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 ... 40  Next >
1
The global acceleration equation includes at least four components; Newton only introduced to the public one of them, the radial term.



The other three components come into play ONLY when an object is subjected to the forces of TORSION.

That is why long range artillery ballistics is one of the best proofs that the Earth is flat.

Here are the precise calculations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2032069#msg2032069

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2029817#msg2029817 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2106204#msg2106204 (part III)

That is why no other FE, ever, has been able to address this most important issue; until now...

2
All of you here are assuming that terrestrial gravity is attractive, and it is not.

That is why the equations presented here, including the infinite earth plane hypothesis, are not correct.

You have to explain the attractive mechanism in order to claim that F=GMm/r^2.

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth
« on: February 15, 2019, 10:24:24 AM »
These proofs already exist.

TUNGUSKA EVENT

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026

GLOBAL/GENERALIZED SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

This is the ultimate formula in all of physics: it reveals each and every hidden aspect of the universe, how it works, why and how.

As for the other eight proofs, all you have to do is to show that terrestrial gravity cannot be attractive: the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, the Biefeld-Brown effect, the Allais effect, Whittaker's scalar wave/potential mathematical proof, Maxwell's original ether equations... the fact that the extended arctangent series must have been used at Gizeh to obtain the value of the angle of the outer casing of the pyramid.

4
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Top 20 Theodor Adorno Songs
« on: February 12, 2019, 12:08:10 PM »
All of my messages from the only1rad.proboards website on the Beatles, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen can be found here:


Beatles update (August 7 - October 8 )

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1082425#msg1082425

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1086205#msg1086205 (Nov. 13, Nov. 30, Dec. 9, 2018, Beatles series continues: the origin of Lady Madonna, We Are The Champions was a Beatles song)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1126290#msg1126290 (Beatles series, Dec. 24, 2018, Jan. 15, 2019, Jan. 22, 2019 episodes; we will find out how Pink Floyd's best known songs, especially Shine On You Crazy Diamond, are actually modifications of other Beatles songs, also an analysis of RHCP's best songs in the context of Beatles super hits)

(Adorno-Beatles-Led Zeppelin-Jethro Tull-Rolling Stones connection), Jan. 5 2016 to May 28, 2018:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1079187#msg1079187

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1079938#msg1079938

The first three-four pages of my AFET also contain other messages on how the Beatles songs were copied from classical scores.

My research has uncovered the following facts:

Sgt. Pepper is a modified overture from the Barber of Seville by Rossini.

We Are The Champions was originally a Beatles song, a modified Piano Concerto No.1 by Tchaikovsky.

Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a modified Dig A Pony (Beatles).

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 03, 2019, 08:58:29 AM »
Here are the Galaev experiments, the most thorough ever undertaken:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

A direct proof of the existence of aether.

Here is the mathematical proof of the existence of longitudinal waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

A vector field is the outward manifestation of the potential, the ether, longitudinal scalar waves.


Martin Ruderfer published one of the most sensational experiments of the 20th century and beyond.

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

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp
191-192

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

This is the reason why Einstein's relativity is being thrown aside, and mainstream physicists are embracing MLET (a local aether model).

Mainstream physicists such as C.C. Su, Ruyong Wang, Ron Hatch, Tom van Flandern, S.L. Gift are publishing their local-aether in the best scientific journals, including IOP articles.

The fact that the orbital Sagnac is not being registered by GPS satellites has changed everything.

The local-aether model can no longer be denied or ignored.


Here is the most mainstream proof of them all: the AHARONOV-BOHM EFFECT, which has been documented again and again for the past 50 years.

The seminal Aharonov-Bohm paper:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4323049/

The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy, A. Tonomura (state of the art proofs of the Aharonov-Bohm effect)


6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 10:25:25 PM »
I don't think gravity has ever been observed or measured to be anything other than an attractive force has it?

The thing is that it has never been proven to be attractive.

