*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2019, 10:57:24 PM »
[lots of words]
Since you're such an expert on the Biefield-Brown effect, why don't you tell me the voltage that you would need to apply to a 10 tonne aircraft to keep it levitating at 30,000 feet?
I would say that I'm eagerly anticipating your reply, but that's a total lie since we both know that you won't be able to give me a sensible answer, since you actually know nothing about the Biefield-Brown effect, and the chance that you will be able to produce a meaningful calculation is zero.

I can almost taste the word salad that you're about to post. Please prove me wrong.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2019, 04:55:38 AM »
Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2019, 07:52:31 AM »
Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

How did you arrive at those figures?

In any case it wouldn't work for 2 reasons:
1) The increased heat signature defeats the entire point of the B-2's overall stealth design
2) At 9km it would be only 3km from the sun and would get melted like a block of velvetta in an oven

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2019, 08:20:15 AM »
Go ahead and do your own research, you will find out that my figures are correct.

The Sun is cold:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/space/space_exploration/news.php?q=1308230567

Solid surface of the Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm

Ether blackbody radiation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2072250#msg2072250


When high-voltage DC is applied to the wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, new electro-aerodynamic qualities appear that result in significant air-drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of the friction-caused aerodynamic heating. Moreover the Biefeld-Brown effect charges the jet engine exhaust stream, which has the effect of rapidly cooling its exhaust and thereby reducing its thermal signature.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2019, 08:43:05 AM »
Go ahead and do your own research, you will find out that my figures are correct.

I did and your figures are way off. At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 136 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 66 million volts.

The Sun is cold:

http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/space/space_exploration/news.php?q=1308230567

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

When high-voltage DC is applied to the wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, new electro-aerodynamic qualities appear that result in significant air-drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of the friction-caused aerodynamic heating. Moreover the Biefeld-Brown effect charges the jet engine exhaust stream, which has the effect of rapidly cooling its exhaust and thereby reducing its thermal signature.

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette and it's in regard to reducing sonic boom and shockwave:

"The resulting repulsive electric forces would condition the airstream so as to lower drag, reduce heating, and soften or eliminate the supersonic boom.14 Their results showed that
when high-voltage DC is applied to a wing-shaped structure subjected to a supersonic flow, seemingly new “electro-aerodynamic” qualities appear that result in significant air-
drag reduction on the structure and the virtual elimination of friction-caused aerodynamic heating, well as the elimination of shock wave and wave-drag phenomena."
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2019, 08:56:47 AM »
I did and your figures are way off.

My numbers are absolutely correct.

Go ahead and do your own research on the subject: remember, you are dealing with plasma physics.

You will find the very figures provided by T.T. Brown to the Department of Defense, used at Northrop for the B-2 bomber.

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun is spherical.

It is not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

At the present time in your life, you believe that the age of the Sun is measured in the billions of years.

It is not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun consists only of gases.

It does not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette

Exactly.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2019, 09:28:26 AM »
I did and your figures are way off.

My numbers are absolutely correct.

Go ahead and do your own research on the subject: remember, you are dealing with plasma physics.

You will find the very figures provided by T.T. Brown to the Department of Defense, used at Northrop for the B-2 bomber.

I did my own research. Your numbers are way off. Mine are spot on.

Incorrect. It is, in fact, quite hot.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun is spherical.

It is not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Through personal direct observation I have seen the Sun is, in fact, spherical and too hot get near and too bright to stare at.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the age of the Sun is measured in the billions of years.

It is not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Sun is neither faint, young nor paradoxical.

At the present time in your life, you believe that the Sun consists only of gases.

It does not:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989

The Sun, is in fact, a huge, glowing sphere of hot gas. Most of this gas is hydrogen (about 70%) and helium (about 28%). Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen make up 1.5% and the other 0.5% is made up of small amounts of many other elements such as neon, iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur.

The actual quote above is from "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace", By Paul A. LaViolette

Exactly.

Yes, and it wasn't in reference to propulsion.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2019, 09:38:07 AM »
Your research does not take into account PLASMA PHYSICS.

The numbers I provided here are the ones used by Northrup for the B-2 bomber, based on T.T. Brown's own experiments and calculations.

Do your research again.

Through personal direct observation I have seen the Sun is, in fact, spherical and too hot get near and too bright to stare at.

It can't be spherical:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

Unless you can explain the temperature of the chromosphere paradox, nobody is going to believe you.

The Sun is neither faint, young nor paradoxical.

But it has to be young, since nobody else has been able to solve the FAINT YOUNG SUN paradox.

Unless you can explain to your readers the faint young sun paradox, nobody is going to even look in your direction concerning the age of the Sun.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

The Sun, is in fact, a huge, glowing sphere of hot gas.

But it can't be.

Here are the direct proofs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2075989#msg2075989 (radius of the sun paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377 (CNO cycle defies the solar nuclear furnace hypothesis)

Your failed set of beliefs is shattered by direct proofs which you cannot explain at all.


Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2019, 11:34:58 PM »
Okay Sandokhan, lets give you some slack on this discussion.

Lets suppose the Sun is not spherical, it is also a flat disc somehow floating up there, cycling once each 24h and oscillating the diameter of its circle of rotation once a year, by some celestial unknown gears, promoting the positions over the tropics, Cancer and Capricorn.

Okay, now that you have everyone's attention, please answer about the flat disc Sun, with definite numbers, once and for all, so Tom Bishop will be able to post on FE wiki:

a) Altitude (and possible oscillations)
b) Disc Diameter
c) Disc Thickness
d) Composition
e) Source of energy
f) Joules issued by second
g) Map of wavelength and intensity of its radiation
h) Angle and direction of radiation projection
i) Orientation of such flat disc related to the flat earth below
j) The formula (or curve) of its circling diameter oscillation along the year (seasons)
k) Intelligent assumption of how long does it exist and how long it will continue to exist
l) Intelligent assumption about what would be its possible decay in radiation in the future

The answer for all those questions can be stated using scientific equipment in RE, considering a spherical one.
I understand you have answers for that, but you don't need to explain how you reach them.
Lets just find a common ground from now on about the Sun.
The answers will create a good ground for the subject of this thread, if satellites could circle above FE.
Oh, yes, please answer with your own numbers, don't post links to somewhere else at the internet, nobody will read it.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2019, 10:00:36 PM »
Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

Okay, so what force would the Biefield-Brown effect produce if V=20M?
Is this voltage measured between the airplane and the Earth?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Offline reer

  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2019, 11:41:58 PM »
Re @Sandokhan's claim that the sun cannot be spherical.

If that is correct, please explain why, regardless of when or where we look at the sun, it always, without exception, looks circular. Regardless what it's real shape is, if it is not spherical, from certain positions the observed shape will not be circular. For example, if it is a disc, it will change from circular to elliptical when looked at from the side. In an extreme case it will look almost like a line. Whatever shape it is, it may look circular from one position on earth but, at the same time, from other positions it will look non-circular - unless it is a sphere.

To repeat: why does the sun always look circular?

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2019, 05:06:55 AM »
I could answer all of the questions regarding the Sun. That the Black Sun supplies the subquarks necessary for the Sun's output of quarks, the composition of the Sun and of the Moon. But you are not going to believe it.

That is why first it is imperative that you understand the following facts.

The solar eclipse of March 20, 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Believe it or not, there are no astronomical/historical records for this total solar eclipse (other than a brief mention by Cassini), by far what should have been the most important astronomical event of the millenium, a chance to settle once and for all the Gregorian calendar reform controversy.

The Jesuits in India/China, F. Verbiest, J. Schall von Bell,  even the young N. Flamsteed fail to notice/record this most important of all the total solar eclipses.

We are told that G.D. Cassini published new tables of the sun, based on his observations at San Petronio in 1662: these observations are published in the Catalogue général des livres imprimés de la Bibliothèque Nationale, XXIV (Paris, 1905), cols. 678–682, or in the Table générale des maturès continuesdans l’Histoire et dans les Mémoires de l’Académic Royaledes Sciences, I–III (Paris, 1729–1734).

Here is Cassini's most celebrated work:

http://amshistorica.unibo.it/25 (italian/latin) (pg 28-30)

However, when the mathematicians of today examined the scientific/astronomical basis on which pontiff Gregory XIII based his decision to modify the Julian calendar, they discovered extraordinary errors: there was no way that anybody at that time could/would have modified the calendar by 10 days.


The high-voltage differential is measured between the B-2's positive leading edge and its negative ion exhaust stream.

The four engines of the B-2 bomber put out a thrust of 140,000 HP (25 MW, assuming a 30% conversion of efficiency).

A 35-ft electrogravitic disc would need to have access to 50MW.

The B-2 has 72 metric tons, when empty. This works out to 32 grams/sq.cm when fully loaded.

T.T. Brown's 18 inch diameter disk was generating an upward thrust of 125 grams when energized at 170 Kv.

That is 0.08 grams/sq.cm.

So, to generate a force capable of lifting the B-2, a thrust per unit area four hundred times greater would be needed. This is accomplished by using a high-K dielectric.

This is would provide 100 times more thrust at 1000 Kv. If the Pyrex insulator is replaced with barium titanate, there would be an additional 32-fold of thrust.

That is, instead of the 125 grams of force, Brown's thruster would have provided 400 kg of force. If we now distribute 380 of these capacitors over the wing surface they would provide an upward thrust of 152 tons.


It is not my claim that the Sun is not spherical: it is pure science.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14947.msg194515#msg194515

Since the pressure in the chromosphere is 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR, the Sun becomes a huge gas centrifuge with no outer casing.

The shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

On page 218, a formula for the latitude dependent ether drift.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

The existence of the ether shows that there are latitude dependent indexes of refraction.

