

I think this topic has already derailed, so perhaps it's okay to ask: How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 06:44:06 AM
This topic on the "other" board to which sandokhan is linking goes back 9 years, and holds some fascinating stuff.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0)


Edit: And this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183 (https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183)

Yes, it is really enlightening...

The interesting thing, that he even has not understood what the the people 100 years ago thought the ether is and his purpose would be. It is also interesting that he tries to prove the flat earth via the existence of the ether by citing old experiments that where all done and interpreted at that time in light of the standard geocentric model. 

It's a total mess of misinterpretations and lack of real understanding beyond the pure math of the formulas he is posting.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 31, 2018, 09:29:47 AM
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 31, 2018, 09:33:39 AM
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?

[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 31, 2018, 10:05:23 AM
I'm seeing a lot of words - yet I'm still not seeing an answer to the original question.

Surely even to the nearest 1000 miles Sandokhan can provide an answer?

[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.

Thanks for that: maybe I did see that but assumed it was a joke answer.

Does Sandokhan stand by that? Any other flat earthers agree?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 31, 2018, 10:58:50 AM
Does Sandokhan stand by that?

You don't understand.

You have NOTHING going for you.

Unless you can explain the faint young sun paradox, the nuclear furnace model falls apart:

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

Unless you can explain the fact that the pressure in the chromosphere is 10-13 BAR, the currently accepted solar model is worthless:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Unless you can explain the fact that the CNO cycle takes place at the surface of the solar atmosphere, heliocentricity is just a meaningless hypothesis:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377


How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?

You cannot.

HE = curvature, FE = no curvature.

Both FE poles feature huge territories (at least 1,400 miles in diameter) which are inaccesible by land or by air.


The interesting thing, that he even has not understood what the the people 100 years ago thought the ether is and his purpose would be.

So far, you have rejected Maxwell, Whittaker, Feynman and Dirac.

Perhaps Tesla is more to your liking:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2018999#msg2018999 (output energy is higher than input energy for Tesla's bifilar coils)

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 10:59:30 AM
You can be sure that this guy is 100% serious about everything he is writing. The sun is just a few hundred meters in diameter and 10 km above the earth...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 31, 2018, 11:02:52 AM
Does Sandokhan stand by that?
You don't understand.

He was referring to your claim here:
[…]
Therefore, the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km.
Do you stand by that, i.e. the claim that the Earth - Polaris distance must be less than 50 km but greater than 10 km?

No wall of text required. Either a three letter answer, or a two letter answer.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 31, 2018, 11:07:25 AM
I always provide proofs for my statements.

Ten years of debates have shown that those statements are correct.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (ISS/Atlantis solar transit photos/videos)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (ISS lunar transit, Hubble solar transit)

The Black Sun in Antarctica, photograph by world famous photographer Fred Bruenjes:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used as a vehicle to the moon a simple carriage driven by reindeers: the photographs show both the Black Sun and the Sun itself at a distance of less than 1000 km from the photographer.

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


Either a three letter answer, or a two letter answer.

Of course.

50km is an upper limit, the actual value is lower than that.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 31, 2018, 12:30:32 PM
OK he is entirely serious.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on May 31, 2018, 12:32:35 PM
OK he is entirely serious.

I told you...
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 31, 2018, 02:13:04 PM

How do you integrate hollow earth with a flat earth?

You cannot.

HE = curvature, FE = no curvature.

Both FE poles feature huge territories (at least 1,400 miles in diameter) which are inaccesible by land or by air.
That's what I thought. The hollow earth being a sphere, I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm#contents) for support.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 31, 2018, 03:05:48 PM
A small note on the 'black sun' photo: as well as the black part being the moon - since it's a solar eclipse - it's actually "a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like", according to Bruenjes.

Also, I thought all Siegmeister's stuff was fiction?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 31, 2018, 03:31:58 PM
To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

F. Bruenjes

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."

The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/2ndcontact_vidcap.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)

These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4632.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/2_rotate_crop_colorcorrect.jpg)

The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work for support.

HE proves that the North Pole has never been discovered and offers a direct estimate of the area involved.

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on May 31, 2018, 04:01:08 PM
This is compelling stuff.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: juner on May 31, 2018, 06:03:14 PM
OK he is entirely serious.

I told you...

If you have nothing to add to the thread beyond musing about sandokhan's posts, then I will ask you to refrain from derailing the thread. Take it to CN. Warnings for both.

EDIT - Turns out both of you are sitting on three warnings already. So why don't you both take a few days off to review the rules.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 31, 2018, 06:05:03 PM

I thought it curious you'd link to Bernard's (Siegmeister's) 1964 work for support.

