The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Dongmin on June 06, 2019, 11:06:06 AM

Title: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Dongmin on June 06, 2019, 11:06:06 AM
I think most people know satellites exist and GPS's pretty much prove that but if the Earth is flat, would it be possible for a satellite to well rotate? orbit? around a flat Earth?? IDK, just wondering
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 12:01:13 PM
Sure it is possible, but we would need a scientist who is smarter than Einstein to provide the necessary physics.

And we have just such a physicist, because he used to do Einstein's homework while at the Polytehnic Institute in Zurich: Dr. Paul Biefeld.

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 06, 2019, 12:41:02 PM
All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect to orbit above the surface of the Earth.

Interesting claim. Fancy going into more detail?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 06, 2019, 02:58:51 PM


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



Pure bunk.   Please provide proof.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 06, 2019, 03:00:52 PM


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



Pure bunk.   Please provide proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, not proof.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Rama Set on June 06, 2019, 03:14:54 PM


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



Pure bunk.   Please provide proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, not proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, Sandokhan made a definitive statement. Not that it was posssible, but that they do use the Biefield Brown effect. Don't be scared to let Sandokhan speak for himself.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 03:20:47 PM
I have already included the links to the full proofs (experiments performed in full vacuum) of the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909


It is very easy to prove that satellites cannot orbit a planet because of Newtonian gravity.

Here is the Allais effect, a total defiance of attractive gravity:

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

It takes a single counterexample to demolish a theory.

Since satellites cannot and do not use Newtonian gravity to orbit a planet, then the only explanation left is the Biefeld-Brown effect.

If you have any other explanations, please bring them forward.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 06, 2019, 04:12:52 PM


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



Pure bunk.   Please provide proof.

The thread asked for possibilities, not proof.


He didn't say it was possible, he said it is so.   Huge difference.   He is also admitting satellites exist.  I would have thought you would take exception to that.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2019, 04:44:12 PM
I have already included the links to the full proofs (experiments performed in full vacuum) of the Biefeld-Brown effect:
Do you have any evidence that any of those experiments have been scaled up to full size (even cubesat size) satellites in orbit above the earth?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on June 06, 2019, 05:04:53 PM
Biefeld-Brown effect basically debunked:

"Brown believed that his large, high voltage, high capacity capacitors produced an electric field strong enough to marginally interacted with the Earth's gravitational pull, a phenomenon he labeled electrogravitics. Several researchers claim that conventional physics cannot adequately explain the phenomenon.[16] The effect has become something of a cause célèbre in the UFO community, where it is seen as an example of something much more exotic than electrokinetics. Charles Berlitz devoted an entire chapter of his book The Philadelphia Experiment to a retelling of Brown's early work with the effect, implying he had discovered a new electrogravity effect and that it was being used by UFOs. Today, the Internet is filled with sites devoted to this interpretation of the effect.

There have been follow-ups on the claims that this force can be produced in a full vacuum, meaning it is an unknown anti-gravity force, and not just the more well known ion wind. As part of a study in 1990, U.S. Air Force researcher R. L. Talley conducted a test on a Biefeld–Brown-style capacitor to replicate the effect in a vacuum.[8] Despite attempts that increased the driving DC voltage to about 19 kV in vacuum chambers up to 10−6 torr, Talley observed no thrust in terms of static DC potential applied to the electrodes.[17] In 2003, NASA scientist Jonathan Campbell tested a lifter in a vacuum at 10−7 torr with a voltage of up to 50 kV, only to observe no movement from the lifter. Campbell pointed out to a Wired magazine reporter that creating a true vacuum similar to space for the test requires tens of thousands of dollars in equipment.[8]

Around the same time in 2003, researchers from the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) tested the Biefeld–Brown effect by building four different-sized asymmetric capacitors based on simple designs found on the Internet and then applying a high voltage of around 30 kV to them. According to their report, the researchers claimed that the effects of ion wind was at least three orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed force on the asymmetric capacitor in the air. Instead, they proposed that the Biefeld–Brown effect may be better explained using ion drift instead of ion wind due to how the former involves collisions instead of ballistic trajectories.[1] Around ten years later, researchers from the Technical University of Liberec conducted experiments on the Biefeld–Brown effect that supported ARL's claim that assigned ion drift as the most likely source of the generated force.[18]

In 2004, Martin Tajmar published a paper that also failed to replicate Brown's work and suggested that Brown may have instead observed the effects of a corona wind triggered by insufficient outgassing of the electrode assembly in the vacuum chamber and therefore misinterpreted the corona wind effects as a possible connection between gravitation and electromagnetism.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 05:34:49 PM
Do you have any evidence that any of those experiments have been scaled up to full size (even cubesat size) satellites in orbit above the earth?

The B-2 bomber uses the Biefeld-Brown effect.

"It was revealed in 1992, for example, that the B-2 Bomber used electrostatic charges on its leading wings and exhaust. According to aerospace experts, this was confirmation that the B-2 used electrogravitic principles based on the “Biefeld-Brown Effect”. The Biefeld-Brown Effect is based on the research of Thomas Townsend Brown who in 1928 gained a patent for his practical application of how high voltage electrostatic charges can reduce the weight of objects.

The B-2 bomber employs sufficiently high voltages to significantly reduce its weight. This enables the B-2
and other classified antigravity vehicles to display flight characteristics that appear to defy conventional laws of
physics. The key Obama appointee for introducing antigravity technology into the public sector is General Jones.
After retiring from the Marines on February 1, 2007, General Jones served on the Board of Directors of the
Boeing Corporation from June 21, 2007 to December 15, 2008. Boeing had been active at least since the early
1990’s in studies to apply antigravity technology for commercial use.

“In 2002, an internal Boeing project called ‘Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion’ (GRASP) had
been disclosed to the aerospace industry. A GRASP briefing document obtained by Jane’s Defense Weekly
stated Boeing’s position: ‘If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire aerospace business’”.

“According to a 2008 book by Dr. Paul LaViolette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, Boeing completed a
separate classified study for the US military of electrogravitic propulsion recently before October 2007. Boeing
was rebuffed in its efforts to have such technology declassified and released into the public sector. As a Board
Director and member of Boeing’s Finance Committee at the time of the 2007 classified study, General Jones
was privy to and supported Boeing’s efforts in antigravity research and development. At the same time that
Boeing was actively seeking to develop antigravity technologies for a new generation of aircraft, Jones became
President of the Institute for 21st Century Energy. The Institute was created by the US Chamber of Commerce
with the following mission: ‘To secure America’s long-term energy security, America must reexamine outdated
and entrenched positions, become better informed about the sources of our fuel and power, and make judgments based on facts, sound science, and good American common sense’”

(https://quantumantigravity.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/aaaa2.jpg?w=730)

To put things in perspective, the article “How I Control Gravitation”, published in 1929 by Brown, presents
an electrogravitics-validating discovery about very heavy metal objects (44 lbs. each) separated by a dielectric
insulator, charged up to high voltages.


In 1956, a British research company, Aviation Studies (International) Ltd. published a classified report on Electrogravitics Systems examining various aspects of gravity control.  They summarized the pioneering work of Townsend Brown and then described the use of electrogravitic thrust as follows:

        “The essence of electrogravitics thrust is the use of a very strong positive charge on one side of the vehicle and a negative on the other.  The core of the motor is a condenser and the ability of the condenser to hold its charge (the K-number) is the yardstick of performance.  With air as 1, current dielectrical materials can yield 6 and use of barium aluminate can raise this considerably, barium titanium oxide (a baked ceramic) can offer 6,000 and there is a promise of 30,000, which would be sufficient for supersonic speed.”

        In one of their conclusions, based on Brown’s work, they suggested that: “Electrostatic energy sufficient to produce a Mach 3 fighter is possible with megavolt energies and a k of over 10,000.

Aviation Studies (International) Ltd. 1956. Electro-gravitics Systems: An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control. p. 14. In Valone, T. (ed.), 1994. Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a new propulsion methodology. Integrity Research Institute, Washington, DC 20005.


The B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber

        In 1993, LaViolette wrote a paper discussing the B-2 bomber and speculating on its probable antigravity propulsion system, based on a solid understanding of electrogravitics, the aircraft’s design and the materials used in its manufacture.  It appears that the craft is using a sophisticated form of the antigravity principles first described by T. Brown.  Support for this thesis came from the Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 9, 1992), which reported that the B-2 bomber electrostatically charges its leading edge and its exhaust stream.  Their information had come from a small group of former black project research scientists and engineers suggesting the B-2 utilizes antigravity technology.  This information was supported by Bob Oechsler, an ex-NASA mission specialist who had publicly made a similar claim in 1990.  These findings support the contention that there have been major developments in the area of antigravity propulsion which are presently being applied in advanced aircraft.

        LaViolette later states the obvious that “the commercial airline industry could dramatically benefit with this technology which would not only substantially increase the miles per gallon fuel efficiency of jet airliners, but would also permit high-speed flight that would dramatically cut flight time.”
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 05:50:59 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect


http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm

In 1985, Dr. Paul LaViolette was in the Library of Congress in Washington, DC and looked up the work "gravity" in the card catalog. Surprisingly, he found the listing for "Electrogravitics Systems," a report that was missing from the stacks. When the librarian tried to locate any other copies through interlibrary loan, she commented, "It must be an exotic document" because she could find only one in the country which was at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Thus, LaViolette was successful in obtaining a copy of the formerly classified document. The mystery continued: seven years later when contacting the Wright-Patterson AFB Technical Library, they surprisingly found no reference in the computer-based card catalog. They did locate the document on the shelves, however, after being asked to search for it. To summarize, the report has historic value because:

It validates T.T. Brown's experiments;
It lists the major corporations that were collaborating on electrogravitics;
It includes the requirements for supersonic speed;
It shows the continuity from Project Winterhaven in 1952;
The report includes a list of electrostatic patents;
It had been classified by the Air Force for an undetermined amount of time which underscores its importance.

M. Tajmar writes:

"Hence, these studies lack from detailed information about the behavior of this effect with respect to voltage, current or ambient pressure."

You might write to him, so that his knowledge on the subject might be properly updated.

Biefeld-Brown effect verified completely at the Honda R&D Institute:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031282#msg2031282

M. Tajmar again:

"However, Brown claimed that the effect remained in vacuum and therefore is not due to ionization of the ambient air. This was left unconfirmed."

Write to him again and inform him of the tests carried out by the French Government, Project Montgolfier:


https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)

Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)


Reading the section describing the vacuum chamber results, we learn that when the discs are operated at atmospheric pressure they move in the direction of the leading edge wire regardless of outboard wire polarity.  This indicates that in normal atmospheric conditions the discs are propelled forward primarily by unbalanced electrostatic forces due to the prevailing nonlinear field configuration (which causes thrust in the direction of the low field intensity ion cloud regardless of the ion polarity).  On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


No ion drift/wind

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.

https://youtu.be/CGN65lse5yE

(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

The first video supplied by Gravitec in 2003:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363 (vacuum test #1, Biefeld-Brown effect part I, contains the experiments performed by T. Brown in oil)

https://youtu.be/ZE7Go7ptBRY

One of the best videos which exemplifies the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html


http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the standpoint of ZPF field

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute confirm that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real.

Direct experimental proof that the ether propagates through vacuum, causing the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect.

No gas left in the experiments: they were performed in vacuum.

Also the experiments carried out at the Honda R&D eliminated the possibility of ionic winds.



Here is the article referenced by you (ion drift):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262985133_Calculation_and_measurement_of_a_neutral_air_flow_velocity_impacting_a_high_voltage_capacitor_with_asymmetrical_electrodes?origin=publication_list

BIEFELD-BROWN EXPERIMENTS WITHOUT AIR FLOW

VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, balancing a condenser on a beam balance

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/elghatv1.htm (includes three videos of the experiment)

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/elghatab.jpg)

In 1955, he went to work for the French aerospace company SNCASO—Société Nationale de Constructions Aéronautiques du SudOuest. During this one-year research period, he ran his discs in a vacuum. If anything, they worked better in a vacuum.

