Macarios

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2019, 11:20:07 AM »
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

You are mixing apples and oranges; you even added some broccoli salad.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2019, 06:07:04 PM »
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.

Good guess, but not really, widely wrong, you have no DSS/DoD-C.Q5 US security clearance to know that, and if you would, breaking one of the most sacred penalized contracts, so... obviously no. 

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2019, 06:35:57 PM »
True.

However, I do know that the electrostatic solutions discovered by Hermann Weyl in 1917 prove that there is functional relationship between the gravitational and electrostatic potentials, thus theoretically justifying the movement of a capacitor towards one of its poles.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2019, 07:18:54 PM »
True.

However, I do know that the electrostatic solutions discovered by Hermann Weyl in 1917 prove that there is functional relationship between the gravitational and electrostatic potentials, thus theoretically justifying the movement of a capacitor towards one of its poles.

Among your other unfounded claims you have gone from, "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..." to you saying, yes, it's true I don't know that.
To now some other unrelated 1917 effort proves something. From Gregorian calendar calculations to someone not writing down, to your satisfaction, an eclipse event. To some sort of refraction index of the aether used to calculate the size and distance of celestial bodies, an index that doesn't exist, to god knows what else you pluck from papers to mix altogether into some sort of cosmological goulash.

There is literally nothing coherent in any of your arguments and put together it all means nothing and is irrelevant. All we have so far from you, without evidence, is that:

- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told

All of which are not supported by any evidence. Well done.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3638
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2019, 07:20:39 PM »
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.
My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #45 on: June 10, 2019, 08:01:20 PM »
- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told


Once we prove that the sun has a discoidal shape, the other points enumerated above follow immediately.

Explain to your readers the 0.0000000000001 BAR pressure of the solar chromosphere.

You cannot.


My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini; there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #46 on: June 10, 2019, 08:15:59 PM »
- The sun is a flat disk
- It is 12km high (Jupiter about 25km)
- It is 600 some-odd meters in diameter
- Everest is not really almost 9000m tall
- When flying in a plane, one is flying much lower than we are told


Once we prove that the sun has a discoidal shape, the other points enumerated above follow immediately.

Explain to your readers the 0.0000000000001 BAR pressure of the solar chromosphere.

You cannot.


My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini; there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.

Again, off on irrelevant tangents. The sun is not a disk as evidenced throuh direct, repeated observation. Here's one:

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 #47 on: June 10, 2019, 08:29:16 PM »
That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.

Here are facts concering the shape of the Sun.

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



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


You have presented a video to your readers where the pressure in the chromosphere is 0.0000000000001 BAR: A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING.

Conclusion: the shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

tellytubby

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #48 on: June 10, 2019, 08:51:17 PM »
You may or may not consider this information to be relevant to the current conversation.  The 5th paragraph contains various references to chromospheric temperatures and pressures.

http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-2-Cast-Iron-Cole/Chromosphere.html

As regards the shape of the Sun I guess the photosphere and chromosphere are so named for a reason that relates to their shape.  Possibly suggesting that the Sun is indeed spherical.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #49 on: June 10, 2019, 08:52:16 PM »
That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.

Here are facts concering the shape of the Sun.

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



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

The sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


You have presented a video to your readers where the pressure in the chromosphere is 0.0000000000001 BAR: A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING.

Conclusion: the shape of the Sun could not possibly be spherical.

Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.
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 #50 on: June 10, 2019, 09:11:06 PM »
Magnetism on extreme hot plasma?  Just observe the plasma loops and will rethink what you think you know.  The dark spots (not really dark, just little less temperature) demonstrate very strong magnetic internal loops, causing instability on the surface temperature.  Not even talking about the gargantuan gravity attraction.  How do you think the accretion process collected so much hydrogen?  It is able to grasp  Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune on very far away orbit... what is some very hot gas on surface?  Interesting, FE eliminates gravity everywhere in the universe, then try to discredit everything else where gravity makes important part of it.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #51 on: June 10, 2019, 09:50:16 PM »
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.
*munch crunch* This salad is really good! *munch* I really like the dressing, what's it called? You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour? *crunch*
Have you got any more, buddy?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3638
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2019, 01:44:34 AM »
My guess would be because that eclipse wasn’t seen anywhere near Europe.

