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 ... 38  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?
« on: Today at 06:13:22 AM »
The main contention of the RE and UAFE (they also claim the solar eclipse is caused by the Moon) is that the Moon interposes itself between the Earth and the Sun during a solar eclipse.

Then, they are going to have to explain this:

This is Newtonium, the first element in Mendeleev's periodic table of elements (much lighter than Hydrogen):

It is emitted by the Black Sun/Rahu.

Of course, the RE/UAFE will claim that this radiation is being emitted by the Sun (Fe X).

However, this requires temperatures well in excess of 1 million degrees Celsius to be present in the solar corona.

The hypothesis regarding the very hot temperature of the solar corona originated with B. Edlen's analysis of the unusual spectral features.

He was faced with a basic choice: either accept that at least two lighter than hydrogen elements are emitted by the Sun (even though Newtonium is released by the Black Sun), or put forth an outrageous hypothesis where the temperature of the solar corona becomes at least 400 times hotter than the temperature of the photosphere (even though the reverse temperature gradient of the Sun contradicts every original expectation of the thermonuclear model). This implausible supposition had to be accompanied by an even more outlandish explanation: magnetic reconnection.

Now scientists think that the temperature of the solar corona can exceed even the temperature of the core itself:

In 1949, H. Friedman put forth another related hypothesis: that solar x-rays emissions had a thermal origin.

However, x-rays from the Sun are not generated thermally, electromagnetic particles are being accelerated through the Sun's own ether field to create x-rays. The cause of the solar x-rays is electrical, not thermal. (Koronium and articles on the magnetic merging pseudo-science)

Within the context of a gaseous solar model, it is not surprising that extreme temperatures must be invoked. A gaseous Sun has no other means of producing highly ionized species.

"Since the corona must be excessively hot to produce such
ions in a gaseous context, the continuous spectrum of the K-corona
has been dismissed as a strange artifact, produced
by electronic scattering of photospheric light. Otherwise,
the coronal continuous spectrum would be indicating
that apparent coronal temperatures are no warmer than those
of the photosphere. It would be impossible for the gaseous
models to account for the presence of highly ionized
species within the outer solar atmosphere.

Current temperature estimates are
flirting with violations of both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics: it is difficult to conceive that localized temperatures
within flares and the corona could greatly exceed
the temperature of the solar core."

P.M. Robitaille


What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.

Dr. Hannes Alfven, Cosmic Plasma

On Frozen-In Lines and Field-Line Reconnection

Dr. Hannes Alfven

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines

C.G. Falthammar

The criticism of the magnetic reconnection hypothesis was removed by Wikipedia:

Dr. W. Heikkila has analysed the dayside reconnection and nightside reconnection problems: (pg. 90 - 94)

However, none of the astrophysicists involved in the study of magnetic reconnection have taken into consideration the fact that the magnetic field consists of TWO STREAMS OF PARTICLES, North - South and also South - North.

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

Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.

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.

That is, magnetic reconnection HAS TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY gravitational reconnection as well.

Magnetic reconnection refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma.

However, the breaking of the magnetic field lines (South to North lines) would ALSO mean the breaking of the gravitational field lines (North to South lines).

At this point, the solar corona would become a gigantic gas centrifuge, with no outer casing and zero g force.

"The Sun is a giant ball of hot plasma held together by its gravity."

The key to understanding the fallacy of the magnetic reconnection hypothesis is to understand that Whittaker proved the existence of the potential scalar waves, a bidirectional flow of magnetism/electricity and gravity: magnetic reconnection has to be accompanied by gravitational reconnection. The breaking of the magnetic lines also means the breaking of the gravitational lines, rendering that portion of the solar corona with zero g force.

A rare admission from modern astronomy:

Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year
« on: December 05, 2018, 04:36:03 PM »
It is called precession (Perseid meteor shower precessional paradox, two consecutive messages) (part III) (acceleration of the annual precession paradox, two consecutive messages)

The wobble of the Earths axis is most likely a consequence of the collision that occurred way back in the Earths history when another planetoid collided with the Earth. Some of the debris that was left over recongealed and led to the formation of the Moon.