HE proves that the North Pole has never been discovered and offers a direct estimate of the area involved.
You can call it "proves." I wouldn't.

But whatever you call it, it's based on a spherical model of earth with openings into the interior of that sphere at the poles. If that can't be integrated with a flat earth model, I don't get why you'd accept HE claims as "proof."
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on May 31, 2018, 07:02:49 PM
Re: 'black sun' - if the photographer himself calls it a "highly processed composite of four images" who am I to argue?

The others he says are unaltered, though.

Nothing about them contradicts a 93 million mile distant sun.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on May 31, 2018, 07:17:28 PM
Re: 'black sun' - if the photographer himself calls it a "highly processed composite of four images" who am I to argue?

I have also posted the UNALTERED IMAGE:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

Here is how the final image was achieved:

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

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."

These photographs feature an UNKNOWN heavenly body, which could not possible be the Moon, in the shape of a disk. No 384,000 distance to the Moon in these photographs.

The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

The discoidal shape of the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Since the Sun must have the shape of a disk, the celestial body which causes the solar eclipse must also have a similar shape.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on May 31, 2018, 09:17:24 PM

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

These photographs feature an UNKNOWN heavenly body, which could not possible be the Moon, in the shape of a disk. No 384,000 distance to the Moon in these photographs.

Why could the eclipsing body not be the moon?


The Allais effect proves that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse.

And yet... (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2003Nov23T.GIF)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on June 01, 2018, 10:58:32 AM
And yet...

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2003Nov23T.GIF


A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.

We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.



Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?”


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on June 01, 2018, 01:16:39 PM
You can take a photo of the "unknown heavenly body" that eclipses the sun.

Weirdly enough, it looks exactly like the moon:

(http://www.whimsandfancies.com/wp-content/gallery/solar_eclipse_2017/earthshine.jpg)

Are you a Hare Krishna? Some of them think it's 'Rahu' that causes the eclipse (https://krishna.org/astronomy-debunked-solar-eclipses-are-not-caused-by-the-moon/).
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 01, 2018, 01:16:57 PM
The mechanism for the anomaly is in question, but that doesn't mean the moon isn't eclipsing the sun. It still is/does. The reason for the Effect is unknown; but not the celestial bodies.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: sandokhan on June 01, 2018, 02:12:20 PM
All of the photographs which include the actual features of the Moon (Earth light), during a total solar eclipse, are fake/heavily photoshopped (superimposition of the Moon on top of the total solar eclipse image).

Such as this one:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-8-22_12-8-34-png.28426/

https://i.redd.it/4btg9peappiz.jpg (original photograph which features the Black Sun)

(https://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=626&ei=zMUTXN6ZMMSalwSk0qroCQ&q=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&oq=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&gs_l=img.3...448.5790..6304...2.0..0.137.2934.21j10......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0j0i8i30j0i30j0i24.c4Nf_UmAENg )

Before the author of the krishna.org started his observations, for over a hundred years, there were NO photographs featuring the moon during a total solar eclipse, always totally dark.

"For 100 years people have been taking photos of the eclipse with film and no one has ever been able to show the face of the moon, now, with the aid of photoshop and superimposing photos on the moon over the eclipse, it has become possible.

You know these are days of photoshop and people will do anything to get an award winning photograph. It should look like this and any thoughtful person knows it should look like this so the temptation may be there to use photoshop to make it look like this… But we also know of course that it does not look like this… There are millions of photos of solar eclipses where the sun is completely blacked out during a solar eclipse. Obviously the moon should be clearly visible during a solar eclipse to the naked eye. The earthshine is very bright on the moon at that time because on the moon it is the ‘full earth’ at that moment except for the small black circle of the eclipse on the earth…"

https://krishna.org/astronomy-debunked-solar-eclipses-are-not-caused-by-the-moon/#comment-269028


I was the first to bring the information about Rahu (Fenrir) and Ketu to the FES.


The reason for the Effect is unknown; but not the celestial bodies.

No.

The calculations were done by the Nobel prize winner Dr. Maurice Allais:

(https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.


In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.

The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.


This is how we know that the Earth shine total solar eclipses photos were faked.


For example, for the 2008 total solar eclipse:

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL INFLUENCE WAS AT WORK.

This is the influence of the BLACK SUN passing in front of the visible Sun.