This changes everything.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 05:08:46 AM by sandokhan »

tellytubby

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2019, 05:51:40 AM »
Quote
The solar eclipse of March 20, 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Believe it or not, there are no astronomical/historical records for this total solar eclipse (other than a brief mention by Cassini),

Is that right? Not according to this


https://moonblink.info/Eclipse/eclipse/1662_03_20 

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2019, 07:14:00 AM »
Astronomical/historical records, not computer simulations.

You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

You, the RE, have to explain to your readers WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate at once any the claims made by the Vatican, or any other astronomer.

Macarios

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2019, 07:32:22 AM »
You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

Ask Vatican.

But I believe it was because Gregorian calendar was already implemented 80 years earlier, in 1582. :)

... WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate...

I guess it was because the Eclipse actually confirmed the correct timings in Earth's orbit.

And maybe because Australia was discovered in 1770. :)

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1239
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2019, 07:34:57 AM »
Astronomical/historical records, not computer simulations.

You, the RE, have to explain WHY the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse was not used immediately by the Vatican (or anybody else) to claim the validity of the Gregorian calendar reform.

You, the RE, have to explain to your readers WHY the critics of the Gregorian calendar reform did not immediately use the March 20, 1662 AD solar eclipse to invalidate at once any the claims made by the Vatican, or any other astronomer.

What's the significance of the March 20, 1662 AD total solar eclipse versus, say, the March 20, 1643 AD total solar eclipse?

And what does this have to do with anything regarding this thread?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2019, 07:52:29 AM »
Or March 20, 1643 AD. However, I dare you to find any records of this eclipse in the works of Athanasius Kircher, as an example. The only recording I could find was in the works of Giovanni Domenico Cassini, for March 20, 1662 AD.

You can read about the significance here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

One of the RE requested a whole lot of information about the Sun, especially these points:

c) Disc Thickness
d) Composition
e) Source of energy
k) Intelligent assumption of how long does it exist and how long it will continue to exist
l) Intelligent assumption about what would be its possible decay in radiation in the future


The correct answer depends entirely on the fact that BEFORE MARCH 20, 1662 AD (or March 20, 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of recording of the total solar eclipse which occurred on the vernal equinox) there were NO HISTORICAL RECORDINGS OF ANY KIND IN ASTRONOMY, and that there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2019, 08:13:45 AM »
But I believe it was because Gregorian calendar was already implemented 80 years earlier, in 1582.

But it could not have been implemented at all.

You must upgrade your knowledge on the application of Gauss' Easter formula to the historical recordings of the Paschal Moon:

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


Offline reer

  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2019, 10:17:49 AM »
The shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

The ether is latitude dependent.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"The measurements were latitude-dependent as well."

http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

On page 218, a formula for the latitude dependent ether drift.

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula used by Michelson and Gale is also latitude dependent (ether drift formula).

The existence of the ether shows that there are latitude dependent indexes of refraction.

This changes everything.
And just how does the ether/orgone energy alter the apparent shape the sun to make it look circular, regardless of where or when you are standing? I suppose that also depends on this question: what is the real shape of the sun, apart from "not spherical"? I also note that the PDF you linked (Galaev.pdf) does not even contain the word "orgone"..

And, maybe I'm too stupid, but just what is "orgone energy"? What is it used for? How is it measured?

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2019, 10:46:56 AM »
Orgone = laevorotatory waves of subquarks = antigravitational energy

DOR = dextrorotatory waves of subquarks = terrestrial gravity

Orgone and DOR were Wilhelm Reich's own terminology.

Orgone and DOR propagate in double torsion fashion; they are the scalar waves discovered by Whittaker (mathematically) and Tesla (experimentally).

In the human body/aura, it is the Orgone which permits us to move, jump, it is the energy which fights all the time with the effects of DOR; scientifically this is called BIOCHIRALITY:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624 (biochirality and terrestrial gravity)


http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem

http://creation.com/god-left-handed

http://creationbc.org/index.php/right-handed-amino-acids-can-they-smack-down-the-evolutionists-chirality-problem/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140921043113/https://creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/50/50_2/CRSQ%20Fall%202013%20lo%20res%20bookmarked%20for%20web.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/homochirality_i059531.html

http://www.creationismonline.com/YEC/The_Origin_Of_Life.pdf

And just how does the ether/orgone energy alter the apparent shape the sun to make it look circular, regardless of where or when you are standing?

Here is one of the very few works on the transmission of light through ether, use it to figure out the answer to your question:

http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT5.pdf


It must be noted that the Department of Defense and Northrop Grumann have NO USE for Einstein's useless theory of general relativity. The B-2 bomber uses exclusively the Biefeld-Brown effect and the flame jet generators invented by T.T. Brown. The B-2 bomber defies not only the law of conservation of energy but also Newtonian gravitation. Nobody cares in the least bit about anything Einstein said on physics over there, only the experiments and equations provided by Einstein's tutor (Dr. Paul Alfred Biefeld) are taken into consideration.