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm

Since the time of the first test the apparatus and the methods used have been greatly improved and simplified. Cellular "gravitators" have taken the place of the large balls of lead. Rotating frames supporting two and four gravitators have made possible acceleration measurements. Molecular gravitators made of solid blocks of massive dielectric have given still greater efficiency. Rotors and pendulums operating under oil have eliminated atmospheric considerations as to pressure, temperature and humidity.

The disturbing effects of ionization, electron emission and pure electro-statics have likewise been carefully analyzed and eliminated. Finally after many years of tedious work and with refinement of methods we succeeded in observing the gravitational variations produced by the moon and sun and much smaller variations produced by the different planets.

Let us take, for example, the case of a gravitator totally immersed in oil but suspended so as to act as a pendulum and swing along the line of its elements.

(https://i84.servimg.com/u/f84/17/91/23/29/00fig210.gif)

When the direct current with high voltage (75-300 kilovolts) is applied the gravitator swings up the arc until its propulsive force balances the force of the earth's gravity resolved to that point, then it stops, but it does not remain there. The pendulum then gradually returns to the vertical or starting position even while the potential is maintained. The pendulum swings only to one side of the vertical. Less than five seconds is required for the test pendulum to reach the maximum amplitude of the swing but from thirty to eighty seconds are required for it to return to zero.

(T.T. Brown, How I Control Gravitation, 1929)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 06, 2019, 07:21:39 PM
The Biefield-Brown effect requires the Earth to be charged. Since the net charge of the Earth is 0, your argument is null.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on June 06, 2019, 07:50:42 PM
Sandhokan, please stop the word salad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics

Your source of LaViolette is an alien UFO conspiracy believer that writes about junk science. There is only conspiracy theorists that believe that the B-2 stealth bomber uses the effect.

Funny, there is a page on his website dedicated to "support" of his theories. If you read the letters (the ones that still exist on the website), none of them actually support his theories. They instead say, "ooh, interesting, I'll make note of that." Or "Have you tested your theory in conjunction with the data from this guy?"

https://starburstfound.org/letters-of-support/

Bunk.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 08:38:15 PM
There is only conspiracy theorists that believe that the B-2 stealth bomber uses the effect.

You haven't done your homework.

But I have.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c)

B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 06, 2019, 08:45:48 PM
B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body.
That article says that the electrostatic charges are believed to be for stealth purposes (reducing radar cross section).  It didn't say anything about anti-gravity.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 06, 2019, 09:01:35 PM
"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

Einstein was the pupil, Biefeld was the mentor.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 06, 2019, 10:19:06 PM
What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

Interesting and real, at the beginning of the 20 century, the average understanding of general public was no much more than how to ride a horse and cultivate potatoes.

One thing we know for sure, no great discovery of a single man stay hidden forever, sooner or later somebody else would work on the same idea and blow it up.  History show us examples of that.  The state of world technology open doors for thinkers, more than one person start to think about the same invention, solution, use of the available tools, etc.   Sorry, we don't have flying saucers around, not here anyway.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 07, 2019, 04:04:45 PM
B-2 electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body.
That article says that the electrostatic charges are believed to be for stealth purposes (reducing radar cross section).  It didn't say anything about anti-gravity.

This just keeps getting better.   Confirmation bias at work.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Macarios on June 07, 2019, 08:11:06 PM
We don't know what laws of physics allow Sun, Moon and Wandering Stars to circulate
over the Flat Earth, but the same laws could allow satellites to do the same.

Now, are Sun, Moon and others really doing it is a different story. :)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 07, 2019, 10:57:24 PM
[lots of words]
Since you're such an expert on the Biefield-Brown effect, why don't you tell me the voltage that you would need to apply to a 10 tonne aircraft to keep it levitating at 30,000 feet?
I would say that I'm eagerly anticipating your reply, but that's a total lie since we both know that you won't be able to give me a sensible answer, since you actually know nothing about the Biefield-Brown effect, and the chance that you will be able to produce a meaningful calculation is zero.

I can almost taste the word salad that you're about to post. Please prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 08, 2019, 04:55:38 AM
Very easy.

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

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

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 08, 2019, 07:52:31 AM
Very easy.

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

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

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

How did you arrive at those figures?

In any case it wouldn't work for 2 reasons:
1) The increased heat signature defeats the entire point of the B-2's overall stealth design
2) At 9km it would be only 3km from the sun and would get melted like a block of velvetta in an oven

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 08, 2019, 08:20:15 AM
Go ahead and do your own research, you will find out that my figures are correct.

The Sun is cold:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/space/space_exploration/news.php?q=1308230567

Solid surface of the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm

Ether blackbody radiation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2072250#msg2072250


When high-voltage DC is applied to the wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, new electro-aerodynamic qualities appear that result in significant air-drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of the friction-caused aerodynamic heating. Moreover the Biefeld-Brown effect charges the jet engine exhaust stream, which has the effect of rapidly cooling its exhaust and thereby reducing its thermal signature.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 08, 2019, 08:43:05 AM
Go ahead and do your own research, you will find out that my figures are correct.

I did and your figures are way off. At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 136 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 66 million volts.

The Sun is cold:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/space/space_exploration/news.php?q=1308230567

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

When high-voltage DC is applied to the wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, new electro-aerodynamic qualities appear that result in significant air-drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of the friction-caused aerodynamic heating. Moreover the Biefeld-Brown effect charges the jet engine exhaust stream, which has the effect of rapidly cooling its exhaust and thereby reducing its thermal signature.

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette and it's in regard to reducing sonic boom and shockwave:

"The resulting repulsive electric forces would condition the airstream so as to lower drag, reduce heating, and soften or eliminate the supersonic boom.14 Their results showed that
when high-voltage DC is applied to a wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, seemingly new “electro-aerodynamic” qualities appear that result in significant air-
drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of friction-caused aerodynamic heating, well as the elimination of shock wave and wave-drag phenomena."
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 08, 2019, 08:56:47 AM
I did and your figures are way off.

My numbers are absolutely correct.

Go ahead and do your own research on the subject: remember, you are dealing with plasma physics.

You will find the very figures provided by T.T. Brown to the Department of Defense, used at Northrop for the B-2 bomber.

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun is spherical.

It is not:

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

At the present time in your life, you believe that the age of the Sun is measured in the billions of years.

It is not:

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

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun consists only of gases.

It does not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette

Exactly.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 08, 2019, 09:28:26 AM
I did and your figures are way off.

My numbers are absolutely correct.

Go ahead and do your own research on the subject: remember, you are dealing with plasma physics.

You will find the very figures provided by T.T. Brown to the Department of Defense, used at Northrop for the B-2 bomber.

I did my own research. Your numbers are way off. Mine are spot on.

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun is spherical.

It is not:

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

Through personal direct observation I have seen the Sun is, in fact, spherical and too hot get near and too bright to stare at.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the age of the Sun is measured in the billions of years.

It is not:

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

The Sun is neither faint, young nor paradoxical.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun consists only of gases.

It does not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

The Sun, is in fact, a huge, glowing sphere of hot gas. Most of this gas is hydrogen (about 70%) and helium (about 28%). Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen make up 1.5% and the other 0.5% is made up of small amounts of many other elements such as neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur.

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette

Exactly.

Yes, and it wasn't in reference to propulsion.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 08, 2019, 09:38:07 AM
Your research does not take into account PLASMA PHYSICS.

The numbers I provided here are the ones used by Northrup for the B-2 bomber, based on T.T. Brown's own experiments and calculations.

Do your research again.

Through personal direct observation I have seen the Sun is, in fact, spherical and too hot get near and too bright to stare at.

It can't be spherical:

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

Unless you can explain the temperature of the chromosphere paradox, nobody is going to believe you.

The Sun is neither faint, young nor paradoxical.

But it has to be young, since nobody else has been able to solve the FAINT YOUNG SUN paradox.

Unless you can explain to your readers the faint young sun paradox, nobody is going to even look in your direction concerning the age of the Sun.

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

The Sun, is in fact, a huge, glowing sphere of hot gas.

But it can't be.

Here are the direct proofs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)

Your failed set of beliefs is shattered by direct proofs which you cannot explain at all.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 08, 2019, 11:34:58 PM
Okay Sandokhan, lets give you some slack on this discussion.

Lets suppose the Sun is not spherical, it is also a flat disc somehow floating up there, cycling once each 24h and oscillating the diameter of its circle of rotation once a year, by some celestial unknown gears, promoting the positions over the tropics, Cancer and Capricorn.

Okay, now that you have everyone's attention, please answer about the flat disc Sun, with definite numbers, once and for all, so Tom Bishop will be able to post on FE wiki:

a) Altitude (and possible oscillations)
b) Disc Diameter
c) Disc Thickness
d) Composition
e) Source of energy
f) Joules issued by second
g) Map of wavelength and intensity of its radiation
h) Angle and direction of radiation projection
i) Orientation of such flat disc related to the flat earth below
j) The formula (or curve) of its circling diameter oscillation along the year (seasons)
k) Intelligent assumption of how long does it exist and how long it will continue to exist
l) Intelligent assumption about what would be its possible decay in radiation in the future

The answer for all those questions can be stated using scientific equipment in RE, considering a spherical one.
I understand you have answers for that, but you don't need to explain how you reach them.
Lets just find a common ground from now on about the Sun.
The answers will create a good ground for the subject of this thread, if satellites could circle above FE.
Oh, yes, please answer with your own numbers, don't post links to somewhere else at the internet, nobody will read it.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 09, 2019, 10:00:36 PM
Very easy.

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

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

Okay, so what force would the Biefield-Brown effect produce if V=20M?
Is this voltage measured between the airplane and the Earth?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: reer on June 09, 2019, 11:41:58 PM
Re @Sandokhan's claim that the sun cannot be spherical.

If that is correct, please explain why, regardless of when or where we look at the sun, it always, without exception, looks circular. Regardless what it's real shape is, if it is not spherical, from certain positions the observed shape will not be circular. For example, if it is a disc, it will change from circular to elliptical when looked at from the side. In an extreme case it will look almost like a line. Whatever shape it is, it may look circular from one position on earth but, at the same time, from other positions it will look non-circular - unless it is a sphere.

To repeat: why does the sun always look circular?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 05:06:55 AM
I could answer all of the questions regarding the Sun. That the Black Sun supplies the subquarks necessary for the Sun's output of quarks, the composition of the Sun and of the Moon. But you are not going to believe it.

That is why first it is imperative that you understand the following facts.

The solar eclipse of March 20, 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Believe it or not, there are no astronomical/historical records for this total solar eclipse (other than a brief mention by Cassini), by far what should have been the most important astronomical event of the millenium, a chance to settle once and for all the Gregorian calendar reform controversy.

The Jesuits in India/China, F. Verbiest, J. Schall von Bell,  even the young N. Flamsteed fail to notice/record this most important of all the total solar eclipses.

We are told that G.D. Cassini published new tables of the sun, based on his observations at San Petronio in 1662: these observations are published in the Catalogue général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXIV (Paris, 1905), cols. 678–682, or in the Table générale des maturès continuesdans l’Histoire et dans les Mémoires de l’Académic Royaledes Sciences, I–III (Paris, 1729–1734).

Here is Cassini's most celebrated work:

http://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (italian/latin) (pg 28-30)

However, when the mathematicians of today examined the scientific/astronomical basis on which pontiff Gregory XIII based his decision to modify the Julian calendar, they discovered extraordinary errors: there was no way that anybody at that time could/would have modified the calendar by 10 days.


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

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

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

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

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

That is 0.08 grams/sq.cm.

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

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

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


It is not my claim that the Sun is not spherical: it is pure science.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14947.msg194515#msg194515

Since the pressure in the chromosphere is 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR, the Sun becomes a huge gas centrifuge with no outer casing.

The shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

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.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

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

This changes everything.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: tellytubby on June 10, 2019, 05:51:40 AM
Quote
The solar eclipse of March 20, 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Believe it or not, there are no astronomical/historical records for this total solar eclipse (other than a brief mention by Cassini),

Is that right? Not according to this


https://moonblink.info/Eclipse/eclipse/1662_03_20 
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 07:14:00 AM
Astronomical/historical records, not computer simulations.

You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

You, the RE, have to explain to your readers WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate at once any the claims made by the Vatican, or any other astronomer.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Macarios on June 10, 2019, 07:32:22 AM
You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

Ask Vatican.

But I believe it was because Gregorian calendar was already implemented 80 years earlier, in 1582. :)

... WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate...

I guess it was because the Eclipse actually confirmed the correct timings in Earth's orbit.

And maybe because Australia was discovered in 1770. :)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 10, 2019, 07:34:57 AM
Astronomical/historical records, not computer simulations.

You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

You, the RE, have to explain to your readers WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate at once any the claims made by the Vatican, or any other astronomer.

What's the significance of the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse versus, say, the March 20, 1643 AD total solar eclipse?

And what does this have to do with anything regarding this thread?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 07:52:29 AM
Or March 20, 1643 AD. However, I dare you to find any records of this eclipse in the works of Athanasius Kircher, as an example. The only recording I could find was in the works of Giovanni Domenico Cassini, for March 20, 1662 AD.

You can read about the significance here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

One of the RE requested a whole lot of information about the Sun, especially these points:

c) Disc Thickness
d) Composition
e) Source of energy
k) Intelligent assumption of how long does it exist and how long it will continue to exist
l) Intelligent assumption about what would be its possible decay in radiation in the future


The correct answer depends entirely on the fact that BEFORE MARCH 20, 1662 AD (or March 20, 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of recording of the total solar eclipse which occurred on the vernal equinox) there were NO HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF ANY KIND IN ASTRONOMY, and that there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 08:13:45 AM
But I believe it was because Gregorian calendar was already implemented 80 years earlier, in 1582.

But it could not have been implemented at all.

You must upgrade your knowledge on the application of Gauss' Easter formula to the historical recordings of the Paschal Moon:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: reer on June 10, 2019, 10:17:49 AM
The shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

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.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

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

This changes everything.
And just how does the ether/orgone energy alter the apparent shape the sun to make it look circular, regardless of where or when you are standing? I suppose that also depends on this question: what is the real shape of the sun, apart from "not spherical"? I also note that the PDF you linked (Galaev.pdf) does not even contain the word "orgone"..

And, maybe I'm too stupid, but just what is "orgone energy"? What is it used for? How is it measured?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 10:46:56 AM
Orgone = laevorotatory waves of subquarks = antigravitational energy

DOR = dextrorotatory waves of subquarks = terrestrial gravity

Orgone and DOR were Wilhelm Reich's own terminology.

Orgone and DOR propagate in double torsion fashion; they are the scalar waves discovered by Whittaker (mathematically) and Tesla (experimentally).

In the human body/aura, it is the Orgone which permits us to move, jump, it is the energy which fights all the time with the effects of DOR; scientifically this is called BIOCHIRALITY:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624 (biochirality and terrestrial gravity)


http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem

http://creation.com/god-left-handed

http://creationbc.org/index.php/right-handed-amino-acids-can-they-smack-down-the-evolutionists-chirality-problem/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140921043113/https://creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/50/50_2/CRSQ%20Fall%202013%20lo%20res%20bookmarked%20for%20web.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/homochirality_i059531.html

http://www.creationismonline.com/YEC/The_Origin_Of_Life.pdf

And just how does the ether/orgone energy alter the apparent shape the sun to make it look circular, regardless of where or when you are standing?

Here is one of the very few works on the transmission of light through ether, use it to figure out the answer to your question:

http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT5.pdf


It must be noted that the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumann have NO USE for Einstein's useless theory of general relativity. The B-2 bomber uses exclusively the Biefeld-Brown effect and the flame jet generators invented by T.T. Brown. The B-2 bomber defies not only the law of conservation of energy but also Newtonian gravitation. Nobody cares in the least bit about anything Einstein said on physics over there, only the experiments and equations provided by Einstein's tutor (Dr. Paul Alfred Biefeld) are taken into consideration.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Macarios on June 10, 2019, 11:20:07 AM
You must upgrade your knowledge on the application of Gauss' Easter formula to the historical recordings of the Paschal Moon:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

You are mixing apples and oranges; you even added some broccoli salad.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 10, 2019, 06:07:04 PM
It must be noted that the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumann have NO USE for Einstein's useless theory of general relativity. The B-2 bomber uses exclusively the Biefeld-Brown effect and the flame jet generators invented by T.T. Brown. The B-2 bomber defies not only the law of conservation of energy but also Newtonian gravitation. Nobody cares in the least bit about anything Einstein said on physics over there, only the experiments and equations provided by Einstein's tutor (Dr. Paul Alfred Biefeld) are taken into consideration.

Good guess, but not really, widely wrong, you have no DSS/DoD-C.Q5 US security clearance to know that, and if you would, breaking one of the most sacred penalized contracts, so... obviously no. 
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 06:35:57 PM
True.

However, I do know that the electrostatic solutions discovered by Hermann Weyl in 1917 prove that there is functional relationship between the gravitational and electrostatic potentials, thus theoretically justifying the movement of a capacitor towards one of its poles.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 10, 2019, 07:18:54 PM
True.

However, I do know that the electrostatic solutions discovered by Hermann Weyl in 1917 prove that there is functional relationship between the gravitational and electrostatic potentials, thus theoretically justifying the movement of a capacitor towards one of its poles.

Among your other unfounded claims you have gone from, "It must be noted that the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumann have NO USE for Einstein's useless theory of general relativity. The B-2 bomber uses exclusively the Biefeld-Brown effect..." to you saying, yes, it's true I don't know that.
To now some other unrelated 1917 effort proves something. From Gregorian calendar calculations to someone not writing down, to your satisfaction, an eclipse event. To some sort of refraction index of the aether used to calculate the size and distance of celestial bodies, an index that doesn't exist, to god knows what else you pluck from papers to mix altogether into some sort of cosmological goulash.

There is literally nothing coherent in any of your arguments and put together it all means nothing and is irrelevant. All we have so far from you, without evidence, is that:

- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told

All of which are not supported by any evidence. Well done.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 10, 2019, 07:20:39 PM
You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

You, the RE, have to explain to your readers WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate at once any the claims made by the Vatican, or any other astronomer.
My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 08:01:20 PM
- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told


Once we prove that the sun has a discoidal shape, the other points enumerated above follow immediately.

Explain to your readers the 0.0000000000001 BAR pressure of the solar chromosphere.

You cannot.


My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini; there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 10, 2019, 08:15:59 PM
- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told


Once we prove that the sun has a discoidal shape, the other points enumerated above follow immediately.

Explain to your readers the 0.0000000000001 BAR pressure of the solar chromosphere.

You cannot.


My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini; there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.

Again, off on irrelevant tangents. The sun is not a disk as evidenced throuh direct, repeated observation. Here's one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaBjfsoulao
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 10, 2019, 08:29:16 PM
That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.

Here are facts concering the shape of the Sun.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14947.msg194515#msg194515

(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


You have presented a video to your readers where the pressure in the chromosphere is 0.0000000000001 BAR: A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING.

Conclusion: the shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: tellytubby on June 10, 2019, 08:51:17 PM
You may or may not consider this information to be relevant to the current conversation.  The 5th paragraph contains various references to chromospheric temperatures and pressures.

http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-2-Cast-Iron-Cole/Chromosphere.html

As regards the shape of the Sun I guess the photosphere and chromosphere are so named for a reason that relates to their shape.  Possibly suggesting that the Sun is indeed spherical.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 10, 2019, 08:52:16 PM
That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.

Here are facts concering the shape of the Sun.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14947.msg194515#msg194515

(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


You have presented a video to your readers where the pressure in the chromosphere is 0.0000000000001 BAR: A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING.

Conclusion: the shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 10, 2019, 09:11:06 PM
Magnetism on extreme hot plasma?  Just observe the plasma loops and will rethink what you think you know.  The dark spots (not really dark, just little less temperature) demonstrate very strong magnetic internal loops, causing instability on the surface temperature.  Not even talking about the gargantuan gravity attraction.  How do you think the accretion process collected so much hydrogen?  It is able to grasp  Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune on very far away orbit... what is some very hot gas on surface?  Interesting, FE eliminates gravity everywhere in the universe, then try to discredit everything else where gravity makes important part of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfbuQJzOqo
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 10, 2019, 09:50:16 PM
The high-voltage differential is measured between the B-2's positive leading edge and its negative ion exhaust stream.

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

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

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

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

That is 0.08 grams/sq.cm.

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

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

That is, instead of the 125 grams of force, Brown's thruster would have provided 400 kg of force. If we now distribute 380 of these capacitors over the wing surface they would provide an upward thrust of 152 tons.
*munch crunch* This salad is really good! *munch* I really like the dressing, what's it called? You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour? *crunch*
Have you got any more, buddy?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 11, 2019, 01:44:34 AM
My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini...
Was it?  Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

... there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.
Hmm...  I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it doesn't seem that the eclipse was visible from China either.
(https://moonblink.info/File/EclipseMaps/1662_03_20.gif)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 04:39:08 AM
Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

We are told that G.D. Cassini published new tables of the sun, based on his observations at San Petronio in 1662: these observations are published in the Catalogue général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXIV (Paris, 1905), cols. 678–682, or in the Table générale des maturès continuesdans l’Histoire et dans les Mémoires de l’Académic Royaledes Sciences, I–III (Paris, 1729–1734).

Here is Cassini's most celebrated work:

http://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (italian/latin) (pg 28-30)


You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour?

Yes. Experienced researchers (Talley, BlazeLabs) did not understand this matter at all.

Yet, T.T. Brown made it very clear in 1956, when he was invited by the government of France to test the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum (the largest experiment ever carried out).

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302225553/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083121/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (pages 26-27)

No rotation was observed with several kinds of dielectrics. Once barium titanate was used, the apparatus rotated immediately in full vacuum.


Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.

Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)

Your failed set of beliefs is shattered by direct proofs which you cannot explain at all.


You may or may not consider this information to be relevant to the current conversation.  The 5th paragraph contains various references to chromospheric temperatures and pressures.

http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-2-Cast-Iron-Cole/Chromosphere.html


Your link is not helpful, as it pertains to our discussion here.

Not only the extremely low pressure in the chromosphere is NOT explained, but also the physicists have to resort to the same armchair calculations put forth in 1939 by Edlen, and which cannot be true.

Please read.


KORONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

NEWTONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771

A total debunking of magnetic reconnection/Edlen's claims.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 11, 2019, 05:40:07 AM
Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

We are told that G.D. Cassini published new tables of the sun, based on his observations at San Petronio in 1662: these observations are published in the Catalogue général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXIV (Paris, 1905), cols. 678–682, or in the Table générale des maturès continuesdans l’Histoire et dans les Mémoires de l’Académic Royaledes Sciences, I–III (Paris, 1729–1734).

Here is Cassini's most celebrated work:

http://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (italian/latin) (pg 28-30)

I can't tell from looking at the documentation. But in any case, on the one hand, you say no one in Europe paid attention to some eclipse that could be seen in north western Australia and that's proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar. On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar. And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it. You do realize this all seems a little farfetched and unhinged?

You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour?

Yes. Experienced researchers (Talley, BlazeLabs) did not understand this matter at all.

Yet, T.T. Brown made it very clear in 1956, when he was invited by the government of France to test the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum (the largest experiment ever carried out).

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302225553/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083121/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (pages 26-27)

No rotation was observed with several kinds of dielectrics. Once barium titanate was used, the apparatus rotated immediately in full vacuum.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did. You admitted that you have no clearance/access to that information. So we can just stop all this nonsense now. It's irrelevant anyway.

Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.

Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)

Your failed set of beliefs is shattered by direct proofs which you cannot explain at all.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical. Obviously you have never looked at the sun via a telescope before. And there's literally nothing in all of those links that contradicts the Sun being spherical. Not one.

Do some actual observing and less cherry pick quote-mining.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 05:55:41 AM
On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar.

It was recorded by Cassini, whether he could have seen or not.

What does this tell you?

And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it.

If there was no Gregorian calendar reform, then the Earth never orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD (or 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of astronomical records). It is as simple as this.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did.

I have a detailed understanding of the relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber based on researchers who did have the clearance and divulged at least some of the details.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical.

It could be any other shape BUT SPHERICAL.

Please read.

SOLAR DISK: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."

(https://image.ibb.co/fauUJy/photosph.jpg)

Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens


(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

(https://image.ibb.co/nsZDdy/chro1.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/eHYH5d/chro2.jpg)


Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 11, 2019, 06:50:48 AM
On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar.

It was recorded by Cassini, whether he could have seen or not.

What does this tell you?

And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it.

If there was no Gregorian calendar reform, then the Earth never orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD (or 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of astronomical records). It is as simple as this.

There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582. Therefore, according to your logic above, the Earth definitely orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD. It is as simple as this.

If you don't believe there was the Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582, then take up your claim with the Vatican. Your belief is irrelevant.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did.

I have a detailed understanding of the relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber based on researchers who did have the clearance and divulged at least some of the details.

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber. Literally none. We've been through this already and it's irrelevant.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical.

It could be any other shape BUT SPHERICAL.

Please read.

[snip. irrelevant already copy and pasted links to other links to other links]

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 07:07:56 AM
There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Most definitely there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever: the proof uses Gauss' celebrated Easter formula.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber.

But they have.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194551#msg194551

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194556#msg194556

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.

Those observations can be applied to a discoidal shape as well.

Therefore, one needs definite hard data to reach a final conclusion.

Such as these:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)

(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 11, 2019, 07:53:04 AM
There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Most definitely there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever: the proof uses Gauss' celebrated Easter formula.

Gauss' method of calculating the Easter date came 2 centuries after the Gregorian calendar introduction. And it's long term 'accuracy' is questionable. Which doesn't matter anyway because Easter is man-determined, not specifically astronomically pinned - You do realize that not all those who celebrate Easter do so on the same day nor even using the same calendar, don't you?

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber.

But they have.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194551#msg194551

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194556#msg194556

No you haven't. There is no credible mention of the B2 using 'antigravity technology'.

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.

Those observations can be applied to a discoidal shape as well.

Therefore, one needs definite hard data to reach a final conclusion.

Such as these:

No, no matter how many links of links and irrelevant equations, there's no hard data to suggest any other shape other than what is observable by everyone: That it's spherical. Sorry.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 08:05:17 AM
And it's long term 'accuracy' is questionable. Which doesn't matter anyway because Easter is man-determined, not specifically astronomically pinned.

What ?!

Gauss' Easter formula is precise TO THE VERY DAY going back at least 2,000 years, the interval of interest.

Here is how the official astronomical/historical records ARE CONTRADICTED by Gauss' formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

There is no credible mention of the B2 using 'antigravity technology'.

This is sufficient.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c

"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

And there are other sources, which I have not divulged so far, with special clearances, which discuss the application of the T.T. Brown's research to the B-2 bomber.

No, no matter how many links of links and irrelevant equations, there's no hard data to suggest any other shape other than what is observable by everyone.


But there is.

(https://image.ibb.co/hkvQrJ/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 11, 2019, 08:59:31 AM
That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.
I'm interested in the idea that a disc can have an atmosphere...

And the concept that a sun which is a disc 12km above the surface of the earth can be seen as a circle of the same angular size by people thousands of miles apart and at different altitudes.
Dress it up in as much word salad as you like, there is no way a disc can be seen that way.

The argument that <x> cannot be explained by science isn't an argument at all. Even if you're correct (you ramble so much I honestly can't tell), simple observations of the sun being a circle of consistent angular size as it goes across the sky, moving at a consistent angular speed, and being seen as a circle simultaneously by people in different places show it can't be a disc and it can't be close to the surface of the earth.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 09:48:49 AM
You always forget about the existence of the ether.

Convince yourself that the existence of the ether cannot be denied anymore, the RUDERFER experiment:

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

The local-aether model is being adopted by modern science:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

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.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

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

This changes everything.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 11, 2019, 01:47:08 PM
On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar.

It was recorded by Cassini, whether he could have seen or not.

What does this tell you?
It tells me that you're probably wrong about Cassini recording that eclipse (unless it from was second or third hand reports).

And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it.

If there was no Gregorian calendar reform, then the Earth never orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD (or 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of astronomical records). It is as simple as this.
Why would the earth be obligated to orbit around the sun according to a man-made calendar? ???
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 02:34:40 PM
Exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:

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


The solar eclipses for 1662 AD were recorded by Cassini:

https://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (pg 28-30)

Gregorian calendar reform = the astronomical data for the period 1 AD - 1582 AD is correct, as it pertains to the precession of the Earth

No Gregorian calendar reform = each and every entry was falsified/faked/forged before 1662 AD, no historical records of Earth's precession, thus no historical records that Earth ever orbited the Sun
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 11, 2019, 02:48:02 PM
The solar eclipses for 1662 AD were recorded by Cassini:

https://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (pg 28-30)
Sorry, I don't read Italian or Latin.  Do you have an English translation?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 11, 2019, 03:01:01 PM
The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.
Even if it was conceded that there was some magic effect which bent light in such a way to make a disc appear as a circle no matter what your location or altitude (which is ludicrous, by the way), the video above doesn't just show a 2D circle, you can clearly see from the way that the shape of features change that it's a rotating sphere. Things moving across a flat disc just don't look like that.
In your world how is a disc generating enough light and heat to power the earth?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 11, 2019, 03:21:17 PM
Things moving across a flat disc just don't look like that.

A convex disc, not a flat disc.

(http://www.teknikbombe.com/images/urunler/Cold_Formed_Heads_Convex_Disc_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 11, 2019, 04:35:42 PM
A convex disc, not a flat disc.
(http://www.teknikbombe.com/images/urunler/Cold_Formed_Heads_Convex_Disc_b.jpg)

Now the FE Sun will be a fusion reactor convex disc ?
Keep going, perhaps soon you will fall into the optical lenses geometry studies and realize a spherical one will be better suited for the job.
Can see from all angles, no matter what, easy, simple, practical, no complications.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTmMmkK-6B7-9_8PA4kofx-bxP_6Sq081thNB9DLkGTKVyTgdgdEA)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 11, 2019, 07:28:10 PM
Things moving across a flat disc just don't look like that.

A convex disc, not a flat disc.

(http://www.teknikbombe.com/images/urunler/Cold_Formed_Heads_Convex_Disc_b.jpg)

Nope, sorry. This is what is observed:

(https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2018/03/30/13/01/sun-3275314__340.jpg)

Not ever this:

(http://www.teknikbombe.com/images/urunler/Cold_Formed_Heads_Convex_Disc_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 12, 2019, 04:28:06 PM
Exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177793#msg2177793
Okay, I used equation (21) in your link. I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever. Using your numbers, for a plane at 9km, with a voltage of 20MV:
For some reason it's all in CGS units...
d=9e5 [cm]
e=1e4 [not sure units, got this value from your link]
V=6.67e4 statvolts [this is the CGS unit of voltage apparently]

gz(max)=0.002 g

That's right, the force provided is 0.2% of the force of gravity. Is my maths wrong?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 12, 2019, 07:34:00 PM
I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever.

For such important formulas, I always include the sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 12, 2019, 08:04:01 PM
To use the formula for the entire aircraft, in case just a single very large capacitor is utilized, we'd need to know how the 20,000,000 volts are distributed across the wings, the distance chosen between the upper and lower plate of the capacitor, the entire surface area underneath the wings used for the capacitor, the dielectric being used.
Just out of curiosity, how would one use the formula to determine how large the capacitor would need to be for a 100kg satellite in geostationary orbit above the flat earth?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 12, 2019, 08:08:37 PM
Let us now obtain a quick estimate, using 20Mv (66713 statvolts), d = 1/10 cm, e = 10000.

gzmax = 3.5gearth
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 12, 2019, 08:13:05 PM
The formula for the gravitational force (which uses the area of the plate):

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf (equation 72, page 11)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 12, 2019, 08:22:42 PM
There is also an additional formula which calculates the maximum weight loss per capacitor, which uses even more advanced mathematics.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 12, 2019, 08:29:19 PM
I don't see where this equation came from since I can't see a link to the source, but whatever.

For such important formulas, I always include the sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

To use the formula for the entire aircraft, in case just a single very large capacitor is utilized, we'd need to know how the 20,000,000 volts are distributed across the wings, the distance chosen between the upper and lower plate of the capacitor, the entire surface area underneath the wings used for the capacitor, the dielectric being used.
This is actually quite interesting. Thanks for linking the source - it was a good read. And also sorry that I got the distance d wrong.
Presumably you'd need to know the mass of the aircraft as well. The equation (21) in the paper you linked just gives an acceleration, but that's not very helpful in the plane scenario. You'd need to convert it into a force and then you could work out the acceleration on the plane from there.

Fancy doing some maths?

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 12, 2019, 08:52:58 PM
So, any estimate must use at least these figures: d = 0.5 cm, e = 10,000 (if not more), surface area for a 45 cm  diameter of the plate, and the voltage at least 60 Kv per capacitor.
Okay, now that I understand this better, let's try again;
I'm using https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf (equation 72, page 11)

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

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

So that's around 30% of the force required to lift a B2 bomber directly upwards. I'm actually really impressed, the force from these capacitors is almost the same thrust produced by the main engines. Did I make a mistake somewhere? CGS units can die in a fire.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 13, 2019, 04:55:04 AM
Equation 21 is the most important.

u=2.7 g/cm^3 (aluminium)

u refers to the density of the dielectric, which is barium titanate (6.02 g/cm3).

Then, F = 4.906e10 dyne = 4.906e5 N (72%).


It is very possible that the B-2 bomber also uses supercapacitors which greatly increase the force.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1403/1403.6862.pdf

Then the dielectric constant can be 10^8.

Most likely they have found a way to apply a high voltage to supercapacitors (with solid dielectrics), something that cannot be achieved with the technology available to the public.

https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/EESAT/2009_papers/Proposal%20to%20Build%20Supercapacitors%20Using%20Solid%20Dielectrics.pdf

https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/MFS-TOPS-77

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512908/
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 13, 2019, 08:32:04 AM
Well I guess we cracked it then.
I found this article about B-B effect and how it apparently doesn't work in a vacuum:
https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/ (https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/)

If this article is correct, then the B-B effect couldn't be used to levitate satellites (unless FE satellites are inside the atmosphere?). I also couldn't find any published articles about the B-B effect in a vacuum, which is disappointing.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 13, 2019, 08:58:02 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

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

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 13, 2019, 02:48:13 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

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

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

I'm sure you will have no problem providing proof of the cosmic ray device.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 13, 2019, 03:34:22 PM
I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

N. Tesla, 1932

(at that time the concept of neutrinos and neutrons was not figured out yet)

(https://web.archive.org/web/20091025045753im_/http://www.smgaels.org/physics/97/MARIN32.GIF)

(https://web.archive.org/web/20091025045745im_/http://www.nuenergy.org/images/gif/img00001.gif)

The solar panels resemble very well Tesla's cosmic ray device.

https://youtu.be/5H905j-Ifko
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 13, 2019, 04:38:10 PM
It is very possible that the B-2 bomber also uses supercapacitors which greatly increase the force.