More calculations done by Dr. Saxl:

Published in the Physical Review Journal (1970)

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



Here is the final proof that it is the Black Sun during the total solar eclipse: the red spectral lines of Newtonium, the first element in Mendeleev's periodic table of elements:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064764#msg2064764

Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 01, 2018, 02:21:40 PM
I have an idea for an experiment.

For the July 2nd, 2019 total solar eclipse, set up a pendulum to look for the Allais Effect near the path of totality, like in Argentina (Buenos Aires or San Juan). And set up another along the global antipode path in China (Shanghai). Though detecting the anomaly seems to be hit-and-miss, this would be to see if whatever may be causing it might also manifest at the antipodal path of the eclipse. If it's a gravity thing involving the sun-earth and moon-earth planes, it might, and seeing it on the opposite side of the world from the eclipse would lend itself to confirming the correlation.

None of us are going to do this, of course. But experienced experimenters in physics could do this, if an answer for the Allais effect is a worthwhile pursuit.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 04:42:47 AM
Note: while the Allais Effect is interesting, I'm not sure how it helps answer the question of the altitude of the north star.

So far we've had one 'answer' - a guess, really, of between 10 and 50km - which I think we can all agree is so far from correct it's "not even wrong".

Any others?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on June 15, 2018, 10:30:02 AM
I've figured out a way to measure the altitude of the north star, and it doesn't even require us to know the distance to the north pole.

1. Find two places that are on about the same longitude
2. Take the latitudes (equal to the viewing angle to the north star)
3. Work out the altitude of the north star from that

Since I live in the UK and feel completely certain that our maps and distances are accurate, I chose Brighton and Bridlington, which are both very close to the prime meridian.

The straight line distance between them is 227 miles.
Brighton is at 50.843°N.
Bridlington is at 54.082°N.

A wee bit of geometry reveals the altitude of the north star as 2,522.98 miles.

Taking another two cities:

Glasgow and Plymouth are at -4.2°W, 380 miles apart.
Glasgow is at 55.858°N.
Plymouth is at 50.371°N.

This gives an altitude for the north star above the north pole of 2533.26 miles.

Pretty close! I guess this shows that the altitude of the north star is about 2530 miles, give or take a few.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: hexagon on June 15, 2018, 10:50:55 AM
Hm, how could you be sure about the position of the north star?

According to the natural law of perspective, the apparent position of the north star in the sky is lower than it's real position, so your measured angles do not reflect the real position of the north star.

According to the electromagnetic accelerator theory the light emitted from the north star is bended upwards. Your measured angles assume light that is propagating in straight lines, therefor your measurement is flawed and does not gives you the real position of the north star.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on June 15, 2018, 10:58:06 AM
Just checking again with two other cities:

A point in Albuquerque at 35.1, -106.629.
A point in El Paso at 31.8, -106.629.

The distance is 228 miles.

This time I get an altitude for the north star of 1200.1 miles.

Whaaaat? What's going on?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on December 08, 2018, 07:31:35 AM
I was watching a video where a guy showed birds flying behind the sun, and another that showed clouds behind the sun.

I guess this means that the sun is something like 5-7 miles high - which seems reasonable.

Maybe the north star is only about 4 or 5 times higher than that?

Though that still doesn't explain why my Texas and UK measurements are so wrong.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Spingo on December 08, 2018, 11:09:41 PM
I was watching a video where a guy showed birds flying behind the sun, and another that showed clouds behind the sun.

I guess this means that the sun is something like 5-7 miles high - which seems reasonable.

Maybe the north star is only about 4 or 5 times higher than that?

Though that still doesn't explain why my Texas and UK measurements are so wrong.

I’m sorry I’ve read some way out stuff on this site but your post really wins the prize. I hope you’re joking.
I think the moral here is dont look to YouTube for an education, try school, then college...then university.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: LoveScience on December 09, 2018, 12:07:53 AM
Not having seen the video myself I cannot comment. However I don't need to see it to know that there was either someone has either got far too much time on their hands to play with video editing or it is a case of serious misinterpretation.


Let's go for 150 million km for the Sun and between 320 and 440 light years for Polaris.   As a star Polaris is far more luminous than the Sun and if it was 10pc away (absolute magnitude distance) it would shine almost as bright as the planet Venus.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on December 09, 2018, 12:26:24 AM
I’m sorry I’ve read some way out stuff on this site but your post really wins the prize. I hope you’re joking.

I think the moral here is don't look to YouTube for an education, try school, then college...then university.

See with your own eyes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-IoOlDi3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnOjYt2ba2U

(Note: I don't believe this myself. I'm just presenting the flat earth argument.)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Spingo on December 09, 2018, 08:08:55 AM
I’m sorry I’ve read some way out stuff on this site but your post really wins the prize. I hope you’re joking.