Yet, the March 20 1662 AD total solar eclipse was recorded by Cassini...
Was it?  Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

... there were plenty of Jesuit astronomers in China at that time, according to the official chronology of history.
Hmm...  I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it doesn't seem that the eclipse was visible from China either.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #53 on: June 11, 2019, 04:39:08 AM »
Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

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)


You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour?

Yes. Experienced researchers (Talley, BlazeLabs) did not understand this matter at all.

Yet, T.T. Brown made it very clear in 1956, when he was invited by the government of France to test the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum (the largest experiment ever carried out).

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302225553/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083121/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (pages 26-27)

No rotation was observed with several kinds of dielectrics. Once barium titanate was used, the apparatus rotated immediately in full vacuum.


Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.

Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

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.


You may or may not consider this information to be relevant to the current conversation.  The 5th paragraph contains various references to chromospheric temperatures and pressures.

http://gluedideas.com/Encyclopedia-Britannica-Volume-5-Part-2-Cast-Iron-Cole/Chromosphere.html


Your link is not helpful, as it pertains to our discussion here.

Not only the extremely low pressure in the chromosphere is NOT explained, but also the physicists have to resort to the same armchair calculations put forth in 1939 by Edlen, and which cannot be true.

Please read.


KORONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058259#msg2058259

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064256#msg2064256

NEWTONIUM, the lighter than hydrogen element (ether):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2064764#msg2064764

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2065771#msg2065771

A total debunking of magnetic reconnection/Edlen's claims.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 06:42:14 AM by sandokhan »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2019, 05:40:07 AM »
Do you have any citations (other than your own)?

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)

I can't tell from looking at the documentation. But in any case, on the one hand, you say no one in Europe paid attention to some eclipse that could be seen in north western Australia and that's proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar. On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar. And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it. You do realize this all seems a little farfetched and unhinged?

You replaced the regular pyrex dressing with a barium titanate dressing, meaning there's an additional 32-fold of flavour?

Yes. Experienced researchers (Talley, BlazeLabs) did not understand this matter at all.

Yet, T.T. Brown made it very clear in 1956, when he was invited by the government of France to test the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum (the largest experiment ever carried out).

https://web.archive.org/web/20120302225553/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083121/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (pages 26-27)

No rotation was observed with several kinds of dielectrics. Once barium titanate was used, the apparatus rotated immediately in full vacuum.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did. You admitted that you have no clearance/access to that information. So we can just stop all this nonsense now. It's irrelevant anyway.

Actually, you simply have to explain that after literally countless direct observations of the sun from every conceivable angle on earth, the Sun appears spherical.

Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

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.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical. Obviously you have never looked at the sun via a telescope before. And there's literally nothing in all of those links that contradicts the Sun being spherical. Not one.

Do some actual observing and less cherry pick quote-mining.
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 #55 on: June 11, 2019, 05:55:41 AM »
On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar.

It was recorded by Cassini, whether he could have seen or not.

What does this tell you?

And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it.

If there was no Gregorian calendar reform, then the Earth never orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD (or 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of astronomical records). It is as simple as this.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did.

I have a detailed understanding of the relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber based on researchers who did have the clearance and divulged at least some of the details.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical.

It could be any other shape BUT SPHERICAL.

Please read.

SOLAR DISK: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A SPHERICALLY SHAPED SUN

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."



Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


The Sun exhibits a variety of phenomena that defy contemporary theoretical understanding.

Eugene N. Parker


It is not coincidence that the photosphere has the appearance, the temperature and spectrum of an electric arc; it has arc characteristics because it an electric arc, or a large number of arcs in parallel.

