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 ... 42  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Numerical method for satellite orbits
« on: May 06, 2019, 09:50:23 AM »
The manner in which you formulate your own sentences about these matters betrays your lack of expertise. It may be convincing to the uninitiated, but to a trained physicist it becomes immediately obvious that you are not really understanding what you write.

You have just presented two papers which describe UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL orbital mechanics: the application of the Runge-Kutta method and ephemeris calculations.

Is this your current level of understanding of the orbital equations of motion of a satellite?

This piece serves as illustration that Newtonian dynamics are not only solvable for explaining and modeling orbits, but also used to position artificial satellites around objects in our solar system.

You really need to update your knowledge on the subject.

Here is the equation of motion describing the librational motion of an arbitrarily shaped satellite in a planar, elliptical orbit:

(1 + εμcosθ)ψ" - 2εμsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3Kisinψcosψ = 0

ψ' = δψ/δθ

Ki = (Ixx - Izz)/Iyy

εμ = eccentricity of the orbit

For small ε, and using 1/(1 + εμcosθ) = 1 - εμcosθ + O(ε2), we obtain


ψ" + 3Kisinψcosψ = ε[2μsinθ(ψ' + 1) + 3μKisinψcosψcosθ] + O(ε2)

This is a fully nonlinear ordinary differential equation (initial conditions). For weakly nonlinear ODE, we can use methods such as multiple scaling and averaging.

For a fully nonlinear ODE, we need very advanced perturbation techniques: the Melnikov method.

Even for a simpler version of this fully nonlinear differential equation, the orbit of a tethered satellite system, we will get chaotical motions for realistic/real flight parameters:

http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/ifme/zeitschrift_tm/1996_Heft4/Peng.pdf

In theory, time delay feedback control methods are used to try to minimize the chaotical motion; however, in real time flight, parameters values can and will exceed the data used in the theorized version.

The undergraduate papers you presented amount to nothing at all: they ASSUME that the orbital equations motion can be integrated without having to take into consideration the THEORETICAL aspects of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations.


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 05:59:23 PM »
The Tunguska event was not visible from London.

But it was.





A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.



A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation.

Your model doesn't explain Tunguska either, it was in Siberia, meaning that it was thousands of kilometers away from London, so it shouldn't be seen


But it does.

The telluric currents (ether) were activated by the formidable explosion of the two ball lightning spheres created by Tesla, the light of the explosion was seen instantaneously from London.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

it very well be that the GPS satellites are already taking the Sagnac Effect into account.

They do not.

They take the rotational CORIOLIS EFFECT into account.

However, there is also AN ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECT, which is 30 times greater than the rotational CORIOLIS EFFECT, for the LISA satellite, which is not being registered/recorded by the GPS satellites.

This means that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:52:37 PM »
I also debunked your 1-11

You did not address the Tunguska event, the orbital GPS.

Please research these topics, using the links I provided: you will discover that you cannot explain these issues.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:43:16 PM »
12-25 + further answers

Read my AFET:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0 (21 pages, over 600 messages, all of the answers you were looking for; the unipolar/UN map is the wrong map, use the bipolar map; you can also search for other answers within my messages)

As for the SN 1987A, use google search: thunderbolts.info/forum SN 1987A

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 03:17:37 PM »
1-25

1. The Shadow Moon is transparent.

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".


The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

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

2. The resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon; here is the book of the luminaries (one of the oldest textbook on astronomy) explaining the phases of the moon on a flat earth:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_72

3. Asteroids are located outside of the dome. However, the dome has openings (called windows in the Book of Enoch); sometimes asteroids can pass through these windows.

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

5. You better not touch this one.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)

The orbital SAGNAC EFFECT is not being recorded by the GPS satellites.

6. The Aurora Borealis cannot be explained by an external stream of plasma/ions that are injected into the Earth's magnetic field.