No I cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other. As far as I know no one can as the graviton is still a hypothetical particle. 

Then, you have no attractive gravity at all.

You must, then, accept Newton's beautiful analysis:

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


Here is another expert opinion: the best mathematician of the 18th century, one of the best physicists of all time.

“Now, in whatever way we imagine the cause of gravity, as it is the effect of the pressure of a fluid, the force with which each molecule is pushed will always be proportional to the extension or the volume of that molecule. Indeed it is a general rule of hydrostatics that fluids act according to the volumes: a body immersed in water is always pushed by a force equal to the weight of an equal volume of water, but in an opposite direction.”

“the matter which constitutes the subtle fluid, cause of the gravity, is of an utterly different nature from the matter, of which all sensible bodies are composed. There will hence be two kinds of matter, one which provides the stuff to all sensible bodies, and of which all particles have the same [high] density [...]; the other kind of matter will be that of which the subtle fluid, which causes gravity, and which we name ether, is composed of. It is probable that this matter has always the same degree of density, but that this degree is incomparably smaller than that of the first kind.”

L. Euler, “Recherches physiques sur la nature des moindres parties de la matiere,” in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Series Tertia, Pars Prima (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig and Bern 1911), pp. 3–15

Those who attribute gravity to an attractive force of the Earth base their opinion mainly on the fact that otherwise no origin could be displayed for this force. But since we proved that all bodies are surrounded with ether and are pressed by the elastic force of the latter, we do not need to search elsewhere the origin of gravity. Only if the pressure of the ether would be everywhere the same, which assignment is indistinguishable from that of its equilibrium, would the bodies be equally pressed from every side, and thus would not be induced in any motion. But if we assume that the ether around the Earth is not in equilibrium, and that instead its pressure becomes smaller as one comes closer to the Earth, then any given body must experience a stronger pressure downwards on its superior surface that it does upwards on its inferior surface; it follows that the downwards pressure will have the advantage and hence that the body will really be pushed downwards, which effect we call gravity, and the downwards-pushing force the weight of the body.”

L. Euler, “Von der Schwere und den Kraften so auf die himmlischen Korper wirken,” in Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Series Tertia, Pars Prima (B. G. Teubner, Leipzig and Bern 1911), pp. 149–156

(translation by Dr. M. Arminjon)

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 09:59:41 PM »
pull

Did you mention the word "pull"?

By all means please explain how two objects are pulled to each other.

Let's see what Newton has to say on the subject.


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


Two bodies are pulled to each other by an external pressure.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 08:26:21 PM »
Gravity

What hard evidence do you have

Sure.

Can you explain to your readers the attractive mechanism? The hard evidence you have for your hypothesis that any satellite orbits above the earth using an attractive gravitational force?

Let me explain to you the enormity of your claim.


Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

You cannot resort to general relativity: I can immediately point out how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 crucial solar eclipses data, show you the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.

You claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive, yet you cannot explain the mechanism.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

What you are telling your readers is even worse than Aristotle's Credo Quia Absurdum Est (I believe because it is absurd).

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.


Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

Take a look at how Einstein faked the 1919/1922 data for general relativity:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

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


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://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erroneous claim regarding the speed of light:



Here is the original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations, which prove that the speed of light is variable and not constant:



There is no such thing as general relativity.



9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 07:00:06 PM »
No problem.

Then, please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

You want to use gravitons?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

Can you explain the attractive mechanism?

You have to, if you expect your readers to believe you that satellites orbit the earth according to an attractive law of gravity.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 06:55:15 PM »
All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect and orbit at a much lower altitude than thought. However, you should be concerned about the fact that the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect at all.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 05:38:27 PM »
You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm

How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?

They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.


http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos

A brief excerpt.

How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 01:17:22 PM »
A. Michelson received the Nobel prize (1907) for the wrong formula (published in 1904 and 1887).

