Recent Posts

You demanded an explanation for the results obtained by Talley during the vacuum tests.

I began by drawing your attention to the fact that G varies slightly, the Eotvos gravitational effect, a fact which has no explanation in mainstream science.

In view of the results published by Roland Eotvos, Dr. E. Fischbach (Purdue University) has proposed the following modification to the law of universal gravitation:

Thus, G is not a constant as we have been led to believe.

Here is the correct equation for G, which is a quantum function:

The B-B effect is proportional to sqrt(G), so a small change in G will produce a squared-small change in the B-B effect.


A change in √G means that in vacuum you need a higher voltage and/or a dielectric constant.

In vacuum, √G < 2.58 x 10-4.

Flat Earth Theory / International Space Station
« Last post by Cactus1549 on Today at 07:20:11 AM »
As I understand it, according to FE all satellites are hoaxes perpetrated by NASA, other space organisations, governments, businesses like SpaceX and numerous scientists who rely on satellite observations for their work. Let's accept this as given.

In that case, what exactly am I seeing when I look up in the sky at night and see the International Space Station flying past?

Not only that, I can go to NASA's website and find out exactly when the ISS will be visible at my location. The same website also shows where the ISS is at any moment in time. Other websites like CalSky ( )show the location of the ISS with even more precision. This enables any photographer to set up a camera with a telelens and take a photo of the ISS as it flies across the face of the sun and the moon, for example

That photo of the ISS with the sun was obviously taken during the day, when the ISS is invisible to the naked eye and so the photographer had to rely entirely on NASA's predictions. These predictions in turn rely entirely on Newton's fake law of gravitation.

And it is not just the ISS that is visible. Other satellites can be seen too, just not as easily as the ISS. The first ones that were easily visible with the naked eye were the Echo communications satellites of 1960 and 1964. These were large (30 m diameter) metallised balloons, designed to reflect radio signals back to earth.

Why is it that no such celestial objects were seen before the fake space race started? Certainly the ancient Greeks and Chinese would have been aware of something as easily visible as the ISS. Why did they not mention it? Did it appear in the sky by magic around 2000? It cannot be mistaken for a star or planet as satellites travel much faster across the sky. And why do the photos taken by ground-based photographers show it looking remarkably like a man-made object? Of course, as FE often points out, photos can be faked. So these photographers must be among the millions of people who are secretly conspiring to make us believe in RE.

But then, what do I see when I look up into the sky? Perhaps the ISS and other satellites are just balloons at high altitude? In that case, please explain how any balloon can travel around the world (or fly a circle around the "central" north pole) every 90 minutes. Explain why it is so totally un-affected by variations in wind that NASA can tell us precisely where it is at every second. If they are neither balloons nor spacecraft, just what kind of new-fangled celestial object am I seeing?

To rephrase my questions:

1. What is the ISS?
2. What keeps it up there?
3. What gives NASA the ability to predict precisely where it is at all times?
4. Why did nothing like it appear in the sky before we started the satellite hoax?
5. Why do photographs of it show it looking the way NASA claims it has been built?
Technology & Information / Re: AMD's new 7nm Ryzen 3000 - thoughts?
« Last post by Fortuna on Today at 01:13:24 AM »
The Ryzen 9 3950X is an absolute unit. It's too bad it will probably be demolished by Intel's top binned CPU later this year, as is usually the case.
Additionally this "hypercharge" force seems to be proportional to the number of nucleons, and is apparently such a small effect that it wasn't noticed until 1986 (It looks like this effect must be <G/2000). How is this effect relevant to charging a capacitor? Does the number of nucleons in the capacitor change when the capacitor is placed into a vacuum chamber? How does this tiny effect make such a huge difference to the voltage required for the B-B effect?