I think the moral here is don't look to YouTube for an education, try school, then college...then university.

See with your own eyes!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-IoOlDi3s



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnOjYt2ba2U


(Note: I don't believe this myself. I'm just presenting the flat earth argument.)

Simple explanation

Idiot + camera= total nonsense

Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

Hotspot, easily explained by the person with the camera being a total idiot.

Moral of the story for every idiot with a camera there are a never ending supply of gullible fools who are ready and willing to swallow any old tasty bullshit.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on December 09, 2018, 03:47:04 PM
Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

I don't think that's it. More likely the brightness of the sun/moon overwhelming the camera and rendering everything in front of it invisible, like so:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20151211-160040-kbxww-jpg.32921/)
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084 (https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Spingo on December 09, 2018, 04:31:06 PM
Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

I don't think that's it. More likely the brightness of the sun/moon overwhelming the camera and rendering everything in front of it invisible, like so:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20151211-160040-kbxww-jpg.32921/)
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084 (https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084)

Look again. In the shot clouds go in front and also behind the sun. What I think as the shot is steady. Locked off on a tripod. Then either the one clip duplicated dragged above and then the process as I described. Possibly?
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Spingo on December 09, 2018, 04:32:27 PM
Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

I don't think that's it. More likely the brightness of the sun/moon overwhelming the camera and rendering everything in front of it invisible, like so:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20151211-160040-kbxww-jpg.32921/)
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084 (https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084)

Oooo. You shoot on film! Retro man ;-)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Venus on December 10, 2018, 02:57:29 AM
I'm not sure.

But given that we can all see the north star - well, 90% of us - I think it's pretty safe to say they believe in that.


I have only ever seen Polaris when I have travelled to the Northern Hemisphere, even in Indonesia when I was just 8 degrees south of the equator Polaris was not visible!
Apparently only 12% of us live south of the equator ... I very much doubt that anyone who has ever traveled to the southern hemisphere and done any serious star gazing down here, and compared it to what you can observe from the northern hemisphere would believe the flat earth model.


There is absolutely NO flat earth explanation of the southern stars, and observations of their movement in the southern hemisphere!


Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: RonJ on December 10, 2018, 04:35:46 AM
If you do the calculations you will find that the Polaris is about 3107 miles above the North Pole.  Every good sailor knows that the nautical mile is the same as 1 minute of Latitude or 1 minute of Longitude, but only at the equator.  This is a well known fact, or sailors would have been getting lost at sea for 100's of years.  Since there are 60 minutes in each degree and 90 degrees from the North Pole to the equator that means there are 60 X 90 = 5400 nautical miles from the North Pole to the equator.  There are 6076 feet in a nautical mile so the distance between the North Pole and the equator is about 6214 statue miles. 

When a sailor is at the 45 degree latitude anywhere on the Flat Earth the angle of elevation of the North Star is always at about 45 degrees.  Of course you may have a little refraction from the air, but I would expect at that elevation to be minor.  The problem for FET is if the sailor were to turn the ship directly to the South and go to the equator then that sailor would see the North Star right at the horizon.  Again there would be more refraction because of the air, but only a couple of degrees at the most.  Now if you do the trigonometry the North Star should be about 26 to 27 degrees above the horizon on the Flat Earth model.  Obviously a big difference between any sailor actually sees and what the math tells you what should happen if the earth were flat. 

Now Popeye may not be the brightest, be he doesn't get lost at sea because he assumes that the North Star will tell him what his latitude is in the Northern Hemisphere.  Popeye assumes that the earth is spherical and eats his spinach.  What else should he say except:   I am what I am and that's all that I am. 
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Max_Almond on December 10, 2018, 09:04:46 AM
Look again. In the shot clouds go in front and also behind the sun. What I think as the shot is steady. Locked off on a tripod. Then either the one clip duplicated dragged above and then the process as I described. Possibly?

Nah, I think it's more simple than that. Like the example above, the light of the sun overwhelms the clouds 'in front' of it.

If you do the calculations you will find that the Polaris is about 3107 miles above the North Pole.

That's very good, and also what I thought. But then I did the calculations for some other latitudes and got totally different results.

It's almost as if the flat earth model doesn't work. ;)
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: RonJ on December 10, 2018, 08:08:39 PM
Yes, This is a test that invalidates the flat earth. 

Sailors for 100s of years have used Polaris for navigation.  Sighting have probably has been done a million times and, if properly done, will fix a ship's latitude in the Northern hemisphere each time its tried. Anyone can try this for themselves if they don't believe it. 