He ascribed the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for this Sagnac interferometer:





No other physicist was able to derive the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula, not Lorentz, Einstein, Miller, Pauli, Post, no one else knew what to do with Sagnac interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation.

Until now:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 12:55:25 PM »
You need to go back to the original definition given by Gaspard de Coriolis:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/compoundcentrifugalforce.pdf

And also understand that Newton (or the group of people who wrote the works attributed to Newton) presented to the public ONLY the radial component of gravity.

Here is the complete general acceleration equation:



There are THREE more components in the true equation of acceleration.

It is these three additional terms, craftily removed from the eyes of physicists, which explain the Coriolis effect, the Sagnac effect, the Kozyrev effect, the DePalma effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2033009#msg2033009

Now, we can add even two more terms to the acceleration equation: the vorticity of the electromagnetic potential and the vorticity of the superpotential (Biefeld-Brown effect and the acoustic levitation phenomenon).

Most physicists do not understand that the Newtonian acceleration is concerned only with the radial component, having left out the other three essential terms of the equation.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 12:12:11 PM »

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 21, 2019, 09:47:58 AM »
If the UAFE are happy, no matter what, with their upward moving Earth, then so be it. It is only that now, instead of arguing/debating about the shape of the Earth itself, they find themselves in endless discussions trying to feverishly prove their main assertion (upward moving earth due to the UA).

As for the lunar eclipse...

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which
eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks: in fact read this extraordinary work:


http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".


what has the ether got to do with an object which is a disc but can be seen as a disc from any angle?

It does because it provides the necessary indices of refraction to produce this marvelous effect.

It is the same ether which causes the modified speed of light (ham radio bounce to the moon): it takes 2.5 seconds for the wave to reach the Moon, over a very small distance, it is the density of the ether waves which cause this phenomenon.

All I have to do is to provide the proofs for the existence of the ether.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 21, 2019, 06:46:08 AM »
When things fall, it is being pushed downwards towards the earth by the ether. Is that correct?

The push is at the quantum level, not on the outside surface of a body.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796 (sealed plastic bottle, brought down from a higher altitude to a lower altitude is slowly imploding, the aether is being removed)

“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.”

how would you explain this to be possible?


So what shape is a sun which can be seen as a circular disc from every angle?

You, just like the UAFE, are forgetting about the existence of the ether.

Your next statement will be: show me proof of the existence of the ether.

I have the formulas, you have nothing.

Here is the CORRECT GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351



This is a Nobel prize level formula (Michelson was awarded the Nobel for the wrong formula).

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 09:32:14 PM »
The speed of light changes when you point it upwards or downwards, as to have an opposite effect in either direction?

Of course it will change, since the speed of light depends on the density of the layers of ether, which are distributed vertically (and also according to the latitude): that is how you can explain why the lunar ham radio signals take 2.5 seconds using a few thousands of km distance, otherwise your UAFE won't save you.

Without the ether theory, you might have something there; however, the ether theory provides a much better explanation for the same phenomenon.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 09:24:07 PM »
I have just disproven the UAFE using the Sagnac effect: a direct experiment performed by two of the best experts in the world on the subject.

Yet, here you are calling upon the Pound-Rebka experiment to try to get something going.

Both you and the RE are assuming a constant speed of light.

In the ether theory, the shifts are caused by the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.

You are using the modified Heaviside-Lorentz equations, not the original Maxwell equations which are superluminal.

It is very easy prove this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884

Now, did you know that the equivalence principle of Einstein is FALSE?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1964696#msg1964696


19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 09:16:03 PM »
including doppler shift of light when it is pointed upwards or downwards

Your explanation for the Pound-Rebka experiment is actually worse than that provided by the RE.

Here is the correct explanation.

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

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


relativistic time dilation

For you to defend FET using relativity is beyond belief.

TGR/TSR are incompatible with FET.

