Skylab
« on: February 02, 2019, 04:36:53 PM »
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the Skylab missions?

Now, I won't attempt to do better what someone on this forum has done before, so instead I'll just show it. CriticalThinker started a very well informed, evidence based post asking the same question, sadly his thread was proliferated by offtopic posts. So here's his great post again.
I realize that not every member of the FE community believes that NASA is part of a great conspiracy, but I see a general consensus that the majority of the FE community believs that real people haven't been in space to see the curvature of the earth.

So I am interested in their take on certain aspects of this video taken in SkyLab in 1974 and released to the public in 1974.


Specific points of interest as follows.
@ 1:03 the man is able to accelerate his rotation too quickly to be an underwater environment.
@1:18-1:43 The three men execute intersecting 3d pathways that would make wire harnesses tangled, the video segment is too long to be explained by parabolic flight as it exceeds 20 seconds in duration and the SkyLab is too large of an internal volume to fit inside the largest aircraft available at that time.

Photo real CGI in 1974 was not available.


This video provides a time period correct comparison as this was made in 1972.


This is the same effects in 2013.  During the commentary they stated that they had to digitally erase the entire body and create a CGI one.  When you look at the movie footage, the CGI bodies just aren't quite right.  Even with today's technology they look off.


Notice how the actors on the wire harnesses don't intertwine the way the 3 men from the first video do.  That's because they can't.  Only distant background characters are on intersecting courses and they are fully CGI.  They clearly don't look like actual people.

Based on all of this, how did NASA fake the video from skylab in 1974 using 1974 technology?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Thank you CriticalThinker! Now, in addition to the points he's raised. What about this footage? This is a video demonstrating fluid experiments on the Skylab missions. How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI? The first CGI water was in 1995 with the movie The Abyss (https://www.filmsite.org/visualeffects14.html), and that doesn't look very real. According to wikipedia, the first realistic CGI was in 1995 with the movie Waterworld, so that certainly doesn't help FE'rs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_computer_animation_in_film_and_television)  How would NASA have that level of CGI more than 20 years before? I believe it was stack in a prior post who pointed out the difficulties of CGI water and how you would need server farms and such to pull it off, but he was referring to ISS footage, the same question still applies, how would NASA more than 20 years before that footage, pull off the same feat?



Edit: For all those who say the fluid stuff could be from parabolic flight, it can't be, 5:41 to 6:27 is longer than the 20 seconds of parabolic flight.

I'm very interested in an answer from Bishop and co., especially considering there is no mention in the TFES wiki of Skylab. And given the amount of offtopic posts in CriticalThinker's original thread and how whenever AATW mentions it in any of his posts, it's ignored, it's almost like FE'rs ignore the very existence of Skylab.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 04:47:00 PM by Bastian Baasch »
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #1 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.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2019, 06:48:22 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.
Where would the distant satellite be and how would the correct position be maintained?

Re: Skylab
« Reply #3 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.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2019, 06:56:07 PM »
Unfortunately, these are just internet ramblings with no actual evidence.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #5 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.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2019, 07:52:58 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.
The location of a satellite is clearly known, we know where to point our dishes.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2019, 08:06:29 PM »
You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.

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

Fake mission? From the source you provided, it admitted Skylab was real but the US government covered up how it was destroyed. Maybe think about oh I don't know, reading your sources before posting them. Also, he never provided any evidence, the page is basically a dude talking about his conspiracy theories without any evidence substantiating his claims (like seriously, this dude believes the Soviet Union basically made real life Terminators, just utter bs).

Just asking, how reliable do you think the above source you used is? The guy literally believes that President Carter was replaced by a robot, I don't think you do. Sounds like your source just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and you're just looking for what you think works for you (it says nowhere in the source Skylab was fake, only it's alleged deorbiting or whatever was faked), maybe check out this site https://www.rif.org , you could certainly make use of it's resources, instead of just copy pasting whatever link came up first in your google search for "Fake skylab", actually read the shit you're posting, and stop cherry picking, if you really believe Carter was a robot, then you've got bigger problems.

Now onto the rest of your wall of text.
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.

Interesting. So is there any actual evidence for any of this? You basically just gave us a blog post with nothing substantiating it. Can you show us the ad in question supposedly affirming this? Can you give us actual evidence the US government had invented CGI before academia? Because it seems a lot of the early development of CG happened in universities and research institutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computer_animation). Yes, JPL did hire some CG people (https://web.archive.org/web/20150724105628/http://design.osu.edu/carlson/history/tree/jpl.html), but that was for simulations.