That cannot be true.

"The birth of smaller, solid planets out of the larger, gaseous ones
is conjectured in order to explain the difference in the relation of
weight to volume in the larger and smaller planets; but this theory is
unable to explain the difference in the specific weights of the smaller
planets and their satellites. By a process of cleavage, the moon was
born of the earth; but since the specific weight of the moon is greater
than that of the larger planets and smaller than that of the earth, it
would seem to be more in accord with the theory that the earth was
bom of the moon, despite its smallness."

Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "

When did the Earth's spin axis become tilted at an angle of approximately 23.5 degrees?

Modern astronomy is eager to tell us that it was the collision with Theia, with the debris gathered around the Earth to form the early Moon.

That is, no other collision with Earth has taken place since.

But then we have a huge problem.

Because there are ample geological and documentary proofs that the Earth, in the heliocentrical setting, did undergo a collision some thousands of years ago, in the age of modern man.

How did the Earth manage to regain its orbital speed?

One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.

And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.

     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs

'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."

If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

In Jaiminiya-Upanisad-Brahmana it is written that the center of the sky, or the point around which the firmament revolves, is in the Great Bear.

Hindu astronomical tablets composed by the Brahmans in the first half of the first millennium before the present era show a uniform deviation from the expected position of the stars at the time the observations were made (the precession of the equinoxes being taken into consideration). Modern scholars wondered at this, in their opinion inexplicable, error. In view of the geometrical methods employed by Hindu astronomy and its detailed method of calculation, a mistake in observation equal to even a fraction of a degree would be difficult to account for.

Could it be that the precession of equinoxes shifted the direction of the axis so that, three or four thousand years ago, the polar star was among the stars of the Great Bear?  No. If the earth moved all the time as it moves now, four thousand years ago the star nearest the North Pole must have been a-Draconis. The change was sudden; the Great Bear "came bowing down." In the Hindu sources it is said that the earth receded from its wonted place by 100 yojanas,10 a yojana being five to nine miles. Thus the displacement was estimated at from 500 to 900 miles. The origin of the polar star is told in many traditions all over the world. The Hindus of the Vedas worshiped the polar star, Dhrura, "the fixed" or "immovable." In the Puranas it is narrated how Dhrura became the polar star. The Lapps venerate the polar star and believe that if it should leave its place, the earth would be destroyed in a great conflagration.

The length of the longest day in a year depends on the latitude, or the distance from the pole, and is different at different places. Gnomons or sundials can be built with great precision. The Babylonian astronomical tablets of the eighth century provide exact data, according to which the longest day at Babylon was equal to 14 hours 24 minutes, whereas the modern determination is 14 hours 10 minutes and 54 seconds. "The difference between the two figures is too great to be attributable to refraction, which makes the sun still visible over the horizon after it has set. Thus, the greater length of the day corresponds to latitude 34° 57', and points to a place 2/2° further to the north; we stand therefore before a strange riddle [vor einem merkwiirdigen Ratsel]. One tries to decide: either the tablets of System II do not originate from Babylon [though referring to Babylon], or this city actually was situated far [farther] to the north, about 35° away from the equator."

Claudius Ptolemy, who, in his Almagest, made computation for contemporaneous and ancient Babylon, arrived at two different estimates of the longest day at that city, and consequently of the latitude at which it was located, one of his estimates being practically of the present-day value, the other coinciding with the figure of the ancient Babylonian tables, 14 hours 24 minutes. The Arabian medieval scholar Arzachel computed from ancient codices that in more ancient times Babylon was situated at a latitude of 35° 0' from the equator, while in later times it was situated more to the south. Johannes Kepler drew attention to this calculation of Arzachel and to the fact that between ancient and modern Babylon there was a difference in latitude. Thus Ptolemy, and likewise Arzachel, computed that in historical times Babylon was situated at latitude 35°. Modern scholars arrived at identical results on the basis of ancient Babylonian computations. "This much, therefore, is certain: our tables [System II, and I also], and the astronomers mentioned as well, point to a place about 35° north latitude. Is it possible that they were mistaken by 2° to 2M°? This is scarcely believable."

Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not covered with this perennial ice.

If we look at the distribution of the ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, we see that a circle, with its center somewhere near the east shore of Greenland or in the strait between Greenland and Baffin Land near the present north magnetic pole, and a radius of about 3,600 kilometers, embraces the region of the ice sheet of the last glacial age. Northeastern Siberia is outside the circle; the valley of the Missouri down to 39° north latitude is within the circle. The eastern part of Alaska is included, but not its western part. Northwestern Europe is well within the circle; some distance behind the Ural Mountains, the line curves toward the north and crosses the present polar circle. Now we reflect: Was not the North Pole at some time in the past 20° or more distant from the point it now occupies—and closer to America? In like manner, the old South Pole would have been roughly the same 20° from the present pole.

Billions of tons of ice would have fallen on the polar regions, flash-freezing everything in little more than an instant.
This, at last, would explain the mystery of the mammoths found frozen where they stood. The mammoth, contrary to belief, was not a cold region animal, but one which lived in temperate grasslands.
Somehow those temperate regions were frozen in a moment. Some mammoths have been found frozen in the middle of eating! There you are munching away and the next thing you know you’re an ice lolly. If this ionized ice did rain down, the biggest build up would have been nearest to the magnetic poles because they would have had the most powerful attraction. Again, that is the case. The ice mass in the polar regions is greater at the poles than at the periphery and yet there is less snow and rain at the poles to create such a build up.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 06, 2018, 09:43:21 PM »
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

What the frell is this?

The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:


You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.

Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.

So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!

Another user writes:

"This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!"

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 06, 2018, 07:53:34 AM »
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

Ducting is the most pronounced form of looming, an extremely rare phenomenon, which requires very special atmospheric conditions.

Ducting requires the value for the ray curvature, k, to be greater than or equal to 1.

This amounts to at least a five degree difference in temperature.

For the very same geographical/hydrographical conditions, for the same latitude in question, for two observers located on the opposite shores, it is absolutely impossible to have a five degree difference, at the very same instant of time - moreover, looming/ducting do not apply to the case presented here.

The use of the mirror is a brilliant idea.

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver
« on: November 05, 2018, 11:01:31 AM »
R. Sungenis will be very difficult to deal with, more so than any RE (by comparison).

Here are his views on the UA/3000 mile Sun:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Nuclear Physics?
« on: November 02, 2018, 08:09:05 PM »
You are here to learn, you simply haven't done your basic homework on the subject.

History shows clearly that the advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound reexamination of his basic principles.

—Louis de Broglie
New Perspectives in Physics

Orbiting electrons are undergoing centripetal acceleration, and should therefore give off electromagnetic radiation, the loss of energy also causing them to spiral toward the nucleus, colliding with it in a fraction of a second.

To make matters for the restriction of physical reality from traveling beyond the speed of light, there is another phenomenon that electrons can supposedly do is namely tunnel through time to go instantaneously from one place inside the atom to another. That is, the electron can go from one place to another without traversing the space in between. This is one of quantum theory’s concepts accepted almost universally by the scientific establishment. The electron’s speed, if it was a thousand times the speed of light, would still be too slow, because it still is traversing the intervening space. Niels Bohr maintained this concept which has become known as a “quantum” – going from point A to point B without traversing the intervening space. He argued that this was reality and scientists must accept it. He did not realize when he adopted this concept that he was harking back to medieval supernatural theological philosophy. This was a question raised by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.

Niels Bohr was bringing science back to medieval theology and showed that an electron could defy the rules that apply to all physical entities. Let us look further into this concept. Max Planck explained that light coming out of the atom came out as discrete packets of energy called quanta. Seeing that there were several levels of these quanta, he devised a formula which fit these different levels. Niels Bohr, then understanding this, wrote formulas that allowed for these unique levels of energy but only on the supposition that when a photon struck an electron, the electron had to jump instantaneously from a lower orbit or place in the atom to another. If it moved through the intervening space, the energy would be smeared and not at only one unique level. He assumed that unique quantum behavior in the atom was required to explain this.