You do know the B-2 uses four thermal avionic fuel turbofan engines, General Electric F118-GE-100, 17300 lbf each, right?
Those are not to generate electricity for your dream BB lifting, they generate trust moving air, to push the wing flying beast.
Huge hundreds super-caps for such monster BB lift would require a thousands MW nuclear power plant to charge them rapidly.
Even if possible, there would be a tremendous problem to control the lift, mostly for rapid ascent and descent, remember, B-2 was also made for low altitude terrain topography follower aerial vehicle.
You really need to stop writing about things you have it all wrong.
ゆっくり行きなさい
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 13, 2019, 04:53:55 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412 (formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor, the reason why various researched failed to record the Biefeld-Brown in vacuum)

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

Satellites require the use of Tesla's cosmic ray device combined with Hans Koller's apparatus and Reich's ether box to provide the voltage for the capacitors.
One of the links you provided, https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html) directly shows a strong negative correlation between energy required and pressure. The guy only has to go down to 700 mbar (525 torr), which can hardly be called a vacuum, and he already can't even lift his lifter.

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

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

So it looks like the better the vacuum, the less this effect works. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it probably barely works at all in the vacuum of space. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 13, 2019, 05:39:06 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909

In-depth discussion on the videos featured in the link:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.0

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=64843

The largest ever Biefeld-Brown effect experiment in vacuum was done by Townsend Brown in 1956, in France:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302051748/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20120311003726/http://projetmontgolfier.info/PHOTOGRAPHS.html

There, T. Brown successfully flew a pair of saucer air foils in a high vacuum (less than one billionth of an atmosphere). Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but they also sped faster since without ion leakage, they could be energized with greater voltages.

Here is the report:

(https://i.ibb.co/Mgmj583/brvac.jpg)

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 13, 2019, 06:20:27 PM
I don't see anything flying on those old photographs, just people drinking and a big cooking pan lid hang by wire.

Talking about people spending money just because they can, you can include the following in your collections:
Google "rar energia" and select "images", or click here:  https://bit.ly/2Kiahax (https://bit.ly/2Kiahax)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 13, 2019, 07:58:45 PM
If it could be measured in a vacuum, then it would be repeatable. Given those 3 links I sent you earlier, it's clearly not repeatable.

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

You can believe in it if you want, I guess, but experimentally the B-B effect doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is known.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 13, 2019, 08:35:04 PM
Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong. Of course it is repeatable if the strict requirements of the experiment are being met.

T. Brown spells out very clearly that the torsion increased rapidly with voltage in full vacuum.

Not only did the discs propel themselves more efficiently, but they also sped faster since without ion leakage, they could be energized with greater voltages.

Here is the report:

(https://i.ibb.co/Mgmj583/brvac.jpg)

By 1956, T. Brown had some 33 years of experience in the field, he was the foremost expert in the world on the subject. That is why his experiments worked out perfectly. The other researchers in the field need to meet those requirements (dielectric constant, voltage) if they want to replicate Brown's legendary experimental feats.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 13, 2019, 08:50:59 PM
Now you have at your disposal an exact formula: it should be easy to understand where those other attempts went wrong.
It should be easy, and yet I cannot see. Please enlighten me.
All I see is a single unrepeatable result from 60 years ago.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 13, 2019, 09:04:44 PM
Re-read the paper I linked
http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf (http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf)

It looks like they observed the B-B effect in atmosphere, but didn't observe it in vacuum. What part of the experiment is badly performed, considering that it was good enough to measure the B-B effect in atmosphere? It looks like the only difference is turning on some pumps.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2019, 04:51:34 AM
T. Brown used 50 Kv, 110 Kv, and 150 Kv. R. Talley utilized 19 Kv.

T. Brown used a variety of electrically insulating materials in vacuum, and then at the end he included plexiglass and barium titanate. It worked. R. Talley used acrylic and lead titanate.

In vacuum, one has to increase the voltage and use a high dielectric constant material to obtain results: once that it done, the torsion will be even faster than in the atmosphere.

Here is the report issued by the government of France on the vacuum experiments (pg 26-27):

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302051748/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

More details here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf (report on vacuum results)

They did exactly what BlazeLabs, Mythbusters, R. Talley and J. Campbell did in vacuum. No results.

Then, Brown changed the dielectric material and increased the voltage: full results were recorded.

Read this carefully, T. Brown's own report on the vacuum experiments:

(https://i.ibb.co/Mgmj583/brvac.jpg)

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 14, 2019, 08:12:25 AM
Read this carefully, T. Brown's own report on the vacuum experiments:

I've already read it. Je ne parle pas le francais, so I can't really read the full report since it's in French.
The problem isn't that I don't understand Brown's report, it's that an unrepeatable result isn't a meaningful result. I don't think that Brown was lying.

Really we need some further experimentation to know for sure, but unless you can explain why the below report is fundamentally flawed, believing Brown's report over any other report is just blind faith. Dismissing experimental evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you've already decided is illogical.

http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf (http://www.forbiddentechnology.org/pdfs/Twenty%20First%20Century%20Propulsion%20Concept.pdf)
I'll reiterate: they measured the B-B effect in atmosphere, and then it went away when they pumped down the vacuum chamber. This report actually goes into a lot of detail about removing other sources of interference etc., so I hardly think it's reasonable to dismiss it with hardly a second glance. It seems to me to be a well-designed experiment.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2019, 08:30:04 AM
Brown couldn't have been lying. He was invited by the government of France to conduct the experiments in full vacuum, they even built the largest ever vacuum chamber for this purpose.

Those reports were made by the French government, not by Brown.

The reports, written in French, clearly describe the very successful torsion experiments in full vacuum.

Really we need some further experimentation to know for sure, but unless you can explain why the below report is fundamentally flawed, believing Brown's report over any other report is just blind faith. Dismissing experimental evidence just because it doesn't agree with what you've already decided is illogical.


Nothing of the sort.

It could be that in vacuum one needs to use a higher voltage, coupled with a better kind of dielectric, to start the torsion.

R. Talley, mythbusters, blazelabs simply do not have the experience in the field that Brown had. They used the SAME voltage and dielectrics which they utilized in the atmosphere, and then claimed failure.

In the reports, we can clearly see that a higher voltage is needed at first in vacuum to develop torsion/rotation.

The experiments done after Brown did not meet the high standards set by him (voltage, dielectric).

Moreover, there are daily/seasonal variations in the ether drift, a fact clearly observed and documented by Brown.

Here are two videos with experiments done in vacuum, and they do work.

https://youtu.be/CGN65lse5yE

(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

https://youtu.be/ZE7Go7ptBRY

(torsion/rotation seen clearly)

Tests results :

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


A clear replication of the experiments done in France.

Brown used higher voltages (80 Kv, 110 Kv and 150 Kv).

He observed that the discs sped faster in vacuum, once the correct voltage is applied.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2019, 09:12:13 AM
https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

Page 100 (pg 11 of the pdf document)

(https://i.ibb.co/WcHbDSW/ann43.jpg)

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

Le système commence à entrer à rotation vers 80 Kv et en forcant la tension l'on peut parvenir a des rotations de l'ordre de 1 tour/seconde.

The system begins to rotate at 80 Kv and by forcing the tension one can achieve rotations of the order of 1 turn/second.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

On obtient des rotations entretenues a des vitesses de l'ordre des 1 tour/seconde.

We obtain rotations maintained at speeds of the order of 1 turn/second.

(https://i.ibb.co/8jxBkPC/ann43a.jpg)

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2019, 02:45:22 PM
The reason why the voltage has to be increased in the vacuum experiments has everything to do with the value of G which is a variable, when expressed in terms of Planck units (quantum vacuum). This can be proved using the mass-density equivalent of the vacuum ZPF fields formula derived in 2000 by B. Haisch and A. Rueda.

That is, in the formula derived using Weyl fields, √G = 2.58 x 10-4. In the vacuum tests, this value will be lower (the density of ether will increase), that is why one needs a higher voltage than usual.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 14, 2019, 08:28:47 PM
The reason why the voltage has to be increased in the vacuum experiments has everything to do with the value of G which is a variable,
Isn't big G a constant? Is this something about aether theory that I don't understand?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2019, 08:50:04 PM
In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw15.html

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/rapportBIPM/1983/01.pdf

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.



Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 16, 2019, 12:27:05 AM
In the mainstream Newtonian theory, G varies slightly:

https://www.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw15.html

https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/rapportBIPM/1983/01.pdf

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.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 16, 2019, 12:35:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 16, 2019, 07:35:07 AM
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:

(http://image.ibb.co/e9fPSc/eot.jpg)

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

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html


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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


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.

No.

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.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 16, 2019, 04:26:55 PM
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.
Okay, let's assume you're right, and G isn't a constant.
In the B-B effect, (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf eq. 72) F is proportional to sqrt(G), right? So a 10% change in G would be a 3% change in sqrt(G).
You could compensate for this by increasing the voltage by 3%, or the dielectric constant by 10%.

Except it seems like in reality, these variation in G are <<10%, so you'd need to change the voltage applied by <<3%.

So how could a 1/2000 change in G possibly affect the voltage you need to apply by so much that you're claiming it's the reason that some people aren't seeing an effect? You could estimate the voltage change has got to be <1V at a maximum, surely that's just within the noise of your kV or MV power supply?

What exactly is your point here?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 16, 2019, 05:10:03 PM
You are confusing the Eotvos effect with the vacuum tests.

Here is the equation for G:

G = 1/δzptp2

δzp = ether/zero point field mass-energy equivalent

tp = Planck time

Once you modify the density of ether in vacuum, the value of G will be lower, that is why one needs a higher voltage inside the vacuum chamber as opposed to tests ran in ambient air (perhaps you'd need 80Kv instead of 19Kv, for the same dielectric and distance between the plates of the capacitor; √G < 2.58 x 10-4 in vacuum).
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 17, 2019, 12:17:07 AM
What I'm saying has nothing to do with the Eotvos effect, and your comment wasn't related to my point.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 18, 2019, 03:48:49 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909




I love how your link leads to a post by you just under this one that shows this.  LOL

(https://snag.gy/XeMgbr.jpg)


Seems like a round earth and quoting an experiment that Apollo left on the moon.   Nice
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 18, 2019, 05:28:20 PM
What Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech) did is to put an end to heliocentrism for good.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Dr. Daniel Gezari emitted a pulse of photons from a point on earth, bounced those photons off a reflector on the moon, and then recorded the photons’ arrival time at that same point on earth.

One needs both the orbital and rotational Sagnac to calculate the correct timing, there is no way around that.

The lunar laser ranging experiment is an astronomical version of the Sagnac experiment.

However, G. Sagnac used the fringe-shift method to measure indirectly light travel time;
while Dr. Daniel Gezari uses clocks to measure directly light travel time in both directions.

Shooting light to the moon has to do with the behavior of light like GPS.

The arrival time of light to a receptor is influenced by the motion of
the receptor relative to the earth: this is the basic discovery of G. Sagnac.

This fact has to be incorporated into the lunar laser ranging calculations.

Here is a basic reference which confirms this fact:

Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and geophysics, G.E. Steadman, 1997, pg 15

"Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual."

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


THE SMALL (~3M/S) SECOND ORDER RESIDUAL IS THE ORBITAL SAGNAC.


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


Dr. Daniel Gezari:


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference


3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3


Moreover, Dr. Gezari found something as extraordinary: the speed of light is a variable.

Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 18, 2019, 08:08:52 PM
Even pulsing a very narrow power laser beam to the reflector on the Moon, it arrives there with a very wide beam, only a very small part is reflected to Earth, it arrives here very wide beam. No matter how far from the external frame the receiver moved from the 2 seconds delay when it emitted, the very wide and faint returning beam is captured and time/distance is measured accurately.   

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0125/c90000-9419444.html (http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0125/c90000-9419444.html)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Apollo_11_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.jpg)

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 18, 2019, 08:40:44 PM
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'


To fake the radio transmissions, the Soviets used the SAME method as that used by Nasa to falsify their lunar retroreflectors: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz).


Next you are going to say: the satellite had to orbit at some 7.7 km/s.

But Nasa had already faked the Explorer mission in much the same way, providing a speed of 18,000 mph for their satellite :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2019748#msg2019748

The fact that the Explorer mission was faked is undeniable: so the same radio telemetry technology was used as duplicates on those satellites.

