1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« Last post by sandokhan on Today at 08:53:02 PM »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« Last post by RonJ on Today at 08:45:48 PM »

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

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

Apparently, you are unaware of the Eddington Experiment.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Rushy on Today at 08:36:40 PM »

if you say so.

"Yeah lol we should just keep letting our miners and manufacturers go bankrupt competing with subsidized Chinese firms lmao, who even needs steel or aluminum amirite?"

"Their purpose is to keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation."

Yes. I did say those things. If you want to claim what I've said so far is counter to them, you're going to need to elaborate quite a bit more.

yes. flattening the distribution of nations we import steel from (i.e., diversifying the supply chain) doesn't keep domestic steel/mining/whatever from dying.

Diversifying the supply chain keeps us from relying on an adversary. The tariffs target China specifically. If we were worried about only growing US companies, we'd target everyone equally. As you've probably noticed, we're not doing that.

>"you don't know anything. read this paper and learn something, idiot."
>"this paper agrees with me."
>"oh so you just get your opinions from nerds and their nerd papers? trying listening to the GOVERNMENT sometime, idiot."

The parts of your argument the paper agrees with aren't parts I ever argued against, hence why I linked it to you. It seems all it did was cause you to double down on points only tangential to the political outcomes of tariffs. This is clearly a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Maybe, and I should emphasize this, you should actually read the report. I can only assume you skimmed it, since you seem to have come away from it without actually learning anything about why the tariffs are being put in place.

Hint: the paper doesn't recommend that the US lift its tariffs. Why is that?

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by garygreen on Today at 08:20:44 PM »

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

I never argued otherwise.

if you say so.

"Yeah lol we should just keep letting our miners and manufacturers go bankrupt competing with subsidized Chinese firms lmao, who even needs steel or aluminum amirite?"

"Their purpose is to keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation."

they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally

lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

yes. flattening the distribution of nations we import steel from (i.e., diversifying the supply chain) doesn't keep domestic steel/mining/whatever from dying.

Yes, so it's you, some various economic papers you googled in your spare time, versus the economic policy decisions of world governments. Surely you can think for a moment and identify that you're missing something and barking up the wrong trees with respect to tariff criticism.

>"you don't know anything. read this paper and learn something, idiot."
>"this paper agrees with me."
>"oh so you just get your opinions from nerds and their nerd papers? trying listening to the GOVERNMENT sometime, idiot."

okay.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« Last post by sandokhan on Today at 07:35:07 PM »

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.

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

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

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


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


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

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

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

g₄₄ (φ)= φ² + C1φ + C0

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

They are invoking TSR which does not exist.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Gravitons and Loops

Abhay Ashtekar, Carlo Rovelli and Lee Smolin

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

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


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

Chiral vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity

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

Anti-graviton = laevorotatory subquark = positron

Graviton = dextrorotatory subquark = electron


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

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

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Rushy on Today at 06:50:02 PM »

i'm simply describing a cause-and-effect relationship measured by economists, but okay.

You described a series of things you googled given your limited knowledge of economic policy.

As an analogy, imagine China fired an artillery shell into the US. The US fires one back. You begin arguing this was a bad decision, because firing expensive artillery shells into adversarial nations is not economically advantageous. You link some studies pointing out that artillery shells are expensive and firing them is also expensive. You present this as an argument that others should take seriously, for some reason.

i said spur growth and protect jobs, and i obviously mean with respect to the protected industries. and the 2018 tariffs absolutely were mapped to specific domestic production/employment growth goals.

Okay.

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

I never argued otherwise.

they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally

lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

Biden and Trump's administration, as well as the EU, don't really differ much in terms of economic decision making with respect to China.

yes, that's what i said.

Yes, so it's you, some various economic papers you googled in your spare time, versus the economic policy decisions of world governments. Surely you can think for a moment and identify that you're missing something and barking up the wrong trees with respect to tariff criticism.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by garygreen on Today at 06:34:54 PM »

This is an uncharacteristically pro-capitalist take from you, gary.

i'm simply describing a cause-and-effect relationship measured by economists, but okay.

The purpose of tariffs is not to "spur growth".

i said spur growth and protect jobs, and i obviously mean with respect to the protected industries. and the 2018 tariffs absolutely were mapped to specific domestic production/employment growth goals.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3055-1.html

hey, thanks! i didn't expect you to do any research for me, but this is a great source for me to add.

We found that U.S. economic policies achieved limited progress in promoting fair trade but a higher degree of success in defending U.S. economic-related interests. Increases in U.S. tariffs have succeeded in reducing imports from and curbing the bilateral trade deficit with China, developments that both the Trump and Biden administrations view as resulting in fairer trade. However, U.S. policies have made little progress in ensuring fair treatment for U.S. firms in China and even less in persuading the Chinese government to reduce its subsi- dies and other uncompetitive state assistance to its own manufacturers, especially exporters. The United States has experienced a higher degree of success in diversifying some supply chains away from China and constraining Chinese efforts to secure sensitive technologies that could be used for commercial or military purposes. Some of these economic policies, most notably tariff increases, have come at a price, such as reduced U.S. economic growth and losses in U.S. manufacturing jobs, output, and exports.

they go on to characterize the costs:

Several studies have attempted to quantify the economic costs of the tariffs to the U.S. econ- omy. According to the IMF estimates discussed previously, the estimated cost of the direct effects of the tariffs on the U.S. economy in 2019 was estimated at 0.18 percent of GDP; the cost in 2023 was projected to be 0.1 percent of GDP on an ongoing basis. Dollar costs would have been $39 billion and $27 billion for 2019 and 2023, respectively. 21 Bekkers and Schroeter estimated the direct cost to the U.S. economy at 0.16 percent of GDP in 2019 and projected that this loss would continue. Using this estimate, the costs to the United States would have been $34 billion in 2019 and $44 billion in 2023. 22

Mary Amiti and her coauthors found that the increases in tariffs reduced U.S. aggregate welfare by $1.4 billion per month by December 2018—$8.2 billion in total in 2018 as tar- iffs were repeatedly raised. They estimated the ongoing loss in U.S. welfare at $16.8 billion per year, 23 which translates to 0.08 percent of 2019 GDP, because of the deadweight losses from the tariffs on the U.S. economy. 24 The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the increases in tariffs would reduce U.S. GDP by 0.5 percent in 2020 ($107 billion) and reduce average real household income by $1,277 (in 2019 dollars) in 2020. 25

Consistent with international trade theory and numerous studies on the economic effects of tariffs, Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce found that the increases in U.S. tariffs resulted in a reduction in U.S. manufacturing output, exports, and employment. 26 They estimated that U.S. manufacturers that were highly exposed to the tariffs experienced a 1.4 percent reduc- tion in employment because of the higher costs of imported inputs and the effects of retalia- tory tariffs on their exports. These losses were only partially offset by a 0.3 percent increase in manufacturing employment in the industries that the tariffs were designed to protect. 27 To illustrate the consequences of the tariffs: U.S. firms that use an input imported from China must pay the additional costs of the tariffs. This puts them at a cost disadvantage against Canadian firms that use the same input to manufacture the same product. Both sell into the North American free trade area, but the U.S. firm has to absorb the cost of the tariff on the input imported from China, while the Canadian firm does not. The declines in exports, output, and employment found by Flaaen and Pierce reflect these outcomes.

Amiti and her coauthors found that the tariffs resulted in a 1 percentage point increase in U.S. producer prices. The average rate of producer price inflation between 1990 and 2018 was just over two percentage points, so the tariffs increased the rate of producer price inflation by almost 50 percent. 28 Companies that experienced a sharp increase in tariffs on imports of inputs increased factory-gate prices by 4.1 percent. 29

The economic literature on the 2018–2019 tariff increases finds that the entire cost of the tariffs has been passed through to U.S. consumers and businesses. 30 A complete pass-through of tariffs to an importing nation that is a major consumer of the products, such as the United States, is unusual. In this case, the complete pass-through is even more unusual, as Chinese exporters benefited from the depreciation of the renminbi in 2019, 2020, and 2023 compared with its rate in 2017. Studies generally find that when important import markets face abrupt increases in prices because of higher tariffs or shifts in exchange rates, exporters to the coun- try must reduce prices to keep market share. In these instances, the cost of the tariff is shared between the importing country and the exporting country. However, there was no notice- able decrease in the price of exports from China following the tariff increases in 2018 and 2019. Lower-income groups disproportionately bore these price increases because they spend a larger share of their income on goods imported from China, such as clothing and shoes, compared with middle- and upper-income groups. 31

In short, the increases in U.S. tariffs in 2018 resulted in reductions in U.S. manufacturing exports, output, and employment; accelerated producer and consumer price inflation; and diminished household welfare, especially for lower-income households.

in other words -- tariffs reduce domestic production and manufacturing (among many other things).

and yes, they do say that tariffs have achieved some successes. just not for any of the reasons you've been arguing. they explicitly say that tariffs have failed to change china's trade practices, and they conclude that the benefit of tariffs for access to steel is by diversifying the supply chain globally, and they see the declining trade deficit with china as a positive indication of that. lol they're not saying anywhere that tariffs are "keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation" or anything of the sort.

Biden and Trump's administration, as well as the EU, don't really differ much in terms of economic decision making with respect to China.

yes, that's what i said.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« Last post by RonJ on Today at 04:53:35 PM »

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

Gravity occurs because mass warps space-time.  The larger the mass the slower that mass moves thru space time.  If you are standing on the earth the mass of your body is trying to go thru space-time at one velocity while the earth is going thru space-time at a slower velocity.  An inertial force is applied to your feet continuously to keep your velocity the same as the earth's.  The more your body mass, the more inertial force will be applied to reduce your velocity to that of the object with the higher mass (the earth).   

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Rushy on Today at 02:53:49 PM »

then why aren't steel tariffs working? we've had steel tariffs on china since 2018. biden did not remove them. the initial capability utilization rate target was 80%. it still has not been reached. "In the week ending on November 23, 2024, domestic raw steel production was 1,655,000 net tons while the capability utilization rate was 74.5 percent."

tariffs are a fucking stupid way to spur growth and protect jobs. they do not work.

This is an uncharacteristically pro-capitalist take from you, gary. The purpose of tariffs is not to "spur growth". Their purpose is to keep a foreign adversary from killing vital industries in your nation. This is the same reason that the EU has implemented import taxes on a variety of basic goods and just recently extended their import tax on specifically Chinese steel.  To put it bluntly, you seem to entirely misunderstand modern economic policy. Perhaps reading something that explains modern goals (and how we're achieving them) is a more prudent use of your time instead of wallowing around in economic ignorance:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3055-1.html

Biden and Trump's administration, as well as the EU, don't really differ much in terms of economic decision making with respect to China.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« Last post by Rushy on Today at 02:34:05 PM »

it's his son and not a crony

Now this is funny.