But can light exhibit quantum behavior outside the atom in the observable world as well as in the atom? And can it do so with physical bodies? If there is evidence that, in the observable physical universe, where bodies are moving with respect to one another through space, show light coming from these bodies that also exhibit clear quantum levels, then the basis upon which Bohr and the entire quantum establishment bases their case is false. (Karlsson effect I) (Karlsson effect II)

The Karlsson Effect: the redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks. (Karlsson effect III)

David Wick points to the way in which Niels Bohr derived the concept that electrons jump from one point to another without traveling the intervening space:

“Bohr’s scientific method at the time was opportunistic: he simply lifted relevant formulas from where they were available. For the dynamics of the electron’s orbit [around the atom’s nucleus], he used Newtonian mechanics. For the description of light emitted [and discrete bundles of energy], he assumed Maxwellian theory. But neither theory provided any justification for restricting [electron] orbits to discrete series, or any motivation for an electron to ‘jump’ from one orbit to another. Bohr’s model was a chimera: a quantum head grafted onto a classical body, with a tissue of ad hoc assumptions holding them together.

Read this one carefully...

Once we have become aware of this state of affairs, the epistemological question: “Do the electrons really exist in these orbits within the atom?” is to be answered with a decisive No, unless we prefer to say that the putting of the question itself has absolutely no meaning. Indeed there does not seem to be much sense in inquiring about the real existence of something, if one is convinced that the effect through which the thing would manifest itself, in case it existed, is certainly not observed. Despite the immeasurable progress which we owe to Bohr's theory, I consider it very regrettable that the long and successful handling of its models has blunted our theoretical delicacy of feeling with reference to such questions. We must not hesitate to sharpen it again, lest we may be in too great haste to content ourselves with the new theories which are now supplanting Bohr's theory, and believe that we have reached the goal which indeed is still far away.

E. Schroedinger

"Aside from the educators, who still present pure Bohr theory to all but their most advanced classes, just as if the clock had stopped about 1920, anyone who comments on the application of the Bohr theory to spectra other than those of hydrogen and singly- ionized helium uses the term “failure” rather than Born's “signal success,” and it is well recognized that it is this failure that has determined the fate of the original Bohr theory.

It has been pointed out that Bohr's original postulates were of a highly questionable nature. There is serious doubt whether postulates of this kind, postulates which in effect set up a separate universe subject to totally different physical laws, should ever be recognized as legitimate scientific practice. Certainly they are of such a dangerous character that if they are allowed at all they should only be permitted as a last resort after the most strenuous efforts to meet the situation by the usual sound and proven methods of science have failed.

Even if no other fault could be found with the procedure that was followed, the two years of study of the problem that intervened between Rutherford's hypothesis of 1911 and Bohr's postulates of 1913 were completely inadequate to justify taking such a leap in the dark as that represented by Bohr's theory.

Because if an object is in a stable circular orbit around another object, then its energy is zero.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Planetary model of the atom

mev2/r = e2/4πεor2o (a)

Etot =  e2/8πεoro (b)

The equilibrium equation (a) DOES NOT ENSURE the stability of the atom over an interval of time, since an electrical particle which is accelerating HAS TO EMIT ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, and the closed orbit is an accelerating path for the electron.

Therefore, the electron SHOULD LOSE ITS KINETIC ENERGY by emitting the electromagnetic energy.

Thus, the RADIUS of the orbit would decrease, the orbit itself would lose its equilibrium condition.


This is the basic contradiction of quantum mechanics.

Please read.

"Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.

Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 05:34:02 PM »
Height of Kanterra Castle (where that image is from) is 610 meters.  Average Height of Lebanon Mountains is 2500 meters.....  Distance to Lebanon Mountains varies a lot but let’s use 240 km as that looks about average.

Why not increase the altitude of the observer to 900 meters?

BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h2]1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer

h = 0.9 km
s = 233 km
R = 6378.164 km

BD = 1.242 km

On a spherical Earth, you could not see anything under 1.242km, yet we can see the full view of the mountains from Lebanon.

