Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sandokhan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 08, 2019, 02:47:38 PM »
Despite numerous attempts by others this effect has never been demonstrated.

But it has.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412

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

Their solution(s) require a system of super-highly charged masses on the order of black holes, and the solutions only work in a simplified static case (time independent).  Not something we've ever seen ... so ,yeah, just some interesting intellectual workouts.

No black holes required at all.

All you need is a simple capacitor.

Ivanov did some real physics in his life, but his work on this was soundly rejected, especially when he proposed a static solution could provide a means of propulsion!

The Weyl-Ivanov solution cannot be rejected, it is a fact of science.

It represents the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect: then you can use supercapacitors as a form of propulsion, the formula spells this out very clearly.





Weyl was a real physicist alright, but not exactly a household name.

Weyl was the best theoretical physicists in the world, 1917-1955.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

One writer's opinion piece.

Dr. Donahue's paper was peer-reviewed and it includes the actual tables which do prove his point.

There is no math in that chapter.

But there is, the author references each and every conclusion with the very best works available today, which do include the calculations.











Now, let me address the numerical calculations for the n-body problem.

All Hamiltonian systems which are not integrable are chaotic.

Since the solar system is not integrable, and experiences unpredictable small perturbations, it cannot lie permanently on a KAM torus, and is thus chaotic.

KAM theory is valid for "sufficiently" small perturbations.

In reality, the perturbations in the solar system are far too large to apply KAM theory.

So, the mathematicians have to rely on computing Lyapunov exponents, in order to try to predict any region of instability/chaos.

Jack Wisdom (MIT): It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the orbit of the Earth will suddenly exhibit similar wild excursions in eccentricity.

Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.

Lyapunov exponents and symplectic integration.

Let d(t) be the distance between two solutions, with d(0) being their initial separation. Then d(t) increases approximately as d(0)eλt in a chaotic system, where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The inverse of the Lyapunov exponent, 1/λ, is called the Lyapunov time, and measures how long it takes two nearby solutions to diverge by a factor of e.

Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).

Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine

To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.

“The word ‘chaotic’ summarizes many fundamental concepts characterizing
a dynamical system such as complex predictability and stability. But above
all, it acts as a warming of the difficulties which are likely to arise when trying to
obtain a reliable picture of its past and future evolution. As an example, a
commonly accepted definition states that a system is ‘unstable’ if the trajectories of
two points that initially are arbitrarily close . . . diverge quickly in time. This has
strong implications, as small uncertainties in initial conditions . . . might [also] be
consistent with completely different future trajectories: The conclusion is that we
can exactly reproduce the motion of a chaotic system only if WE KNOW, WITH
ABSOLUTE PRECISION, THE INITIAL CONDITIONS – A STATEMENT
THAT, IN PRACTICE, CAN NEVER BE TRUE."

Alessandra Celletti, Ettore Perozzi, Celestial Mechanics: The Waltz of the Planets

Let us take a closer look the chaotic dynamics of planetary formation; thus, a clear indication that the initial conditions cannot be predicted with accuracy (as we have seen, a mere 15 meters difference in the data will have catastrophic consequences upon the calculations).

OFFICIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION

Four stages of planetary formation

Initial stage: condensation and growth of grains in the hot nebular disk

Early stage: growth of grains to kilometer-sized planetesimals

Middle stage: agglomeration of planetesimals

Late stage: protoplanets


For the crucial stages, the initial and early stages, prediction becomes practically impossible.

As if this wasn't enough, we have absolute proof that in the age of modern man planet Earth underwent sudden pole shifts (heliocentrical version), thus making null and void any integration of the solar system/Lyapunov exponents calculations which do not take into account such variations of the system's parameters:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1546053#msg1546053

Let me show you what sensitive dependence on initial conditions means, using one of the most famous examples: the Lorenz attractor butterfly effect.

In 1961, Lorenz was running a numerical computer model to redo a weather prediction from the middle of the previous run as a shortcut. He entered the initial condition 0.506 from the printout instead of entering the full precision 0.506127 value. The result was a completely different weather scenario.

Here is the set of Lorenz equations:



Now, the set of differential equations which describe the planetary orbits is much more complicated than this.