British physicist C. E. R. Bruce


It is likely that the problem of the dynamics of the explosions affecting the prominences will only be solved when the electrical conditions obtaining in the chromosphere and inner corona are better understood.

Italian solar astronomer Giorgio Abetti


Observations give a wealth of detail about the photosphere, chromosphere and the corona. Yet we have difficulty in matching the observations with a theory.

Solar Interior & Atmosphere, J.-C. Pecker


The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun’s energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun.

Ralph E. Juergens




PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:






Here is hard data, compiled by the very best heliophysicists in the world, which directly contradict your claim.

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)
« Last Edit: June 11, 2019, 05:57:36 AM by sandokhan »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2019, 06:50:48 AM »
On the other hand, you say Cassini did record it even though he couldn't have observed it and that too is proof that something is wrong with the gregorian calendar.

It was recorded by Cassini, whether he could have seen or not.

What does this tell you?

And if there's something wrong with the gregorian calendar all of history and all of cosmology is completely wrong as we know it.

If there was no Gregorian calendar reform, then the Earth never orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD (or 1643 AD, if we could find some kind of astronomical records). It is as simple as this.

There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582. Therefore, according to your logic above, the Earth definitely orbited around the Sun before 1662 AD. It is as simple as this.

If you don't believe there was the Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582, then take up your claim with the Vatican. Your belief is irrelevant.

We've already established that you have no real knowledge of the workings of the B2 even though you claimed you did.

I have a detailed understanding of the relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber based on researchers who did have the clearance and divulged at least some of the details.

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber. Literally none. We've been through this already and it's irrelevant.

It's not my beliefs. It's direct Zetetic observation of the Sun. It is spherical.

It could be any other shape BUT SPHERICAL.

Please read.

[snip. irrelevant already copy and pasted links to other links to other links]

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.
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 #57 on: June 11, 2019, 07:07:56 AM »
There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Most definitely there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever: the proof uses Gauss' celebrated Easter formula.

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

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber.

But they have.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194551#msg194551

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194556#msg194556

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.

Those observations can be applied to a discoidal shape as well.

Therefore, one needs definite hard data to reach a final conclusion.

Such as these:

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)



PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1182
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2019, 07:53:04 AM »
There was a Gregorian calendar reform implemented in 1582.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

Most definitely there was no Gregorian calendar reform whatsoever: the proof uses Gauss' celebrated Easter formula.

Gauss' method of calculating the Easter date came 2 centuries after the Gregorian calendar introduction. And it's long term 'accuracy' is questionable. Which doesn't matter anyway because Easter is man-determined, not specifically astronomically pinned - You do realize that not all those who celebrate Easter do so on the same day nor even using the same calendar, don't you?

None of the researchers with "clearance" have divulged any specific relationship between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the B-2 bomber.

But they have.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194551#msg194551

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg194556#msg194556

No you haven't. There is no credible mention of the B2 using 'antigravity technology'.

It's all the same stuff none of which contradicts what can be observed by humans as the Sun being spherical.

Those observations can be applied to a discoidal shape as well.

Therefore, one needs definite hard data to reach a final conclusion.

Such as these:

No, no matter how many links of links and irrelevant equations, there's no hard data to suggest any other shape other than what is observable by everyone: That it's spherical. Sorry.
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 #59 on: June 11, 2019, 08:05:17 AM »
And it's long term 'accuracy' is questionable. Which doesn't matter anyway because Easter is man-determined, not specifically astronomically pinned.

What ?!

Gauss' Easter formula is precise TO THE VERY DAY going back at least 2,000 years, the interval of interest.

Here is how the official astronomical/historical records ARE CONTRADICTED by Gauss' formula:

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

There is no credible mention of the B2 using 'antigravity technology'.

This is sufficient.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c

"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

And there are other sources, which I have not divulged so far, with special clearances, which discuss the application of the T.T. Brown's research to the B-2 bomber.

No, no matter how many links of links and irrelevant equations, there's no hard data to suggest any other shape other than what is observable by everyone.


But there is.



PRESSURE: 10^-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.