The auroral displays are caused by the celestial object that orbits above the North Pole region.


http://hollowplanet.blogspot.ro/2007/09/earth-weaves-its-own-invisible-cloak.html

NASA Scientists Agree — Polar Ion Fountains Fill the Earth's Magnetosphere

http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Earth_weaves_its_own_invisible_cloak.pdf

"The perception started to change in the mid-1980s following the Aug. 3, 1981, launch of two Dynamics Explorer satellites designed to study the magnetosphere near the Earth. DE-1 carried Chappell's Retarding Ion Mass Spectrometer (RIMS), designed to measure the population of the plasmasphere, a torus or donut of low-energy in the inner magnetosphere.

To Chappell's surprise, the real find was around the north pole where RIMS measured gases flowing upward from the ionosphere into space."


Aurora is the sister of Luna and Sol. Also called Eos: sister of Helios (the sun) and Selene (the moon).

It only orbits above the North Pole, and the must be a counterpart orbiting the South Pole, which causes the Aurora Australis.

Greenland and parts of northern Canada and Russia experience light from the sun via Earth’s Aurora.

The hollow earth hypothesis suffers from the same problems as does the spherical earth theory: the curvature and the static gravitational field.

Aurora is documented in the various legends around the world: it is the "inner sun" of the hollow earth theory.

It also provides light in the northern and southern pole regions during some periods of the year.

Aurora, sister of the Sun and of the Moon:

http://www.theoi.com/Titan/Eos.html

7. You should never mention this one also, since then you'll have to explain the Tunguska explosion:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026 (two consecutive messages)

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

8. see #6

9. The Sun activates the quarks in the telluric waves. That is how you get light and heat near the surface of the Earth.

10. The color of Ketu, the Shadow Moon is red, the color of the Black Sun (the heavenly body which causes the solar eclipse) is a very deep red.

11. You should better leave this one untouched as well.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (two consecutive messages)



6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: April 27, 2019, 06:37:35 PM »
we know the conditions NOW, and so we can use them to model it going forward.

You cannot assume anything beyond a time period of 300 years (past and future).

How can you assume NOW that the conditions belong to a heliocentrical planetary system, when the best mathematicians find themselves helpless in deriving the initial conditions, a fact which precludes you from stating that the heliocentrical system is true.

You cannot model anything since even the events of some 2000 years ago (official chronology of history) have been proven astronomically (using  the Gauss Easter formula) to have never existed in the first place:

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

Could the three body problem paradox stem from the fact that the Newtonian equations of orbital motion might be incorrect?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: April 27, 2019, 05:41:53 PM »
KAM theory consequence: the motions are quasi-periodic. This is absolutely fine and fits well with how we understand the solar system.

But it can't be fine.

All Hamiltonian systems which are not integrable are chaotic.

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

KAM theory is valid for "sufficiently" small perturbations.

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

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

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

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

Lyapunov exponents and symplectic integration.

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

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

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

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine

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

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

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

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

OFFICIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION

Four stages of planetary formation

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

Early stage: growth of grains to kilometer-sized planetesimals

Middle stage: agglomeration of planetesimals

Late stage: protoplanets


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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the set of Lorenz equations:



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




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

Dr. Robert W. Bass

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

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

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

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

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

Dr. E.W. Brown

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

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

Dr. W.M. Smart

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







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

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 04:14:25 PM »
They have to say that it came from some other solar system, in order not to arouse suspicions or too many questions.

"If cometary outgassing is ruled out and the inferred excess force is real, only one possibility remains: an extra push due to radiation pressure from the sun."

Abraham Loeb is chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, founding director of Harvard's Black Hole Initiative and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

This is an IOP article.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaeda8/pdf

Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 02:38:28 PM »
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.

