Recent Posts

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Boots on Today at 02:01:43 PM »
What exactly should a conservative have done to not be hypocritical in the last election? Abstained? Voted for the independent guy who held a crazy conversation with himself on a park bench?

Vote for someone else in the primary?
But of course. But that doesn't help much on election day does it?
Now imagine that we have a giant solved Rubix Cube 10,000 feet above us. It is directly over us. When the Rubix Cube recedes away from us into the distance it will take much longer for us to see the colored side of the Rubix Cube and for the white underside to go away.

This is entirely correct, and is explained by parallax. By this means we can establish that the moon is about 385,000km away. This is inconsistent with FE, but the only rationale Tom gives is in an old thread here:

All observations of very distant objects show that they do not rotate as significantly as theorized. The fact that the moon does not turn (significantly), that Saturn does not tilt, and that the stars do not build up and change configuration at the horizon line, is evidence that those assumptions for how perspective should work at large scales is incorrect.
My emphasis. Stellar parallax was how Bessel discovered that the stars were a really really long distance away. What Tom seems to be arguing is that the ‘laws of perspective’ work differently in this case. But once again, I don’t understand how perspective and angular distance can be different here, unless we assume bending of light.
So, certainly it seems Whittaker was ahead of his time in formulating a theory of gravitational waves and he points out that all these forces that transmit through the action of undulating fields have common properties. He is explicitly NOT saying that EM waves cause gravity waves, far less the curving of space time that gravity is expressed as doing in the general theory.

You still do not understand Whittaker's papers do you?

Whittaker PROVED that all EM/gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials.

Then, each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves.

That is, all EM/gravitational fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal scalar waves and their internal dynamics.

First the longitudinal waves.

Then, these sets of bidirectional longitudinal waves form the potential.

Next, these longitudinal waves comprise the transverse em/gravitational waves.

A longitudinal wave propagates through a transverse wave.

Modern physics deals only with these transverse waves, not the longitudinal waves.

Transverse waves = speed of light = law of conservation of energy

Longitudinal scalar waves = superluminal speed = defiance of the law of conservation of energy

Can you now understand what is meant by the UNIFICATION of electromagnetism and gravity? (longitudinal boson strings within transverse subquark waves)

This is how modern science depicts the magnetic field:

The lines of force issue forth from the south pole, arc through space, and re-enter at the other end, the north pole.

What is MISSING are the lines of force issued by the north pole which re-enter at the south pole.

The experimental proof was given by Howard Johnson in his Spintronics treatise:

SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

The electrogravitational field has magnetic waves AND ALSO gravitational waves.

This is the missing part of the unified field theory.

E.T. Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the electrogravitational potential, the bidirectional longitudinal waves.

They travel/propagate in double torsion fashion.

No physicist to date has observed this crucial fact: the magnetic wave and the gravitational wave form a single structure, the electrogravitational field. The gravitational potential consists of bosons which flow through dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons), and the electromagnetic potential is made up of bosons which propagate through laevorotatory subquarks (positrons).

There two flows of subquarks/magnetic monopoles: South-Center-North AND North-Center-South.

The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.

Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.

The fact that you include the long and complex mathematics seems in this context somewhat suspicious.

The level of advanced mathematics can get much more complex: (bifurcations, chaos theory, Lyapunov exponents, Smale horseshoe theory)

That's the electromagnetic accelerator (EA) theory. I'm questioning the perspective explanation.
So in the 'perspective' explanation, light travels in straight lines? But then how is the visual angle subtended by the moon when it is distant from us the same as the angle when it is much closer? And how would the bottom of the moon at eye level appear to be facing us? I can't even begin to imagine that.

Perhaps the perspective theory involves vision passing from the eye to the object, rather than the other way round, as Euclid thought? But it would still have to be curved.

I have urged Tom to outline a theory of vision consistent with this.
That's the electromagnetic accelerator (EA) theory. I'm questioning the perspective explanation.
Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see:

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.
You keep banging on about my inability to accept the equivalency of gravity and acceleration.....please quote where I have made any statement that indicates this. YOU are inferring it in order to do that classic thing that FE's do........create a smokescreen around the real issue.

Now back to the main event.....

you do realize that UA says there is no such thing as gravity, right??  kind of another import part you are missing.

This is EXACTLY WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I keep pointing out that proper Physics is based on observations and measurements. Gravity is an acceleration caused by a FORCE experienced between masses. This has been measured indeed YOU could measure it yourself if you cared to do so.

You recently chastised a poster for not reading previous posts....dude it is you that seems unable to penetrate the simple logic being laid out in previous posts. Remember my reference to the Schiehallion experiment?

The famous Schiehallion experiment involved measuring the deviation of a plumb line placed next to the mountain Schiehallion in Perthshire (I used to live there). The deviation gives an instant indication of the evident force between masses and the numbers are in line with the aforementioned equation. Only when you can do such a direct observational experiment can you say something is 'observed'.

or we have the classic Cavendish experiment, referenced by the last poster:

Now finally, stop dodging the is it possible to have a Universal acceleration that is slightly modified by the action of celestial gravitation where the only factor influencing CG is the altitude (i.e. proximity to celestial bodies).