There is no such thing as a relativistic time dilation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 09:07:40 PM »
Your UAFE has been disproven, on a daily basis, for the past ten years, but you are not there to listen, you are not paying attention.

You are actually a true believer in the INCLINED FLAT EARTH THEORY, since your UAFE plane MUST BE INCLINED at a slight angle, all the time.

You must understand that the MMX interferometer = the SGX interferometer, they are equivalent.

This much was proven by one of the greatest experts on the Sagnac experiment of the 20th century, E.J. Post.

E. J. Post, A joint description of the Michelson Morley and Sagnac experiments.
Proceedings of the International Conference Galileo Back in Italy II, Bologna 1999,
Andromeda, Bologna 2000, p. 62

E. J. Post is the only person to notice the substantial identity  between the 1925 experiment and that of 1887:

"To avoid possible confusion, it may be  remarked that the beam path in the more well-known Michelson-Morley interferometer, which was mounted on a turntable, does not enclose a finite surface area; therefore no fringe shift can be expected as a result of a uniform rotation of the latter".

E. J. Post, Reviews of Modern Physics. Vol. 39, n. 2, April 1967

What, then, did Michelson and Morley actually measure?

A. Michelson and E. Morley SIMPLY MEASURED THE CORIOLIS EFFECT OF THE ETHER DRIFT. Since they did not use a phase-conjugate mirror or a fiber optic equipment, the Coriolis force effects ("attractive" and "repulsive") upon the light offset each other.

The positive (slight deviations) from the null result are due to a residual surface enclosed by the multiple path beam (the Coriolis effect registered by a Sagnac interferometer). Dayton Miller also measured the Coriolis effect of the ether drift in his experiment (Mount Wilson, 1921-1924 and 1925-1926, and Cleveland, 1922-1924).

Dr. Patrick Cornille (Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetic Theory, pg. 141):



Dr. Patrick Cornille (Advanced Electromagnetism and Vacuum Physics, 2003, pg. 150-157) has provided a thorough examination of the fact that the Michelson-Morley interferometer is actually a Sagnac interferometer with zero area.




Here is your vertical SGX experiment:



The technology used in Doug Marrett's vertical Sagnac interferometer is the most advanced so far.

It uses a fiber-optic gyroscope (FOG).

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac/SagnacEarth.html

The experiment detected the CORIOLIS EFFECT, just like Michelson and Gale did.

BUT NOT THE SAGNAC EFFECT.

The vertical MMX or SGX does not record the SAGNAC EFFECT AT ALL.

Two very different formulas.

Here is the Coriolis effect formula:

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

It is a physical effect, and it is directly proportional to the area of the interferometer.

By contrast, the Sagnac effect formula is an electromagnetic effect, and is directly proportional to the velocity.



Here is the correct derivation of the Sagnac effect formula for an interferometer whose center of rotation does not coincide with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351


Therefore, all vertical MMX/SGX interferometer only measure the Coriolis effect, but not the Sagnac effect.

This means that the Earth does not move in a vertical direction at all.

Here is another experiment, performed by two of the greatest physicists in the world today:


The other question one might ask is at what level curvature is important--if it is circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect as Ashby claims, how much does the path have to deviate from a straight line to cause the effect? At Los Angeles the earth rotates about 27 meters during the nominal 70 millisecond transit time of the signal from satellite to receiver. The deviation of the 27 meter movement from the straight line chord distance is only 35 microns at its largest point. It certainly seems incredible that a 35 micron deviation from a straight line could induce a 27 meter change in the measured range.


As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals
which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)


The Universe has an edge; a direct proof using the DARK FLOW data:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995

Therefore, your precious UAFE must have an elliptical orbit, and not a straight vertical path.

Moreover, the flat earth will be inclined ALWAYS, as it does not travel upwards in a straight line.

How does the UAFE accelerator know where the edge of the universe is located, thus having the capacity to modify its trajectory/eccentricity accordingly?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 40  Next >