You haven't done your homework.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf

From a theoretical point of view, Rafikov (2018) has shown that if outgassing was responsible for the acceleration (as originally proposed by Micheli et al. 2018), then the associated outgassing torques would have driven a rapid evolution in ‘Oumuamua’s spin, incompatible with observations.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/

The extra push for ‘Oumuamua could have originated by cometary outgassing if at least a tenth of its mass evaporated. But such massive evaporation would have naturally led to the appearance of a cometary tail, and none was seen. The Spitzer telescope observations also place tight limits on any carbon-based molecules or dust around ‘Oumuamua and rule out the possibility that normal cometary outgassing is at play (unless it is composed of pure water). Moreover, cometary outgassing would have changed the rotation period of ‘Oumuamua, and no such change was observed.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830

The lack of evidence for outgassing means that the purely observational prior favours an asteroid-like composition.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06389.pdf

However, a recent measurement by Micheli et al (2018) of a substantial non-gravitational acceleration affecting the orbit of this object has been interpreted as resulting from its cometary activity, which must be rather
vigorous. Here we critically re-assess this interpretation by exploring the implications of measured
non-gravitational acceleration for the ’Oumuamua’s rotational state. We show that outgassing torques
should drive rapid evolution of ’Oumuamua’s spin (on a timescale of a few days), assuming torque
asymmetry typical for the Solar System comets. However, given the highly elongated shape of the
object, its torque asymmetry is likely higher, implying even faster evolution. This would have resulted
in rapid rotational fission of ’Oumuamua during its journey through the Solar System and is clearly
incompatible with the relative stability of its rotational state inferred from photometric variability.
Based on these arguments, as well as the lack of direct signs of outgassing, we conclude that the
classification of ’Oumuamua as a comet (invoked to explain its claimed anomalous acceleration) is
questionable.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 10, 2019, 07:11:05 PM »

12
Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move
« on: March 25, 2019, 04:53:50 AM »
There is no such thing as a "relativistic treatment":

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13863.msg185999#msg185999 (comparison of the Sagnac effect with the relativistic approach)

In their formidable treatise, Sungenis and Bennett never address the fact that the formula put forth by Michelson was claimed to be the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference, which immediately ends any debate on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. If the RE bring forth the HAMMAR experiment as well, they can defy any arguments forwarded by the FE regarding the ether drift.

That is why my formula becomes crucial in these kinds of debates, as the youtube flat earthers found out very fast once they started performing the RLG experiments.

13
Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move
« on: March 24, 2019, 05:50:29 PM »
Sungenis and Bennett published a classic work, Galileo Was Wrong, a 1000+ page book. In that book, and also in the video, mention is made of the Michelson-Gale experiment (1925).

All of the geocentrists do not understand or fail to acknowledge that they have no argument whatsoever against either MGX or the ring laser gyroscopes experiments, since the RE will claim that the formula used in these experiments is the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference (exactly as Michelson and Gale did back in 1925). Once this claim is made, there is nothing else the geocentrists (or the FE) can do but accept defeat. Unless the geocentrists (including Sungenis and Bennett) and all of the FE make use of my global/generalized SAGNAC EFFECT formula, the RE will always have the upper hand: no seismic waves or Earth-line arguments is going to help them argue the very clear results measured/registered with the ring laser gyroscopes. The RE claim that these RLGs are measuring the SAGNAC EFFECT, thus they are measuring ROTATION.

Here is the correct global SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

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

What Michelson did is to SUBSTITUTE the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT formula: a light interferometer can register/record BOTH these effects.


14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 17, 2019, 04:38:48 PM »
ISS/Venus/Atlantis/Mercury solar transits:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

Double transit Mercury/ISS and lunar transits/double Venus/Hubble transit:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

Extended Schroeter effect - the Evening and the Morning stars are two different planets:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

Eosphorus and Hesperus:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1650377#msg1650377

Ammizaduga Venus tables: markedly different orbit than the present day trajectory

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


15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 16, 2019, 05:53:45 AM »
Obviously the source of oil is abiogenic.

What about peak oil? This refers to the "conventional" oil production.

To reach the abiotic oil would require hundreds of billions/trillion of dollars of investment. Rigs would have to be created to reach at depths of 30-40 km. There is a huge problem of retrieval.

The main problem with peak oil/"conventional" oil production is the ENERGY RETURNS ON ENERGY INVESTED (EROEI) and deliverability (a term invented by Dr. Tim Morgan).