Also, your source is talking about NASA making CGI planets for fake photographs, what does this have to do with CGI water (which is way more difficult)? What hard evidence do you have that NASA had CG tech before industry and academia? Your source is basically one guy's speculation from an ad.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 02:52:21 PM by Bastian Baasch »
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2019, 08:11:31 PM »
Quote
Then, please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Easy - its called gravity. However your understanding of gravity and mine are clearly different.


Also I cannot find any information about how the Biefield-Brown effect relates to satellites so perhaps you could point me in the right direction.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #9 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.



Re: Skylab
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2019, 08:43:31 PM »
That is all fascinating stuff. Really it is. Whether it is true or not I couldn't possibly say but if it is then I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject.

I meanwhile will content myself to knowing that the... what was it... oh yes trillions of billions of litres (we over here put the r before the e) of water are kept anchored to the Earth by what I understand to be the Earths gravitational pull. 

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. 

« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 08:52:01 PM by manicminer »

Re: Skylab
« Reply #11 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.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2019, 10:07:07 PM »
Ok lets use the word attractive rather than pull then if it suits you better.  I don't think gravity has ever been observed or measured to be anything other than an attractive force has it? Gravity therefore acts as an attractive force between any two particles with a measurable mass.
 
Since the Earth has a mass of some 6 million, million, million, million kgs, it has a slightly stronger gravitational field than your average water molecule. Hence the net force between the two is towards the Earth rather than away from it.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #13 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)

Re: Skylab
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2019, 10:37:30 PM »
Several references to the aether in your description.  When was that proven to exist?

Re: Skylab
« Reply #15 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)


Re: Skylab
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2019, 12:33:50 PM »
This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the SkyLab missions?

I guess they don't: they just send someone in to derail the thread with gish gallop, hope gravity gets a mention, and then sit back satisfied that a question buried is kind of the same as a question answered.

SkyLab is a great topic to address: there are so many good videos of the astronauts doing acrobatics up there in those pre-CGI days, with far longer shots than would be possible in a zero-G plane, as well as in a much larger area.

Also interesting to note how much more spacious and comfortable SkyLab was compared to the ISS. Space deniers bemoan the NASA budget, but back then they had some serious dollar to spend, and it showed. Such a shame those space stations have such a limited lifespan.

Here's a SkyLab clip I really like:



Thanks for posting the vids above. Great resource. :)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 08:46:00 AM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Re: Skylab
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2019, 04:37:27 PM »
sandokan copypasta™
more offtopic shit
another wall of text
damn, maybe you should work for the US government, Trump doesn't need money for a border wall, he just needs you to type it, how can illegals wade through your offtopic bs?

Sandokhan, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but can you please stay on topic? This thread was supposed to be a discussion of Skylab, and instead you're flooding it with your obfuscations. And manicminer, like come on man, you just keep on feeding him, just stop, the both of you. You both should know better. You want to talk gravity and aether, make your own thread.

This is one question I've never seen flat earthers answer: How do you explain the SkyLab missions?

I guess they don't: they just send someone in to derail the thread with gish gallop, hope gravity gets a mention, and then sit back satisfied that a question buried is kind of the same as a question answered.

SkyLab is a great topic to address: there are so many good videos of the astronauts doing acrobatics up there in those pre-CGI days, with far longer shots than would be possible in a zero-G plane, as well as in much larger area.

Also interesting to note how much more spacious and comfortable SkyLab was compared to the ISS. Space deniers bemoan the NASA budget now, but back then they had some serious dollar to spend, and it showed. Such a shame those space stations have such a limited lifespan.

Here's a SkyLab clip I really like:



Thanks for posting the vids above. Great resource. :)

Thank you Max, I really appreciate your post. That was basically why I made a new thread on Skylab, because it is such a good topic and there's a lot of footage out there to analyze and explain.

Seeing that the only ontopic FE response in this thread was based on the ramblings of a fringe conspiracy theorist and someone's blog post, the last Skylab thread was mostly offtopic ,and there is no mention whatsoever of Skylab in the wiki, I'm just gonna come out with the truth.
FE'ers can't explain Skylab so they either don't repsond, or hide behind offtopic posts. Like seriously, 162 views on this topic, and only one ontopic FE response? Well, I guess ignorance is bliss.
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2019, 10:26:30 AM »
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.
Actually, no I don't. All I have to do is observe that objects are attracted to one another which we can do by observing moons orbiting other planets and we can measure the level of attraction with things like the Cavendish experiment.
I don't need to understand the mechanism behind an effect to observe the effect exists.
Did rainbows only start existing once we understood the way light reflects and refracts through water droplets to cause the effect?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Skylab
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2019, 10:34:13 AM »
I just learned of websites where amateurs post photos they've taken of satellites and spacecraft from Earth. Here's one:

https://www.space.com/40-spotting-spaceships-earth.html
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, George Jetson, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).