NOTHING can be said about the RE heliocentrical system beyond a time scale of 300 YEARS.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

"In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society

What this means is that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951







Within this 300 year time interval, we again have the huge problem of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

2
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 08, 2019, 02:30:02 PM »
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

Formula:



Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:


3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 07, 2019, 02:24:40 PM »
The book is written by Charles Ginenthal, one of the top scholars in the world.

Basically, what Velikovsky proposed is that electrical and magnetic forces must be included in celestial mechanics.

And he was right.

Here is the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

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





This is the Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov solution.


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


Here is how the solution was derived in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, a physicists several ranks higher than Einstein:

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


If you do not like Velikovsky, then you are going to be enthralled by Kepler, who FAKED/FUDGED the entire set of data for the Nova Astronomia:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160186#msg160186

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160200#msg160200


Here is an analysis of Jacques Laskar's numerical approach using only mainstream sources:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160189#msg160189


Chapter 3 from Newton, Einstein & Velikovsky includes the references on numerical methods, a sure sign you did not read it at all.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2875.pdf

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~wayne/research/papers/nphys728-published.pdf


http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (chapter 3, Solar System Instability, pg 84 - 112, especially pg 97, 103-111) - these pages include a formidable analysis of the assumptions made by physicists who employ various kinds of numerical algorithsm to study celestial mechanics)

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 07, 2019, 08:56:04 AM »
One of the best accounts of the numerical methods applied to solar system stability questions:

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/NewtonEinstein&Veli.pdf (chapter 3, Solar System Instability, pg 84 - 112, especially pg 97, 103-111)

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 10:16:07 PM »
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

To this very day, the best physicists have been unable to realize that the formula which features the area is the Coriolis effect formula.

However, in the past twenty years, for the first time, the topological considerations of the Sagnac interferometer have been taken into account.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.

Thus, there will always be two formulas for any Sagnac interferometer.

Imagine this: the physicists at Cambridge University are confusing the Coriolis effect with the Sagnac effect, even though they describe very different physical situations.

The Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area.

Yet, Michelson, most likely intentionally, took advantage of the state of affairs in light interferometry at the beginning of the 20th century, and infused into mainstream science a huge misrepresentation.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?
« on: November 06, 2019, 08:19:28 PM »
The three body problem is studied in the field of nonlinear ordinary differential equations with initial conditions: bifurcation theory, an exceedingly difficult branch of advanced mathematics.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=YhXnBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=wiggins+introduction+to&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2yPuosdblAhVC3qQKHUXdByMQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=wiggins%20introduction%20to&f=false

Here are the known facts concerning the three body problem in the context of bifurcation theory:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10175.msg160183#msg160183

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14559.msg191038#msg191038

The most intriguing is the discovery made by Professor Robert W. Bass.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

"In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society

What this means is that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

If any proofs can be provided that the solar system underwent cataclysmic planetary collisions in recent historical times, this fact would render any kind of heliocentric orbital calculations as completely useless.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938384#msg1938384 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938393#msg1938393 (part III)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938396#msg1938396 (part IV)


7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 07:15:21 PM »
They only register the Coriolis effect, which is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The Coriolis effect has two possible sources: either the Earth rotates, or the ether drift rotates above the surface of the Earth.

In order to claim the rotation of the Earth, the deciding factor is the Sagnac effect, which however was never registered by Michelson and Gale, nor was it recorded by any RLG.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0392.pdf

The influence of Earth rotation in neutrino speed measurements between CERN and the OPERA detector

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."

Remember, you will ALWAYS have two formulas for any interferometer, as proven by Stokes' theorem: one is proportional to the area (Coriolis), the other one is proportional to the velocity of the light beams (Sagnac).

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 06:51:34 PM »
The Coriolis effect would be negligible if, and only if, the interferometer also registers the Sagnac effect upon the velocity of the light beams.

Otherwise, you need the Coriolis effect to correctly calculate the fringe shifts, which in turn leads to the computation of the angular velocity.