Funny, I worked on navy ships for several years, and even held a secret clearance, but never ran across any of the kind of equipment you say exists.

Nikola Tesla, using only longitudinal waves to transmit the equivalent of 1016 Joules of energy, for a distance of over 8,100 km (New York - Tunguska river), without radio towers: (three consecutive messages)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 02:56:55 PM »
You need to update your knowledge on the MMX: (part I) (part II)

If the phenomenon exists then I'm sure that you can develop some radio equipment that uses it. 

Whittaker proved the existence of the bidirectional longitudinal waves long ago:

Clearly the majority don't believe that they exist.  That's a HUGE advantage in business.  You could develop equipment and get some patents.

ONLY the various departments of defense (the military) are allowed to make use of the longitudinal waves: not even Tesla was allowed to make public this kind of knowledge.

What is a longitudinal wave?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 01:30:21 PM »
I still believe that microwaves are limited by the curvature of the earth.

The industry uses transverse waves, this is the basic limitation; just a ripple in the sea of ether.

These e/m waves also are subject to the ether wind: how come you are not complaining about this UNKNOWN, experimentally proven effect, which is not taken into consideration by modern science?

By all means, take that superior knowledge about the real form of the earth, and go out and make your fortune using that knowledge.

Just try and even mention longitudinal e/m waves to anyone in the scientific/educational establishment, and you'll see the results.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 28, 2018, 09:41:21 AM »
There are equations out there that show the effects of the environment and show the effects of the curvature of the earth on a microwave signal.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Here are both the FE and the RE equations for radar signal propagation: (page 10)

A more involved, theoretical, work explains the assumed effect of the atmosphere on the e/m signal (refractive index):

Page 3 of pdf document

explains the refractive effect (radio horizon factor)

Page 4 of the pdf document

The author clearly states that, if the atmosphere were homogeneous throughout the path, the microwave beam would travel in a straight path between the stations.

It is assumed that the earth bulge factor (k = 4/3) is due to the influence of the Earth's curvature.

However, this cannot be true.

Here are the extremely precise experiments carried out by Dr. Yuri Galaev on the ETHEREAL WIND effect on microwave signal propagation:

journal pgs 211-225

ETHERAL WIND IN EXPERIENCE OF MILLIMETRIC RADIOWAVES PROPAGATION Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine

Therefore, only Maxwell's original ether equations can be applied to analyze this situation, and not the censored/modifed Heaviside-Lorentz equations (which are valid only for Herztian waves).

A confirmation of Newton's own words:

Third Book of Opticks (1718): "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?"

The microwave signals currently used in the industry are HERTZIAN WAVES, transversal waves, which are ripples in the sea of ether.

Tesla used only NONHERTZIAN WAVES, longitudinal waves, to transmit signals.


Are you sure you want to bring Lebanon into our discussion?


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 27, 2018, 06:58:05 PM »
I had a dish antenna pointed at a satellite that was believed to be in synchronous earth orbit.  That means that the path length was thousands of miles.  I could receive a strong microwave signal that was usable 24 hours a day.

That signal you were receiving is subject to a delay: the Coriolis effect. However, the same signal IS NOT affected by either the rotational Sagnac effect or the orbital Sagnac effect.

This means that the Earth is stationary.

What is a radio wave?

A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.

Whittaker’s 1903 discovery that sets of longitudinal waves are the actual basis of all electromagnetic waves: Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.

There are equations available that describe the sight horizon and the radio horizon.

What? Equations?

Here are the original ether electromagnetic equations published by J.C. Maxwell:

They are invariant under Galilean transformations, which means the speed of light is variable.

Again, Whittaker showed in 1904 that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed into differential functions of two scalar potentials. Each of these two base scalar potentials can be decomposed by Whittaker's earlier 1903 paper into a set of longitudinal EM waves. All EM fields, potentials, and waves are comprised of longitudinal EM waves and their internal dynamics:

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 10, 2018, 10:10:21 AM »
If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.

Had the rotational Sagnac effect been recorded, then and only then you'd be able to claim MGX were standing on a rotating floor.