Another way to look at the
deliverability issue is that reserves
need to be quality-weighted. We may
have used up much less than half
of the world’s originally-recoverable
reserves of oil, but we have, necessarily,
resorted first to those reserves which
are most readily and cheaply recovered.
The reserves that remain are certain to
be more difficult and costlier to extract.

https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

An absolute decline in available energy
volumes, serious though that would
be, is not the immediate concern. The
truly critical issue is the relationship
between energy extracted and the
amount of energy consumed in the
extraction process. Known as the
Energy Return on Energy Invested
(EROEI), this is the ‘killer equation’
where the viability of the economy is
concerned. Put very simply, there is
no point whatsoever in producing
100 barrels of oil (or its equivalent in
other forms of energy) if 100 barrels
(or more) are consumed in the
extraction process.

Believers in peak oil have seen this
progression as an indication of evergrowing reserves stress, which indeed
it is. But the real economic significance
of this progression lies in a rapid
deterioration in EROEIs rather than in
an exhaustion of absolute reserves. The
overall EROEI of the North Sea today
may be no higher than about 5:1, a
far cry from ratios in excess of 100:1
yielded by the pioneering discoveries
in the sands of Arabia.




16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 15, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?
« on: March 15, 2019, 01:31:48 PM »
GPS technology was invented by Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, in 1955, at the age of 26: proposing to put atomic clocks into artificial satellites.

But Dr. Winterberg is also one of the best proponents of the ether theory of the 20th century.


http://zfn.mpdl.mpg.de/data/Reihe_A/44/ZNA-1989-44a-1145.pdf

Substratum Interpretation of the Sagnac and the Aharonov-Bohm effect

Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg

Ph.D., Physics 1955 Max Planck Institute, Goettingen, Germany (Adv: Prof. W. Heisenberg)
1968-Present Professor of physics, University of Nevada Reno
1955-1959 Group leader theoretical physics division at nuclear research reactor in Hamburg, Germany, under President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program
Elected member International Academy of Astronautics, Paris, France.
Member of American Physical Society.
Recipient of the 1979 Hermann Oberth Gold Medal (the highest award in astronautical research given for his work on nuclear rocket propulsion).
More than 260 single author papers in refereed journals, two books, with many citations, including citations by the NY Times, Scientific American, Physics Today et al., 55 publications since 1992.


Now, what the RE have to explain is the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT for GPS satellites, an effect which is 60 times greater than the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1983786#msg1983786 (four consecutive messages)

18
That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones).

You are following the lines of thought expounded long ago by Paul Langevin, who was proven wrong by the experiments carried out by Dufour and Prunier (in France, 1937) and by Herbert Ives in 1938.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311 (Dufour-Prunier experiment)

A. Dufour and F. Prunier created Sagnac interferometers that were composites of moving and stationary paths, including stationary sources and stationary detectors. This was essentially to test if the relativistic approach could be distinguished from the classical approach.

"In all cases of this experimental test, the Sagnac effect was the same. This overturned Langevin’s analysis, and in 1937, he had to revise his explanation, as pointed out by Kelly: 

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

(but not linearly accelerating ones)




https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: March 09, 2019, 04:01:50 PM »
Now, let us examine the most fundamental problem with QFT: faster than light particles.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00696109

Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication

Phillippe H. Eberhard, Ronald R. Ross
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5604n7md

SUPERLUMINAL J.C. MAXWELL ETHER EQUATIONS:

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

Experimental proof of faster than light gravitational waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1943468#msg1943468

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1943625#msg1943625 (Walker-Dual experiment)

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:22:33 PM »
For a geometrical description, we need to consider Einstein's field equations, which are 16 coupled tensor equations that describe how energy density impacts the geometry of space.

There is no such thing as TGR:

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

The triple alpha reaction produces carbon from 3 helium nuclei.

There is no such thing as the triple alpha process/helium flash:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1885776#msg1885776 (two consecutive messages)

In QFT, a graviton would be a vector boson exchange between two massive particles.

So, you are relying on Feynman's ideas on the subject.