9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 06, 2019, 08:46:53 AM »
In order to dispense with further calculations here are the fringe shift/phase difference formulas:

Δφ = Δt x c/λ

Rectangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L x h

Sagnac formula

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/cλ


Square RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L2

Sagnac formula

4VL((cosΦ1 + cosΦ2)/cλ


Triangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = 1/2(L x h)

Sagnac formula

2VL(2cosΦ1 + cosΦ2))/cλ


Dividing the Sagnac formula by the Coriolis equation, we obtain:

O(VL)/O(Aω) = O(R/h), where h usually equals 1 - 4 meters, (V = R x ω)

SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA/CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA = O(R), where R = radius of Earth at the latitude of the laboratory/RLG experiment.

The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 16), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)


10
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 05, 2019, 08:29:54 PM »
For a triangular RLG the formulas are slightly different:

Coriolis effect (dt = 4ωAsinΦ/c2, where A the area of the triangle):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982635#msg1982635

Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2154991#msg2154991

Now, with these formulas (delta t), you then use the delta fringe formula (which also features the wavelength): you have an expected fringe shift, you measure the registered shift from the RLG, and then you compute the angular velocity of rotation.

http://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

https://agenda.infn.it/event/7524/contributions/68390/attachments/49528/58554/Schreiber.pdf

RLGs record only the Coriolis effect fringe shift, and NOT the Sagnac effect fringe shift which is thousands of times greater in magnitude.


11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 04, 2019, 02:35:52 PM »
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c2

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: November 04, 2019, 06:44:01 AM »
According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area:








Now, apply Stokes' theorem to this interferometer (center of rotation does not coincide anymore with its geometrical center):





We already know the formula which is proportional to the area of the interferometer:

4AωsinΦ/c2

This simplifies to:

4Aω/c2


Ask yourself this very important question now: what is the form/nature of the SAGNAC FORMULA which, according to Stokes' theorem, is proportional to the translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area?

V = radius of earth x angular velocity, of course

Obviously, it must be of the form:

Δt = 2vL/c2


A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WILL ALWAYS RECORD/REGISTER BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis. This is the huge omission which Michelson, perhaps intentionally, forgot to mention in his 1925 paper (MGX).

So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.


14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: October 31, 2019, 09:25:02 PM »
Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating

There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun
« on: October 31, 2019, 08:52:07 PM »
You can't invoke Foucault's pendulum or gyrocompasses, since they are caused by the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

RLGs also measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The Coriolis effect can be caused either by Earth's rotation OR by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.

It is now acknowledged (Cambridge University) that the Coriolis effect is responsible for the Sagnac effect on neutrinos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2211156#msg2211156 (includes the correct formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT derived in accordance with Stokes' theorem)

Stationary Earth proofs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136 (Hoek and Mascart experiments)


16
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 20, 2019, 07:53:07 PM »
If you are not trolling this thread, then read the information provided which does prove indeed that the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680

17
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 20, 2019, 07:44:48 PM »
Why then do you say that they cannot be explained by an external stream of charged particles.

Did you read my previous message?

No that's called Earthshine.  The Moon reflects white light if you hadn't noticed.

You don't seem to understand what is going on.

A SECOND MOON/SUN which orbits the Arctic.

18
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 20, 2019, 06:12:00 PM »
Your pictures of a midnight sun proves that what you are seeing isn't the sun at all, but a starry reflection off of an uneven reflecting surface.

The Earth has a Moon which reflects the rays of the Sun: it is called Aurora.

https://www.theaurorazone.com/about-the-aurora/aurora-legends

There were several attempts over the years to present the dual sun theory, but the other FE could not properly develop the theory, nor could they prove it.

Other names for the second Moon/Sun: Aurvandil, Eos, Hausos, Thesan, Ushas.

Here is the proof, the Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680



19
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 19, 2019, 04:28:12 PM »
You are not paying attention.

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

Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

6106.4248/6 = 1017.73747 km, the distance alloted for each gate

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1017.737 km.



Those 180 windows are arranged over a distance of 6106.4 km, on each side. 30 windows for each gate (six gates in total).

Here is the description of the Sun's orbit at the equinox:

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71

20
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« on: October 16, 2019, 09:09:06 PM »
You are trolling the debate, since you have nothing else to say.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50  Next >