Unfortunately for the RE, Michelson's interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, registered ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. Not the rotational Sagnac effect, which is thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.

Two different formulas: one is proportional to the area of the interferometer (Coriolis effect), the other one is proportional to the velocity (radius of the earth x angular velocity) (Sagnac effect), a huge difference.

I have the formulas, you have nothing.

I win.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 10, 2018, 06:39:37 AM »
Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.

The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').




4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2

Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ

R = 4,250 km

h = 0.33924 km

The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.

Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°

Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°

R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885

hsinΦ = 0.225967

4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72


Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

Case closed.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 10, 2018, 05:29:18 AM »
Not only are you dreaming, you haven't even bothered to read Dr. Silberstein's paper.

Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.

Dr. Silberstein, right on the first page:




Even the main formula (12) takes into account the aether drag factor.

If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does

The ether drift is LATITUDE DEPENDENT, just like the globe earth Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating.

Not anymore.



The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 (appendix 5.1)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:


The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:


These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.

Please wake up!

Michelson published this formula, proven to be the Coriolis effect formula:


He emphasized that this is the Sagnac effect formula, which it is not.

Can you understand these basic things?


This means that the Earth is completely stationary.

Had the Earth been rotating around its own axis, BOTH EFFECTS would have been recorded.

The fringe shifts recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift: a physical effect upon the light beams, a simple deflection, just as proven by Dr. Silberstein.

No Sagnac effect was detected, which is an electromagnetic effect on the velocity of the light beams, an effect thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.

A total invalidation of your half-baked ideas.

Please do your homework before posting nonsense.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 09, 2018, 09:12:58 PM »
Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved".

You must be dreaming.

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein calculated the PRECISE deflection due to the Coriolis effect on a light beam:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

It is a physical effect.

Only the Sagnac effect will cause the modification of the velocity of the light beams.

You are most forgetful.

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

That is, the Earth does not rotate: only the Coriolis effect of the ether drift was registered by the fringe shifts of the interferometer.

If your drifting ether is rotating, but not visible, it will NOT create a Coriolis effect.

But it will: you need to understand the hydrodynamic ether equation.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

Now, an unbelievable fact.



The only term which looks like a correction is found on page 97:

-2RV/c2, where R is the position vector of the SV (space vehicle), and V is the velocity of the SV.


That is, the user manual treats the entire system AS IF the Earth is stationary.

The e/m signal from the satellite will encounter the ether drift: both a physical effect (Coriolis) and an electromagnetic Sagnac effect (density of ether at different altitudes) on the linear/translational/uniform light path.

A medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but can not make that wave follow a curved trajectory.

Your lack of knowledge is what is preventing you from reaching the correct conclusions.

Dr. Silberstein revealed the error committed by M. von Laue in the paper published in 1911:

"Laue seems, by the way, to be under the misapprehension that the light rays relative to the rotating table are straight lines, which they are not."

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.

The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921

Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.

He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.

He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:

dt = 2ωσ/c^2

Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).

The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.

The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

A = σ1 + σ2

That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.

In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:

In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 09, 2018, 05:29:17 PM »
You haven't studied the subject.

The "Sagnac" effect is not needed at all if light anisotropy is assumed:

But the correction mentioned by Ashby is NOT the rotational Sagnac effect: it is, in fact, the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the e/m signal.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« on: October 09, 2018, 04:40:00 PM »
Actually, the Sagnac effect, as well as other relativistic effects, are considered in GPS calculations.

Let us see the formula which N. Ashby puts forth in front of his readers: (page 10)

But this is the Coriolis effect formula: area x angular velocity.

You haven't done your homework on this one either.

In fact, Ashby himself accepts the fact that the correction is caused by the Coriolis effect:

"In the rotating frame of reference the effect appears to arise from a Coriolis-like term in the fundamental scalar invariant." (page 19 from the paper).

It is not the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT they are measuring, in fact it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.

No rotational Sagnac effect is being observed/recorded.

No orbital Sagnac effect is being registered at all.

That is why the relativists are accepting the local-aether model.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38  Next >