The B-B effect is proportional to sqrt(G), so a small change in G will produce a squared-small change in the B-B effect. I'm really not buying this explanation, even if you can show me that there is some tiny variation in G.
What am I missing?
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Reviewing the reviewer: The Christgau picks
« Last post by Parsifal on Today at 12:28:39 AM »
Joy of Cooking
Joy of Cooking

Band lineup

Terry Garthwaite (lead vocals, guitar, clarinet)
Toni Brown (keyboards, guitar, kalimba, lead vocals on "Too Late, But Not Forgotten" and "Red Wine at Noon")
David Garthwaite (bass, lead guitar on "Only Time Will Tell Me")
Fritz Kasten (drums)
Ron Wilson (percussion)

All tracks authored by Toni Brown, except where noted.

Side A

1. Hush (traditional) (2:48)
2. Too Late, But Not Forgotten (4:22)
3. Down My Dream (4:20)
4. If Some God (Sometimes You Gotta Go Home) (3:45)
5. Did You Go Downtown? (Terry Garthwaite) (7:39)
6. Dancing Couple (:58)

Side B

1. Brownsville / Mockingbird (Furry Lewis / traditional) (5:55)
2. Red Wine at Noon (3:39)
3. Only Time Will Tell Me (5:16)
4. Children's House (6:55)


Can these girls sing or what?

Things get off to a somewhat shaky start, with some of the least interesting material clustered on side A. I enjoyed "Hush" and "Too Late, But Not Forgotten" -- the latter has some beautiful vocal harmonies -- but the next couple of tracks got a little repetitive and I started to think this was going to be an album full of nothing but harmless pop ditties.

But suddenly, Side A is rescued from the world of listenable but mediocre pop rock by "Did You Go Downtown?", Terry's only writing credit on the album. The lyrics aren't particularly meaningful, but the vocal performance is spectacular, with some group improv involving both the instrumentation and the vocalists in the latter half of the tune. Nearly 8 minutes of the band plodding along with the same one-chord groove, and I didn't find myself getting bored once.

Side B opens with a bluesy tune consisting of a mashed-together cover of Furry Lewis's "Brownsville" and the nursery rhyme "Mockingbird", leading into some more of the amazing improvisations that are the highlight of this album. This really has to be heard to be believed. Just wow.

We then go back into a few more conventional songs. "Red Wine at Noon" and "Only Time Will Tell Me" are my favourite two of Toni's tunes. "Red Wine" has some lovely dissonant chord progressions and vocal harmonies, and "Only Time" is based around a funk groove that represents this band at its tightest.

Sadly, "Children's House" returns us to the repetitiveness from the start of the album. It's obviously an attempt at a dramatic ending, but the writing is just so dull. The only thing that saves it from total disaster is Terry's vocal performance, which is consistent as always on this album.

This record is nicely balanced between Toni's pop rock songs and Terry's lengthy blues vocal improvisations, and while I personally have a strong preference for the latter ("Did You Go Downtown?" and "Brownsville / Mockingbird" being by far my favourite tracks), the two provide some nice contrast and relief from each other. I just wish there was a little more of the improv based around silly lyrics and a little less trying to fit into conventional pop structures.

Christgau sez...

Led by ex-folkie Toni Brown (the principal composer) and ex-blueswoman Terry Garthwaite (whose three rhythm songs sizzle joyously), this may not be your idea of rock and roll. The music revolves around Brown's piano, which rolls more than it rocks, and the band goes for multi-percussion rather than the old in-out. I find it relaxing and exciting and amazingly durable; I can dance to it, and I can also fuck to it. The musical dynamic pits Brown's collegiate contralto against Garthwaite's sandpaper soul, and the lyrics are feminist breakthroughs. "Too Late, but Not Forgotten" remembers a trailer camp while "Red Wine at Noon" touches international finance, but the two protagonists are united by one overriding fact--they're victimized as wives. And it's about time somebody in rock and roll said so. A

Knowing what you can and can't fuck to is a little TMI. Aside from that, this is a much more reasonable assessment of the album than I've come to expect from Christgau, and put more eloquently than mine. While I'm still sour over the D+ grade awarded to Atom Heart Mother in 1970, I have to admit that I can think of no better album from 1971, except perhaps for , which he also awarded an A. I therefore have no choice but to accept this review as valid, but I'll still knock it down to a minus for the TMI. A-
In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

The G "constant" is correctly defined in terms of the ether (ZPF) mass-density equivalent and Planck time and is a vacuum repulsion reaction and a quantum function.
If I can summarise your links, this is a hypothesis that has been experimentally verified a grand total of... one time. In 1922. This is far from "mainstream newtonian".
Perhaps, the paper speculates, there is new and very weak force associated with hypercharge which is responsible for the anomalies in both the gravitational and the kaon measurements.
What part of this is Newtonian?