On a 45 degree angle the x and y coordinates must be the same.  That's just the definition of that angle. The angle whose tangent equals 1 is always 45 degrees. That's just basic trigonometry.  So if you place Polaris at an equal distance above the North Pole as the distance between the North Pole and the 45 degree latitude line anywhere on the flat earth you will observe that Polaris is 45 degrees above the horizon.  Now by the very definition of latitude lines (flat earth or spherical earth) the equator must be twice that distance.  So if you double the distance x now you have Y / 2X which has to equal 0.5.  The angle whose tangent is 0.5 is 26.565051177 degrees every time you try it. 

What this means is that you can pick any size of flat earth that you decide is correct.  You can place Polaris at that distance above the North Pole that makes the angle above the horizon correct for a sighting on latitude 45 degrees.  Now if you go to any other latitude on the flat earth your latitude measurement by sextant won't be correct. 

Popeye the sailor man would be lost on the flat earth.  In order to be creditable in the future, FET should either alter their definition of their paradigm or maybe just alter trigonometry so the readings sailor get match their actual latitude on the earth as they have been able to prove works for 100's of years.   

Of course this proof only applies to the Northern hemisphere, which has just been proven to be spherical above the equator.

Now it's up to the FET folks to prove using all the Zetitic procedures at your disposal that the statements above are invalid.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: edby on December 10, 2018, 09:00:01 PM
A question to the sailor people here.

I have been reading through Cook's log book of his second journey to the South. It is clear that while longitude measurement was a big problem, due to the problem of timekeeping, latitude measurement was no problem even in the South. But how did they measure this, given Polaris not visible in the South? At least, so I assume.
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: RonJ on December 10, 2018, 10:11:45 PM
Popeye mostly traveled in the Northern hemisphere,  but the sailors who went South of the equator always used the Southern Cross for navigation.  It's not as easy to use as Polaris, but does give somewhat of an idea of the direction of the South Pole. 
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: LoveScience on December 10, 2018, 11:58:07 PM
Yes and of course those sailors would apply appropriate compensation for the difference in angle between the SCP and the stars in Crux.  Sigma Octantis is the nearest reasonably bright star to the south pole of the sky but it is no match for Polaris.  At least we in the north have one advantage over our southern friends!
Title: Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?
Post by: Spingo on December 11, 2018, 08:42:23 AM
His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

Then, you'll be enthralled to find out that the existence of ether was proven mathematically by one of the top scientists of the 20th century: E.T. Whittaker.

FRS
Copley medal (the most prestigious honorary award in British science)
Sylvester medal

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (five consecutive messages)

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

"Whittaker proved the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control.
 
In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."

Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that,

"the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an ondulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity ... [and] the waves will be longitudinal (top) ... These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."

“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039

Fields can be described by a U(1) group transformation: the modified Maxwell equations (actually, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations).

Potentials (ether theory) can ONLY be described by SU(2) group transformations (and higher).

The group algebra underlying the commonly used Maxwell equations is U(1): but this only relates to the ripples in the sea of ether.

The Sagnac effect, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect can only be described by SU(2) group transformations (the quaternion formulation of the Maxwell equations).

Whittaker managed to show the hidden structure of the potential: the set of bidirectional longitudinal waves which rule electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity.

The interferometer of the Sagnac experiment is a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED region and is an example of a topological obstruction.

That is, the Sagnac experiment can only be described by the SU(2) group of transformations, by the original set of the Maxwell equations, by potentials (ether).


There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.

Your constant appealing to authority cuts both ways.

Name just one Nobel prize winner in physics who would agree with your claimed distances to either the sun or Polaris.

Name one Nobel prize winner in physics since it’s inception who has published a paper that agrees with your belief in a flat Earth?

Name one astronomer dead or alive, from the last 200 years, who would agree that the sun is not 93,000,000 miles
from Earth or would agree with you in regards to the earth being flat?

How many of the scientists you love to quote believed in a flat earth? Did Sagnac?

Cherry picking, distorting facts and making things up does little for your case. Scientists are not abandoning relativity in droves. Saying it, does not make it so. LIGO, for example, recently confirmed one of Einstein’s last unproven predictions. Relativity has been proved to be pretty solid time and time again through experimentation. It may we’ll be the case as with Newton, that additions may have to be added as our knowledge increases.

Your continued assertions regarding the outcome and conclusions regarding the Sagnac effect are in direct conflict with historical and science fact.