As for the Apollo 15 mission, here are the wires on the astronauts' backpack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qrlfbWCrMo


Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Macarios on June 18, 2019, 10:20:55 PM
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

Retro-reflectors were not installed in 1965. They were installed in early 70s.

Quote
The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging experiment or Apollo landing mirror
measures the distance between surfaces of Earth and the Moon using laser ranging.
Lasers at observatories on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon
during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the two Lunokhod missions.

Laser is light, and light travels at the speed of light.
If pulse travels to reflector and back in some 2.55 seconds, how can reflecting surface be much closer than 385000 km?

~~~~~

Before those reflectors lasers were stronger, pulse was reflected from the rocks and dusts, and local altitudes varied.
All reflected light was equally strong and was triggering the receiving circuits.

With retroreflector you can use lower power for emission, reflector returns much more light than surrounding lunar ground
and only reflector pulse is detected. Local altitude of the reflector is much more precise and now Lunar Laser-Ranging Station
can achieve much higher precision.

Quote
The upcoming MoonLIGHT reflector, that will be placed in 2019 by the private MX-1E lander,
is designed to increase measurement accuracy 100 times over existing systems.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 18, 2019, 10:23:29 PM
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'


To fake the radio transmissions, the Soviets used the SAME method as that used by Nasa to falsify their lunar retroreflectors: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz).


Next you are going to say: the satellite had to orbit at some 7.7 km/s.

But Nasa had already faked the Explorer mission in much the same way, providing a speed of 18,000 mph for their satellite :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2019748#msg2019748

The fact that the Explorer mission was faked is undeniable: so the same radio telemetry technology was used as duplicates on those satellites.

As for the Apollo 15 mission, here are the wires on the astronauts' backpack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qrlfbWCrMo

The link you cited regarding the Leonov spacewalk mission closes with this (my bolding):

"All this would probably have been forgotten, had not Soviet propaganda on behalf of Party comrade Leonov brought him back to the memory of the world. Perhaps it was designed to bolster their great hoax after its near failure 10 years before. He was supposed to be not only a space veteran older than Stafford, but also "the first to walk in space" - an obnoxious insult aimed at the late Ed White, the really first free-floating spaceman. Alexei Leonov, the Soviet "cosmonaut hero," is truly a remarkable sample of Communist deceit."

Apparently the author's issue is more with the fact that American Ed White should be credited with the first spacewalk and not the Russian Leonov. In other words, spacewalks are real just that the first was credited to the wrong guy.

So whether the Soviets faked the mission or not is not relevant to reflectors on the moon. And I don't see any wires in the video just a lot of grain, dirt and artifacts in the image.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 18, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Ahh the classic Sandokhan line of "Since then you're going to have to explain this."

Down another rabbit hole we go!
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 18, 2019, 11:32:51 PM
What Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech) did is to put an end to heliocentrism for good.
I feel like I was concentrating quite hard when I read your post, but I still don't know what your point is. Could you clarify for me?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 04:57:56 AM
If pulse travels to reflector and back in some 2.55 seconds, how can reflecting surface be much closer than 385000 km?

The distance traveled by the light is much smaller: everything comes down to the density of ether/aether.

Retro-reflectors were not installed in 1965. They were installed in early 70s.

The Leonov mission was faked. Then, the Soviets must have found a way to also fake the radio telemetry: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz); the same technology used for the laser retroreflectors.

Nasa had to employ the same technology for the faked Explorer missions.

And I don't see any wires in the video just a lot of grain, dirt and artifacts in the image.

They can be seen clearly.

https://youtu.be/-qrlfbWCrMo

0:42 - 1:00

More wires can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0

Could you clarify for me?

In order to record his measurements, Dr. Gezari HAD TO incorporate into the calculations the ROTATIONAL and the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECTS (called the SAGNAC effect by mainstream science).

Heliocentrists tell us that the orbital Coriolis effect is 1/365th (0.00274) of the rotational Coriolis effect.

However, the calculations published by Dr. Gezari prove that, even in the case where a two-way averaging was performed, the orbital Coriolis effect is 0.357 of the rotational Coriolis effect, an effect 130 times greater than that envisioned by the heliocentrists.


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


Dr. Daniel Gezari:


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference


3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3


Moreover, Dr. Gezari found something as extraordinary: the speed of light is a variable.

Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.

A variable speed of light = proof of the existence of ether.

The same reason relativists are dumping Einstein's version of relativity and are embracing MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory), a translational (local-aether model) ether which travels with the Earth, a fact supported by the Ruderfer experiment as well.

However, the translational ether hypothesis cannot be true: the ether field drifts above the stationary Earth.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 19, 2019, 06:07:13 AM
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

When one of your arguments is challenged you perpetually pivot to another subject that is a total non sequitur. You and Alpha had a nice thing going where you were collectively trying to figure out the maths. When it started to not work out, you spiraled off into Russian spacewalk hoaxes and such. Totally irrelevant. And stop beating the Sagnac horse to death. We get it, it's the crux of your biscuit. But get back on topic. Focus.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 07:38:00 AM
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

Here is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect using Weyl fields electrovacuum solutions:

(https://i.ibb.co/M1SJzmC/iv2.jpg)

Can you explain to your readers why a capacitor charged to a high potential will exhibit thrust in the direction of the positive electrode?

For this is the formula published by Newton in the Principia:

g = GM/r2
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: stack on June 19, 2019, 09:52:59 AM
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

Here is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect using Weyl fields electrovacuum solutions:

Which have no relevance as to why or how satellites rotate around the earth. You have to prove that the BB effect is actually used. Utilized. There is nothing in satellite technology, those that engineer, build, launch or maintain them, that suggests that they are hovered or propulsed by this theory. Just because someone postulates another form of levitation does not make it so. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 10:57:36 AM
You have to prove that the BB effect is actually used.

I just did.

You are assuming that satellites hover above the Earth due to Newtonian gravitation.

The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown is a direct contradiction to the equation proposed by Newton: g = GM/r2. It takes a single contradiction to invalidate a theory, in this case Newtonian gravitation.

You no longer can claim that satellites stay in orbit because of Newtonian gravitation.

My explanation is that the satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect with great success; after all, the B-2 bomber uses this effect to fly.

If you do not like the BB effect, then you must come up with a new explanation, one that excludes from the start Newtonian gravitation.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: markjo on June 19, 2019, 01:19:49 PM
The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown is a direct contradiction to the equation proposed by Newton: g = GM/r2.
Where exactly is the contradiction?  Why can't Biefeld-Brown and Newton both be correct in their relevant applications?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 01:51:42 PM
Where exactly is the contradiction?  Why can't Biefeld-Brown and Newton both be correct in their relevant applications?

Then, if there is no contradiction, you are a flat earth believer.

Newton said that ONLY the radial component of the acceleration equation is real, the only one that counts: g = GM/r2.

In other words, terrestrial gravitation is independent of electromagnetic forces.

The Biefeld-Brown effect tells us that gravity is totally related to electromagnetism.

Then, the formula provided by Newton is worthless and useless: gravity has nothing to do with mass.

How, then, do you explain the orbits of the planets?

If Newton's law of universal gravitation is defied on such a cosmic scale, then it means that terrestrial gravity is not attractive.

Explain then how four billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 03:28:34 PM
"Einstein unwittingly restricted general relativity to a subset of the theory he intended to write. This over-restriction was again an indirect result of the fundamental Heaviside/Gibbs error in electromagnetics.

Unfortunately, Einstein's view of electromagnetics approximated the classical view. In classical EM theory, EM and gravitation were mutually exclusive. That is, the strong EM force was not usable as an agent to curve spacetime.

Therefore, as a curvature agent, Einstein only considered the weak gravitational force due to the attraction of mass. Now the G-force is far, far weaker than the E-force. For two electrons, for example, the attractive G-force between them is on the order of only 10exp-42 times as strong as the electrical repulsion. The G-force is very, very weak! If only the weak G-force is considered for curving spacetime, then there will never be an observable spacetime curvature, except in the immediate vicinity of a very large mass - such as on the surface of the sun or a star.

Einstein reasoned that the laboratory, and the observer/scientist and instrument, would never be on the surface of the sun or of a star. Therefore, he reasoned, the local spacetime -- where the lab, the observer, and the instruments are -- would never be curved. The local spacetime would always be flat.

Unfortunately, Einstein then made a fundamental error. He overgeneralized his thought examination. He stated one of his fundamental postulates of general relativity as "The local spacetime is always flat." This is overly restrictive, and did not follow from his thought process. His postulate can be more accurately stated as follows "The local spacetime is always flat, whenever only the weak gravitational force is used for the agent of curvature and the local region of interest is not near a large collection of mass."

Notice the difference in the two statements of the postulate. Einstein's overstatement does not allow the far stronger EM force to be used for curvature. In effect, his own overstatement excluded electromagnetics from curvature unity with gravitation, in his own general relativity theory. Ironically Einstein then tried for the rest of his life to fit electromagnetics back in there - never realizing that his own too-strenuous statement of the flat local spacetime postulate doomed all his efforts to failure.

On the other hand, the corrected statement of his postulate admits the following corollary "When a very strong force such as the electromagnetic force is used for the agent of curvature, the local spacetime may be curved, even though the local region of interest is not near a large collection of mass."

As can be seen, Einstein unwittingly wrote only a subset of his intended theory. Correct restatement of his overstated postulate of uncurved spacetime dramatically extends general relativity, and unites it with electromagnetics in a unified field theory."
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 19, 2019, 05:45:30 PM
Then, the formula provided by Newton is worthless and useless: gravity has nothing to do with mass.
Except this is patently false: gravity has everything to do with mass. If I double the mass of an object while keeping its charge the same, its weight doubles. If I double the charge on an object while keeping its mass the same, its weight stays the same.

Also masses attracting each other proportional to their mass can be measured in a lab.
https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=measuring+gravitational+constant&btnG= (https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=measuring+gravitational+constant&btnG=)

How can a force that's directly proportional to mass have nothing to do with mass? You seem like a smart guy, so I can't believe that you'd truly believe that's such an obvious logical contradiction.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 19, 2019, 06:04:43 PM
You seem like a smart guy

You haven't done your homework.

Also masses attracting each other

You are assuming gravity is attractive, which means you are contradicting Newton's own words on the subject.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751


gravity has everything to do with mass. If I double the mass of an object while keeping its charge the same, its weight doubles. If I double the charge on an object while keeping its mass the same, its weight stays the same.

Brilliant.

Why then doesn't your bathroom scale register 2000 pounds?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796


Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 20, 2019, 05:17:00 PM
Where exactly is the contradiction?  Why can't Biefeld-Brown and Newton both be correct in their relevant applications?

Then, if there is no contradiction, you are a flat earth believer.

Newton said that ONLY the radial component of the acceleration equation is real, the only one that counts: g = GM/r2.

In other words, terrestrial gravitation is independent of electromagnetic forces.

The Biefeld-Brown effect tells us that gravity is totally related to electromagnetism.

Does it? How so? Admittedly I don’t know much about the effect but from the articles I found it sounds more related to electromagnetism. Gravity is a force, Newton’s equation gives us the acceleration due to that force. Other forces may be acting on a body which mean the rate of fall is less than g (or more than it) but those are just additional forces with other causes which need to be taken into account.

A feather doesn’t fall at the rate Newton predicts because other forces (air resistance in this case) are at work on it. That doesn’t mean Newton can be thrown in the bin, it just means to model it accurately the other force needs to be considered. With heavier objects air resistance is negligible and can be ignored.
Not clear what your issue is here.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 20, 2019, 05:30:12 PM
You haven't done your homework.
Oh you're just being modest ;).

Quote
You are assuming gravity is attractive, which means you are contradicting Newton's own words on the subject.
Me no assume, me just look at experiment.
I'm not really interested in what Newton did or didn't say. I'm a clever boy (just like you), so I can look at his maths and see that it matches all the pretty experiments. Newton's opinion is irrelevant.

Quote
The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751
Nice job! Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked - bet you can't!

Quote
Why then doesn't your bathroom scale register 2000 pounds?
Wait, are you fat shaming me?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 21, 2019, 04:47:09 AM
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)


Not clear what your issue is here.

Can you explain to your readers why a capacitor charged to a high potential will exhibit thrust in the direction of the positive electrode?

For this is the formula published by Newton in the Principia:

g = GM/r2