Particle A emits a graviton, which is then absorbed by Particle B.

Where does this graviton originate from? HOW is it absorbed by particle B? How does the iron/nickel core emit these gravitons? Is it a one time affair, five billion years ago, or are they emitted continuously? How do these graviton strings, connecting the core to the objects/plants/animals on the surface, know how to anticipate the next move of a person? Does a person simply slide through these graviton strings, which then attach themselves to each atom of the body in no time at all, or do the original graviton strings simply travel along with the person on the surface?

What force permits these gravitons to travel along with the Earth on the 30km/s orbit around the Sun?

You see, by stating that particle B absorbs the graviton, you have just moved the original attractive paradox to a more infinitesimal level. Describe the absorption mechanism. Would object B (particle B) be attracted to object A through these vector exchange bosons? In effect, this means that there is huge number of vector exchange strings (made up of bosons) between any two objects.

However, we have the flux of gravitons paradox which casts a huge shadow (no pun intended) on this sort of mechanism.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (second part of the message)

Moreover, QFT is formulated in a 4-dimensional space time continuum which does not exist at all.

And the gravitons would have to be massless and have spin 2.

Hence, gravitons do not attract each other.

In the Feynman diagrams, the graviton is what is being exchanged for two particles to feel an attractive force.

Still, you have to explain the attractive mechanicsm at the quantum level.

And there are huge problems with the graviton imbedded in space time.

"The graviton particle is chosen with the right mathematical characteristic to quantizegravity in accordance with quantum field theory and general relativity. These attempts however, failto account for the origin of space-time curvature. Specifically, how does a graviton producecurvature when propagating from one mass to another? Does the graviton move in an alreadyexisting 4D space-time curvature? If it does, how is the space-time produced by the graviton? Ifnot, how is 4D space-time curvature produced? In other words, if the 4D space-time curvature isnot caused by the graviton exchanges, then what is the cause?"


Let us take a look at what we do definitely know about gravitons, as proven by E.T. Whittaker in 1903 and 1904.

"Whittaker figured out using partial differential equations what the waveform structure functions and dynamics of gravitational field effects are. And he demonstrated in his papers that gravitational field effect is a product of finer scale interactions. It has a waveform, it can be mitigated by the imposition of external forces, it is predictable and it operates according to certain rules."

"Whittaker’s decomposition of potentials and fields. In 1903 and 1904, E. T. Whittaker published two fundamental papers of interest to (i) the "infolding" of longitudinal wave (LW) electrodynamics inside the scalar potential, and also (ii) the expression of any EM field or wave as comprised of two potentials with appropriate differential functions applied.

For any EM field or wave: Suppose the two potentials are taken as scalar potentials (as advanced by Whittaker in 1904), and each of these two “basis potentials” is also first decomposed into longitudinal EM waves as shown by Whittaker in 1903, and then the appropriate differential functions are applied to each of the two decompositions, yielding the necessary EM field or wave pattern. Then all EM potentials, fields, and waves are shown (i) to be sets of ongoing EM energy flows in the form of longitudinal EM waves comprising the basis scalar potential(s), and (ii) to be comprised of internal longitudinal EM waves and strong internal structuring.

Scalar Interferometry: It follows that longitudinal EM wave interferometry (e.g., interfering the inner structures of two scalar potential beams in a distant interference zone in space), can create any known EM field or wave or pattern."

The hidden internal wave structures exist in all scalar potentials.


So, what Whittaker discovered is that QFT in Minkowski spacetime continuum NEEDS a region where the spacetime is flat to compute these states.

"Einstein unwittingly restricted general relativity to a subset of the theory he intended to write. This over-restriction was again an indirect result of the fundamental Heaviside/Gibbs error in electromagnetics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As can be seen, Einstein unwittingly wrote only a subset of his intended theory. Correct restatement of his overstated postulate of uncurved spacetime dramatically extends general relativity, and unites it with electromagnetics in a unified field theory."