I think you really need to rethink your general approach to how you interpret scientific results. This isn't the first time you've pointed to a single experiment and basically said "this experiment therefore it must be true", and happily ignored the fact that the result hasn't been reproduced in the last 60+ years. You have a remarkably low bar for evidence before you'll believe something is true.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [Discussion] Just want to know what is your point
« Last post by Macarios on June 15, 2019, 07:14:28 PM »
There is no consistent Flat model.
They couldn't even make accurate map.
Samuel Rowbotham in his book Earth Not a Globe uses Gleason's map, so they use it when convenient, and claim "there is no accurate map" when not.
They have to make tons of excuses and contradictory optical effect just to "explain" the behavior of Sun.
Sometimes light bends downward, sometimes upward, light from Sun bends upward while light from horizon doesn't through the same air, ...
They either don't know how to answer your questions, or have their own, bigger problems.

All those inconsistencies you saw are real.
Flat model can't sustain itself and has to be changed for every subset of data.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [Discussion] Just want to know what is your point
« Last post by changemymind on June 15, 2019, 04:36:01 PM »
I feel marginalized. Every time I ask for some explanations, I am ignored.
Flat Earth Community / Van Allen Radiation Belt
« Last post by rainmedia on June 15, 2019, 03:39:46 PM »
Hello everyone.

I have watched few flat earth theory videos and would like discuss it. Unfortunatelly I cannot provide links. It was weeks ago when I watched these videos. I found this forum by coinsidence and decided to post my doubts.

1. If the world is really flat, what is the purpose of telling everyone it's round?
2. If Van Allen Radiation Belt cannot be passed that means no Alien can come to earth. But there are a lot of Allien and UFO discussions that they visit this earth.
3. One of the videos even said that meteors cannot even reach earth that they would turn to dust before they reach to earth. If this is true how come a meteor killed the dinasours.
4. If Nasa lied about going to moon this means Russia and Elon Musk also lied. But why? USA may have decided to lie but why Russia would tell the same lie?
5. I would like to know the role of the north pole in this.

6. One of the articles said Allen Radiation Belt is 100 billion times more effective then hiroshima. No human can go beyond low earth orbit. Basicly we are trapped in Earth. Muslims have given example from a book written 1500 years ago and link it to Allen Radiation Belt. It goes something like this:
Society of Jinn and Humans! If you can pass through the bounds of the heavens and the earth, go ahead and pass. But you will not pass except with authorization. Even if we had opened a gate for them from heaven, and they had begun to ascend through it higher during day time, they would not believe and say "Our eyes have been dazzled; nay, we have been bewitched. Then they say that time is not same inside the earth and outside the earth. In earth time is 1000 times slower.

I would appreciate your thought. I think it is possible that earth is flat but I am not convinced fully.

Flat Earth Community / Is it a priority?
« Last post by TruEarth on June 15, 2019, 12:58:22 PM »
Just saw Behind The Curve on Netflix and here I am. I particularly admire Mark and Patricia (Happy to know she's Vegan) they have a lovely story and make a perfect couple ahead.

I love to know the truth on everything. Recently just watched the Cowspiracy Theory and began my away to be Vegan from that day on. Sadly it didn't happen with the Behind the Curve documentary.

I would like to think and ask so many questions to know more about this flat earth theory but when I just think ..... There are so many important things in my life... Food & Health - Family - Work & Finance - Environment & Pollution - Politics & Religion etc......... Why would I spend my whole life asking questions on Flat Earth when there are all these priorities first???

I came with this because Netflix bumped it in my list since I like documentaries but why should I go ahead when even the film give not a single good proof theory to believe it's flat.

I see many good people, bright and intelligent people wasting their time on this when they could use their time to help the world in a better way