In the Biefeld-Brown effect NO MASS, NO RADIAL DISTANCE are involved.


Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked

I told you that you haven't done your homework.

Here is the real Cavendish experiment, carried out by one of the America's most distinguished physicists:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

I can look at his maths and see that it matches all the pretty experiments.

His math is incomplete.

Here is the full acceleration equation:

(http://image.ibb.co/bXW3Qx/acc2.jpg)

Newton gave us only the first term of the equation, which means both you and Newton haven't got a clue about mechanics.

To these four terms, we must add two more: the acceleration caused by the Biefeld-Brown effect and by the acoustic levitation.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 21, 2019, 12:31:51 PM
I told you that you haven't done your homework.
Oooh wow, another experiment from the 1920s! You don't seem to understand the concept that science didn't just stop in 1960, and there is actually science still happening today! I can assure you that the advent of computers, as well as improvements in other technologies, has transformed science into a world of hyper-precision.
Did you know that the 1S-2S transition in hydrogen has been measured with a fraction uncertainty of 0.0000000000000042? That's fifteen zeroes! Try doing that in 1920. How many zeroes did Cavendish get? One? None?

Side note: I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. You at some point claimed that gravity isn't related to mass, but now you're linking an equation for gravity that explicity includes a mass term? I'm not even sure what my point is anymore either, I don't think I disagree that electromagnetism and gravity could be related, and in fact I feel that eventually a working Grand Unified Theory will emerge and unite all fundamental forces into one super-theory (kind of like the Avengers)...

Anyway... what are we talking about again?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 21, 2019, 02:11:08 PM
The UFT was already worked out in the period 1919-1929.

Einstein recognized the limitations of his TGR, and that UFT requires a new concept of space, the hyperspace.

The first attempt at unification was made by Hermann Weyl, a mathematician more formidable than Einstein and Minkowski put together.

"Weyl noted that Riemann’s geometry went only halfway towards attaining the ideal of a pure infinitesimal geometry, so he introduced a gauge symmetry into the space-time geometry as a remedy for that oversight. In his new geometry, the parallel transfer of a length in the field would allow a change in the basic unit of length according to the gauge at any given position in our common four-dimensional space-time. This change accounted for the presence of distant-curvature and thus allowed the introduction of electromagnetism into the metric of space-time curvature."

Kozyrev spotted Minkowski's catastrophic error immediately: time is not a scalar, but has density and a rate of flow.

"Time is not merely a “scalar” or “one-dimensional entity” in the geometry of space-time; it is not, therefore, to be viewed in the sense that the geometry of General Relativity — the Minkowski space — or for that matter, most physical theory, views it, namely, as merely duration"

Kaluza fulfilled Riemann's requirement of imbedding space in a hyperspace.

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.

"In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."

There is even the Kaluza-Weyl space-time-time theory.

However, J.C. Maxwell had already provided a UFT some fifty years earlier, his scalar potential terms, which were deleted/censored by Heaviside and Lorentz. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.

Biefeld and Brown provided the experimental proofs needed for the unification of gravity and electricity.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 21, 2019, 07:32:11 PM
The UFT was already worked out in the period 1919-1929.

Einstein recognized the limitations of his TGR, and that UFT requires a new concept of space, the hyperspace.

The first attempt at unification was made by Hermann Weyl, a mathematician more formidable than Einstein and Minkowski put together.

"Weyl noted that Riemann’s geometry went only halfway towards attaining the ideal of a pure infinitesimal geometry, so he introduced a gauge symmetry into the space-time geometry as a remedy for that oversight. In his new geometry, the parallel transfer of a length in the field would allow a change in the basic unit of length according to the gauge at any given position in our common four-dimensional space-time. This change accounted for the presence of distant-curvature and thus allowed the introduction of electromagnetism into the metric of space-time curvature."

Kozyrev spotted Minkowski's catastrophic error immediately: time is not a scalar, but has density and a rate of flow.

"Time is not merely a “scalar” or “one-dimensional entity” in the geometry of space-time; it is not, therefore, to be viewed in the sense that the geometry of General Relativity — the Minkowski space — or for that matter, most physical theory, views it, namely, as merely duration"

Kaluza fulfilled Riemann's requirement of imbedding space in a hyperspace.

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.

"In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."

There is even the Kaluza-Weyl space-time-time theory.

However, J.C. Maxwell had already provided a UFT some fifty years earlier, his scalar potential terms, which were deleted/censored by Heaviside and Lorentz. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.

Biefeld and Brown provided the experimental proofs needed for the unification of gravity and electricity.
Please stop reminding me of how little attention I paid during my undergrad.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: red_dwarf on June 21, 2019, 07:53:35 PM
Given Mr Sandokhans encyclopedic knowledge of 'science',  I find it hard to believe that the rest of the science community of today hasn't collectively bowed it's head in shame as it has clearly got a lot of things very wrong according to him. Either that or Mr Sandokhan is wrong but that cannot be the case surely. If he is right then he would be a great one to have on your team at the next local pub quiz. Is there anything he doesn't know?!?.  Just one thing..can anyone tell me (more briefly than he can please!) what on Earth he is talking about?

I presume this is the same Mr Sandokhan who is a member of the DavidIcke.com forums. (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=285266)

All that aside, are we still debating about the original question because I have long since lost the direction this conversation is going in!  It is mentally exhausting just reading and trying to keep a track of it.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: TomInAustin on June 25, 2019, 03:06:02 PM
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:


Your habit of stating assumptions as fact is getting comical.

Show proof.  And by proof, I don't mean a link to one of your own posts.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 25, 2019, 05:17:22 PM
I want you to imagine for a minute that you have been selected for jury duty, and you are sitting in the courtroom listening to the evidence. As you watch, the prosecution calls an expert forensic scientist to the stand, and they carefully explain the facts concerning the forensic evidence, all of which point towards the defendant’s guilt. Then, the defendant’s lawyer stands up and shouts, “Objection, this witness has been paid off to lie about my client!” After a moment of shocked silence, the judge says, “That is quite a claim. What evidence do you have to support it?” The lawyer then responds simply by saying, “only someone who had been bought off would say things like that against my client.” Now, what do you think is going to happen next? Is that a reasonable defense that the judge will accept? Obviously not! The defense is making an extraordinary assumption, and it is clearly invalid to do so.

In an example like that, the problem is obvious. You can’t just make things up to dismiss facts that are inconvenient for you. Indeed, when a person’s fate hangs in the balance, we all want the arguments and evidence to be based on facts, not assumptions. Nevertheless, when it comes to science and many aspects of our daily lives (such as politics), people are often more than happy to accept assumptions, and people frequently state them as if they are facts. Therefore, I am going to provide several examples of this flawed line of reasoning, and explain why it not only doesn’t work, but often commits a logical fallacy.

One of the most important concepts in debates and rational thinking: the burden of proof. This states that the person making the claim is always required to provide legitimate evidence to support it. In other words, if you want to claim that scientists have been paid off, then it is your duty to provide actual evidence to support that claim, and if you cannot do that, then you are stating an assumption, not a fact, and your argument is illegitimate. Similarly, if you want to claim that companies are hiding cures, a conspiracy is afoot, etc., you must provide evidence to substantiate those claims. You simply cannot dream about it and assume things that haven’t been verified, because if you could, then we could all dismiss every single argument that we don’t like simply by assuming the existence of some contrary evidence. Also, it is worth explicitly stating that you have to show the evidence, not the other way around. In other words, if you are claiming that a conspiracy exists, you have to provide evidence that it exists, whereas I do not have to provide evidence that it doesn’t exist.  You can not simply create such assumptions and spread to the internet, waiting someone to come up with the evidences, or for the masses popular belief to be considered evidence.  That’s the way that the burden of proof works. In fact, saying “you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, therefore it is valid to think that it does exist” is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

Yes, I agree with TomInAustin, Mr. Sandokhan statements are just blind assumptions as facts, and it is being repeated over and over everywhere, getting comical, not a single shread of evidence is proven, other than his own previous sayings or from other people that act in similar way.  I can not believe that Mr. Hawkings, Einstein, Sagan, and so many other thousand scientists were paid off by governmental agencies to lie to the general population, if yes, show me the evidences and proof.  Some people still thinking the actual population knowledge and brain capacity still the same as 1880, not evolved.  You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

Tom Bishop already said, "To accept blindly is to live in ignorance."
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 25, 2019, 06:49:24 PM
You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

But you can, if their livelihood/careers depend on it.

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'


One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

This sort of thing was happening in the physics departments of ALL major universities (USA, UK, France, Canada).
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 25, 2019, 07:00:13 PM
You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

But you can, if their livelihood/careers depend on it.

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'


One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

This sort of thing was happening in the physics departments of ALL major universities (USA, UK, France, Canada).

So, you are saying that you would LIE through your face, in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.
That is beautiful.
Then I can "assume" that everything you wrote in your life is only based on your own gain, nothing with reality or truth.
I rest my case.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 25, 2019, 07:35:11 PM
in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.

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

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


Since all of the critics of Einstein's relativity were purged from the physics departments, science was left with this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: spherical on June 25, 2019, 08:45:35 PM
So, according to you, if even Einstein did it, why can't you do the same, right?
And thanks for not refuting my statement.
Please read this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-career-in-counseling/201110/facts-and-assumptions-what-is-the-difference-and-does-it (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-career-in-counseling/201110/facts-and-assumptions-what-is-the-difference-and-does-it)

There are different ways to communicate in this world.
When you state something as a fact, you NEED to supply evidences of proof, if not, the world stop seeing you as honest or serious.
When you want to expose what you think about something, you need to make sure people understand that is an personal assumption.
All your posts are stating your text as a fact.  Readers can assume that is the reality, not a supposition.

You wrote:
"The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams."

The wording lead to a factoid statement of the truth, without any logical evidences.  I understand this is what you believe it could be, but it is not written like that.
Dictators in our history use to say things like "This is like this and that, and it is because I want it to be", even so, they don't last longer.
Humans don't communicate like that when trying to find alternate ideas for something. There is a cooperative exchange of ideas and possible assumptions, nobody is owner of the truth, nor nobody knows everything, thus, nobody can use words like "it is, they are, which use, which orbit", when supposing things, without a minimum shred of evidence, except on dreams.   If you have evidencial facts, several times duplicated and experienced, then expose them, and then, only then, you can use words like "based on my findings, it is..."  But you don't have any personal findings about the retroreflectors, other than the oficial version (a laser reflective device on the surface of the Moon, installed by Apollo astronauts), you are just supposing it could be like you wrote to justify your flat earth assumptions, using explanations of Biefeld-Brown effect, something that you use on every sentence you write, to justify something is floating on orbit.  Seriously, we can not listen to this music track anymore.

Oh, and by the way, don't waste your time posting links to "www.theflatear...", I don't click on those, never did.

Also, did you ever think to imagine that humans of Flat Earth could put something on the Moon at 4800km in altitude? why not?
If the UA helps to fly high above, what could be the problem to reach the FE Moon, and even the FE Sun? nothing, right?
So, why it is impossible to have laser reflectors on FE Moon? Robots, scanners, cameras? photos of FE down here? why not? 



Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 25, 2019, 11:55:11 PM
"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'
In my experience, this just isn't true. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug, it's something you're told time and time again if you're taking a physics undergrad. It's one of the big problems in physics, and lots of people are trying to solve this by various means. The place I did my degree even has a whole section of the physics department working on trying to find viable alternatives to relativity. Where are you getting your info?
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: reer on June 26, 2019, 12:40:15 AM
in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.

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

That is so typical of pseudo science and conspiracy theories: use a (valid) criticism that was written a century ago, and ignore all of the more recent evidence.

Yes, there were questions about the validity of Eddington's measurements. However, they and many others have been repeated over and over again since then. We have measured time dilation by flying clocks on aircraft and satellites. We have seen gravitational waves caused by neutron stars and black holes. Gravitational redshift has been measured in earthbound experiments. We have measured space being dragged by a rotating ball, etc. These and many other measurements have all shown the validity of General Relativity. There has never been an experiment that contradicted General Relativity.

Of course, at the same time we know that General Relativity does not merge with Quantum Mechanics, so one or both will eventually need to be modified. However, as with Newton's theory of gravity, the current measurements will stay valid.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 26, 2019, 04:44:51 AM