"Whittaker showed that a scalar EM potential is comprised of bidirectional EM wave pairs, where the pairs are harmonics and phase-locked together. In each coupled wave/antiwave pair, a true forward-time EM wave is coupled to a time-reversal of itself -- its phase conjugate replica antiwave.

To understand scalar EM, as we said, you must understand that there are actually two kinds of electromagnetics. One is -- so to speak -- only on the external "surface magnitude' of the vacuum potential, and the other is in the interior of the vacuum potential. The exterior kind is spatial in nature; the interior kind is hyperspatial in nature.
The exterior kind of EM is caused or due to the potential magnitudes and their gradients, interacting with charged particles (forcefields); that's the "normal" kind. In that kind the theoretical EM model's focus is on the forcefields as causes, with the potentials themselves just regarded as mathematical conveniences. Certainly that "normal" EM does not contain any sort of organized EM structure inside, and composing, the scalar EM potential. It just models the scalar potential at a point as a magnitude, and the vector potential at a point as a magnitude and direction. Notice it thus models only local action; it does not model any sort of action at a distance. The EM action is considered -- and described in the classical EM model -- as existing at a point in space and time. Further, the local spacetime itself is considered not to have any direct causative EM interaction there. In other words, there are assumed to be no local vacuum engines -- no Whittaker activation of mass or the local vacuum.

There's also an internal EM, normally completely inside the scalar potential, which exists as "infolded" harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs. Whittaker 1903 describes that kind of EM. This internal EM was in Maxwell's original quaternion equations, hidden in the scalar component resultant that remained when the directional components of quaternions interacted to form directional zero resultants. The scalar component resultant of the interaction often still remained, and infolded inside itself (i.e., it then consisted of) scalar and vector functions of the yet-present-and-interacting component vectors.

Today that part of Maxwell's original theory just appears in classical EM Heaviside/Gibbs theory as a vector zero resultant, which is erroneously discarded as if it were a complete absence of EM. It is no such thing; it is merely the absence of EM translation of charged particles. It indeed is a patterned EM-induced gravitational stress in local spacetime, and it is a little "vacuum engine" capable of working directly on the atomic nucleus. If you want to know what all the fuss about the difference between Maxwell's 200-odd quaternion equations EM theory and the Heaviside/Gibbs four vector equations curtailment/subset, just look at the difference between a zero vector result and a quaternion resultant, in an interaction where the vector resultant is zero but the scalar component of the quaternion resultant remains. Specifically, look mathematically at the internal functional nature of that remaining scalar resultant -- the part that's thrown away in the present theory.

Note that the internal EM is more than just a model of conditions at a point. In addition to that, it prescribes a hyperspatial, bidirectional flow of EM transverse wave energy at the point, into and out of it, into it from afar and away from it back to afar, on an infinite number of phase-locked frequencies. In other words, the internal EM energetically connects conditions at a point with essentially all the other points in the universe. And when we interfere two such scalar potentials, we are actually interfering both of those sets of an infinite number of bidirectional EM waves. (See Whittaker's second paper, 1904). It doesn't matter where the interference zone occurs; it can be a million miles away, or a light-year away. The interference accomplishes "outfolding," and creates "normal" or "exterior" EM effects. Specifically, it creates force fields and patterns of them -- both static and dynamic -- on charged particle systems. The internal EM thus prescribes and models action at a distance, and incorporates the "normal" exterior EM as a special case of local scalar interferometry. Whittaker rigorously proved this mathematically.

To first order, the G-potential is a function of the trapped local EM energy density of the vacuum (bidirectional longitudinal waves).

Not only is the mass potential a scalar EM potential, but it is also a gravitational potential. Note that the concept of the mass potential is a unifying field concept, for unifying gravity and EM fields.

The beauty of the mass potential concept is fourfold: (1) Now mass has a universal kind of organized EM internal structure, given by Whittaker's 1903 paper, that comprises the mass in the first place, (2) the hidden internal EM structure of the mass potential can be changed and engineered at will, electromagnetically, by external means and directly, (3) we now have direct electrogravitation, opening up the vista of directly engineering antigravity."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42  Next >