As I have repeatedly pointed out there are gravity measurements that can be quoted for identical altitudes on Earth that are different. UA and CG cannot account for that. However, a system where the mass of the Earth itself attracts objects CAN!

DO you agree that attraction between masses can be demonstrated and that this forms the basis of a universal Law of gravitation between ALL masses. It is you that must answer this before we 'move on'.

You make this statement:

"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"

you then quote this segment of his conclusion:

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 ..."

A great deal of context is missing. The bolded statement gives the impression that a theory unifying EM and gravitational forces has been formulated. This is NOT what Whitaker says in the body of the paragraph. I quote that whole section of the conclusion:

But these results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light: for the undulatory phenomena just described, in which the varying vector is a gravitational force perpendicular to the wave front, may be compared with the undulatory phenomena made familiar by the electromagnetic theory of light, in which the varying vectors consist of electric and magnetic forces parallel to the wavefront. The waves are in other respects exactly similar, and it seems possible that an identical property of the medium ensures their transmission through space.

Not the phrase "may be be compared". This is contrary to the word "assimilate". The definition of assimilate is 'to understand and remember new information and make it part of your basic knowledge'.(Cambridge). THAT is the context that Whittaker was referring to.

So, certainly it seems Whittaker was ahead of his time in formulating a theory of gravitational waves and he points out that all these forces that transmit through the action of undulating fields have common properties. He is explicitly NOT saying that EM waves cause gravity waves, far less the curving of space time that gravity is expressed as doing in the general theory.

Indeed he makes this explicit in his final paragraph:

"Of course, this investigation does not explain the cause of gravity"
compare this to YOUR initial statement

"Whittaker.... demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation"

Whittaker's final paragraph continues

"all that is done is to show that in order to account for the propogation across space of forces which vary as the inverse square of the distance, we have only to suppose that the medium is capable of transmitting, with a definite though large velocity, simple periodic undulatory disturbances, similar to those whose propagation by the medium constitutes, according to the electromagnetic theory, the transmission of light."

The fact that you include the long and complex mathematics seems in this context somewhat suspicious. Anyone without a serious background in Physics would be immediately put off, indeed unless you read very carefully the references to 'forces' throughout could have you believing that the EM fields are producing 'gravitational' forces since that is how the context of this thread was constructed. Your appear to be using this very interesting (and it seems underrated) paper by a Physicist who should be more celebrated as propaganda. You have cut and pasted the very clear context of his conclusion in a way that suggests an entirely new formulation of EM and gravitational theory but this is NOT what the paper states and Whittaker himself is at pains to say so.

If this is what you are doing then you are a dangerous enemy of reason and science. The truth is a fragile commodity and anyone with a higher understanding of science and the language used to explain bears an important responsibility to truthfully represent the science. It can be hard when the science is new and disputed but you are atempting to confuse people with theories that have long been established and which stand up to scrutiny. That is not to say useful Scientists and their interpretations dont sometimes get lost. Perhaps this method of formulating Force fields deserves reworked but all it has done here is create an enormous smoke screen if unpenetrable logic that most will turn off from.

Remember, my original point was that planets cannot suddenlt enter into orbits of different radii without a massive exchange of energy. To try to obscure that basic and undeniable logic with some nonsense about 'alternative matter' etc is bogus bullshit. What is your ultimate goal? Why bother with this? It is not helpful and your intellect and talents would be best used in a more truthful and honest manner.
Announcements / Debate Club forum restructure
« Last post by Parsifal on Today at 12:15:53 PM »
Hello Earthers of all shapes and sizes!

In the hope of facilitating more constructive and honest debate, we will be restructuring the forums tomorrow (2018-06-24, 09:00 UTC) while down for maintenance. To minimise confusion during the transition, you will not be able to access the forum while the changes are being made.

A summary of the changes that will take place:

1) Create Flat Earth Investigations - Investigate authoritative claims on any topic. Question our institutions and challenge conventional wisdom.

2) Rename Flat Earth General to Flat Earth Community.

3) Merge FE debate, FE Q&A, Rename to Flat Earth Theory - A place to examine the Flat Earth Theory.

4) Rename Flat Earth Information Repository to Flat Earth Media

5) Rename Zetetic Council Forum to Flat Earth Projects. Place the Earth Not a Globe Workshop as a subforum within Flat Earth Projects (Ideally, not seen on the main Table of Contents page)
Status Notices / Scheduled maintenance, 2018-06-24
« Last post by Parsifal on Today at 12:08:36 PM »
The homepage, forum, wiki and IRC will be going offline for up to 30 minutes on 2018-06-24, between 09:00 and 09:30 UTC.

For convenience, this means:

EDT (USA east coast):
2018-06-24, 05:00-05:30

2018-06-24, 10:00-10:30

CEST (Most of Europe):
2018-06-24, 11:00-11:30

AEST (Australia east coast):
2018-06-24, 19:00-19:30

The intent is to install security updates on the server which hosts the homepage, forum, wiki and IRC. These will be non-disruptive to functionality, as the server is running a stable OS release that gets critical fixes only.

We will also be restructuring the upper fora at this time, which will be announced separately.