The wording lead to a factoid statement of the truth, without any logical evidences.

It seems you haven't been paying attention at all.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg195226#msg195226


The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug,

That is very obvious; what should be worrying you is the fact that TGR is presented as a viable option.


However, they and many others have been repeated over and over again since then.

Yes, they have been repeated using Einstein's personal unproven opinion (disguised as a "postulate") that the speed of light is a constant. Did you know that there are better explanations for all of these tests once that restriction is removed?

Let us take, as an example, the Pound-Rebka experiment.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

We have measured time dilation by flying clocks on aircraft

You haven't measured anything at all.

Here is how the Hafele-Keating test was faked/fudged:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

and satellites

You haven't done your homework on the gravity probe B.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982291#msg1982291

http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf

These and many other measurements have all shown the validity of General Relativity. There has never been an experiment that contradicted General Relativity.

To this day, there isn't a single experiment which proves the existence of the space-time continuum.

You always forget about the existence of the ether.

Convince yourself that the existence of the ether cannot be denied anymore, the RUDERFER experiment:

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

The local-aether model is being adopted by modern science:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

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.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

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

This changes everything.

GALAEV ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

GLOBAL/GENERALIZED SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

ORIGINAL MAXWELL EQUATIONS FEATURING SCALAR/LONGITUDINAL WAVES (ETHER):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SCALAR/LONGITUDINAL WAVES (papers published in 1903 and 1904 by E.T. Whittaker, one of the top mathematicians of the 20th century):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

KORONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

NEWTONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771

RUDERFER EXPERIMENT: ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, the first null result in ETHER DRIFT HISTORY

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


Make sure you understand that the original Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a fact which demolishes any general relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 26, 2019, 07:11:54 AM
The "theory" of general relativity came to a very abrupt end back in 1917:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A very nice paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist! This too has been ignored by the relativists.


None other than Hermann Weyl, the top mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955 (several ranks higher than either Einstein or Minkowski) also pointed out a basic fallacy in Einstein's approach:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090509190344/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/weyl-1.pdf

An interesting treatment by Hermann Weyl (1944) demonstrating that the standard linearization of Einstein's equations is inadmissible because it leads to the requirement of a tensor, which, except for the trivial case of being zero, does not otherwise exist! Another important paper ignored by the orthodox physicists.


And Einstein's TGR was, at best, an incomplete hypothesis.

Again, Hermann Weyl explains:

“But in Riemannian geometry described above there is contained a last element of geometry “at a distance” (ferngeometrisches Element) — with no good reason, as far as I can see; it is due only to the accidental development of Riemannian geometry from Euclidean geometry. The metric allows the two magnitudes of two vectors to be compared, not only at the same point, but at any arbitrarily separated points. A true infinitesimal geometry should, however, recognize only a principle for transferring the magnitude of a vector to an infinitesimally close point and then, on transfer to an arbitrary distant point, the integrability of the magnitude of a vector is no more to be expected than the integrability of its direction.”

“On the removal of this inconsistency there appears a geometry that, surprisingly, when applied to the world, explains not only the gravitational phenomena but also the electrical. According to the resultant theory both spring from the same source, indeed in general one cannot separate gravitation and electromagnetism in a unique manner."
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: reer on June 26, 2019, 10:18:24 AM
Thanks, sandokhan

I will of course take all your links as gospel truth. But I do notice that, going by the documents you link, science seems to have stopped late 19th or early 20th century. What a wasted century.

At the risk of repeating myself: That is so typical of pseudo science and conspiracy theories: use a (valid) criticism that was written a century ago, and ignore all of the more recent evidence.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 26, 2019, 11:44:10 AM
But I do notice that, going by the documents you link, science seems to have stopped late 19th or early 20th century. What a wasted century.

Why then do you accept 16th century and 17th century science as valid theory?

Here is how Kepler faked/fudged his Nova Astronomia:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (two consecutive messages)

Why do you accept the Constitution as valid law, a documented drafted some 250 years ago?

Here is what Woodrow Wilson had to say about the Constitution:

“The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”

“No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/woodrow-wilsons-new-constitution/

Why did Abraham Lincoln thrash the Constitution? Because he recognized it to be a weak document (from a legal point of view), and showed the way on how to defy each and every amendment for future generations:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=30277



Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 27, 2019, 12:29:35 AM
The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug,

That is very obvious; what should be worrying you is the fact that TGR is presented as a viable option.
Great! Then I guess we agree that trying to disprove relativity is encouraged, not discouraged. The fact that you're talking about people like Weyl and Levi-Civita demonstrates this very well; they are very well-known physicists, not swept under the rug because they disagree with relativity like you were suggesting earlier.

Relativity is presented as a viable option because it very accurately describes reality. Whether it's a complete model or not is important, but doesn't diminish its usefulness. Newtonian mechanics is still used everywhere, despite the fact that we know it's wrong.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 27, 2019, 04:29:51 AM
To disprove relativity is not encouraged at all, on the contrary. They couldn't do anything about Levi-Civita and
Weyl since they were very well known mathematicians, with world-wide recognition; however, these papers were swept under the rug immediately, as soon as they were published.

Relativity is presented as a viable option because it very accurately describes reality.

Relativity described Einstein's own fantasy world, where the speed of light is constant.

How did Einstein justify this personal opinion?

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

What Einstein is telling the other physicists is that the principle of the constancy of the speed of light is based SOLELY on the Heaviside-Lorentz equations (modified Maxwell equations): a different set of equations will lead of course to a DEEPER understanding of the entire phenomenon.

TGR is a low-level subset of electrogravity, a limited view of reality.

The original Maxwell equations are invariant under galilean transformations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 27, 2019, 10:23:54 AM
Hermann Weyl's derivation of the electrogravitational formula (relationship between the gravitational potential and the electric potential, for static electric fields, i.e. the Biefeld-Brown effect) in 1917:

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


Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 27, 2019, 03:59:10 PM
these papers were swept under the rug immediately
But when I type "weyl fermion" on google scholar I get loads of hits of articles >1000 citations. Maybe it was swept under the rug at one point, I don't know. All I do know is that this area of physics that you're claiming gets you blacklisted from the physics community is undeniably very active. This gets taught in undergrad physics. Telling every single up-and-coming physicist about something is the opposite of rug-sweeping or blacklisting. I don't see any two ways around this: you're just wrong.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 27, 2019, 04:44:40 PM
Not fermions, but electrogravity. Weyl unified gravity and electricity using gauge theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 29, 2019, 12:16:27 AM
Not fermions, but electrogravity. Weyl unified gravity and electricity using gauge theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319
Great! So can you respond to my point? In fact, when did we start talking about Weyl instead of Biefield-Brown effect. Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum? You already gave me some experiments that pretty much destroyed your idea that a Biefield-Brown-type thruster will work in a vacuum, so now you seem to be hiding behind some obscure theoretical physics that neither of us actually understand instead of carrying on down the Bilefield-Brown-clearly-doesn't-work-in-a-vacuum rabbit hole.

I wonder why.
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 29, 2019, 05:14:48 AM
Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194918#msg194918

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194921#msg194921

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194939#msg194939 (two videos in vacuum)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194953#msg194953

to be hiding behind some obscure theoretical physics


Weyl's gauge theory is mainstream, a huge generalization of Einstein's relativity. However, this kind of generalization requires the presence of the ether (potential):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319

In fact, when did we start talking about Weyl instead of Biefield-Brown effect.

Weyl's axially symmetric static electrovacuum solutions = the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect:

(https://i.ibb.co/M1SJzmC/iv2.jpg)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg195048#msg195048
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on June 30, 2019, 10:13:42 AM
Wanna show me some experimental evidence of these thrusters you keep going on about working in a vacuum?

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194918#msg194918

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194921#msg194921

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194939#msg194939 (two videos in vacuum)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194953#msg194953
I've already responded to your the links you gave about B-B in a vaccum. If I recall correctly, you dismissed every experiment except this single one by Townsend for some reason that you didn't make clear.

Weyl's gauge theory requires an ether just as much an Einstein's. That is - not really at all. See this interesting article:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html (http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2019, 12:24:38 PM
There is a huge difference between Einstein's concept of ether (he was practically forced to reintroduce the ether into his general relativity) and Weyl's theory of the ether.

For Weyl, first comes the topological manifold. Then, an affine-connection is added: a world endowed with a gravitation-inertial field named by Weyl "fuhrungsfeld", guiding field. The components of the affine connection, and not those of the metric field, are taken as the field strengths of the gravitational field.

Weyl no longer has an invariant unit of length, so in order to introduce a metric at all, it is necessary to specify an arbitrary unit length at each point, to GAUGE the space, by adding a pseudo-vector field. Then, Weyl equates ψ with the potential of the electromagnetic field. What Weyl accomplished is to anticipate the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 30 years.

"The role of the metric is taken over by the wave function, and the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced
by a phase change of the wave function."

Why is there not a unified field theory at the present time?

Because virtually all mathematicians and physicists fail to notice that within a permanent magnet there are two fluxes of streams: 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.

What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203121514/http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg

"Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screw like fashion, and with high speed."


Modern science only studies one of these streams.


Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.


The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.

Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on July 01, 2019, 09:45:20 PM
There is a huge difference between Einstein's concept of ether (he was practically forced to reintroduce the ether into his general relativity) and Weyl's theory of the ether.

For Weyl, first comes the topological manifold. Then, an affine-connection is added: a world endowed with a gravitation-inertial field named by Weyl "fuhrungsfeld", guiding field. The components of the affine connection, and not those of the metric field, are taken as the field strengths of the gravitational field.

Weyl no longer has an invariant unit of length, so in order to introduce a metric at all, it is necessary to specify an arbitrary unit length at each point, to GAUGE the space, by adding a pseudo-vector field. Then, Weyl equates ψ with the potential of the electromagnetic field. What Weyl accomplished is to anticipate the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 30 years.

"The role of the metric is taken over by the wave function, and the rescaling of the metric has to be replaced
by a phase change of the wave function."

Why is there not a unified field theory at the present time?

Because virtually all mathematicians and physicists fail to notice that within a permanent magnet there are two fluxes of streams: 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.

What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?

https://web.archive.org/web/20160203121514/http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg

"Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screw like fashion, and with high speed."


Modern science only studies one of these streams.


Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.


The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
Ahh okay, I get it now. Thanks for clearing that one up :)
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Snoopy on July 10, 2019, 09:42:31 PM
Brown has been proven wrong numerous times. 

Wiki
He struggled with the required curriculum of a freshman student and to help Thomas in his school work his parents set up a fully provisioned private laboratory in the family home in Pasadena, California. Here he demonstrated his ideas on electricity and gravity to invited guests such as the physicist and Nobel laureate, Robert A. Millikan. Millikan told the freshman student his ideas were impossible and advised him to complete his college education before trying to develop such theories. Brown left Caltech after his first year. In 1924 he attended Denison University, but left there after a year as well.

He failed freshman calculus and physics
Title: Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
Post by: Snoopy on July 10, 2019, 09:53:47 PM
The 'effect' is a novelty, a parlor trick and is not a new physics or description of any unknown. It does not propel aircraft.  It is simply a capacitor with plates of different sizes hence a net charge resulting in a net force/thrust. 

It is not an ionic 'wind' related in any way to gravity it it an ion shift.
It does not exist in a vacuum, gravity does.

To brown him to refute Einstein is absurd.