#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2019, 04:26:55 PM »
A change in √G means that in vacuum you need a higher voltage and/or a dielectric constant.

In vacuum, √G < 2.58 x 10-4.
Okay, let's assume you're right, and G isn't a constant.
In the B-B effect, (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf eq. 72) F is proportional to sqrt(G), right? So a 10% change in G would be a 3% change in sqrt(G).
You could compensate for this by increasing the voltage by 3%, or the dielectric constant by 10%.

Except it seems like in reality, these variation in G are <<10%, so you'd need to change the voltage applied by <<3%.

So how could a 1/2000 change in G possibly affect the voltage you need to apply by so much that you're claiming it's the reason that some people aren't seeing an effect? You could estimate the voltage change has got to be <1V at a maximum, surely that's just within the noise of your kV or MV power supply?

What exactly is your point here?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2019, 05:10:03 PM »
You are confusing the Eotvos effect with the vacuum tests.

Here is the equation for G:

G = 1/δzptp2

δzp = ether/zero point field mass-energy equivalent

tp = Planck time

Once you modify the density of ether in vacuum, the value of G will be lower, that is why one needs a higher voltage inside the vacuum chamber as opposed to tests ran in ambient air (perhaps you'd need 80Kv instead of 19Kv, for the same dielectric and distance between the plates of the capacitor; √G < 2.58 x 10-4 in vacuum).

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #102 on: June 17, 2019, 12:17:07 AM »
What I'm saying has nothing to do with the Eotvos effect, and your comment wasn't related to my point.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### TomInAustin

• 1206
• Round Duh
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #103 on: June 18, 2019, 03:48:49 PM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909

I love how your link leads to a post by you just under this one that shows this.  LOL

Seems like a round earth and quoting an experiment that Apollo left on the moon.   Nice
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2019, 05:28:20 PM »
What Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech) did is to put an end to heliocentrism for good.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Dr. Daniel Gezari emitted a pulse of photons from a point on earth, bounced those photons off a reflector on the moon, and then recorded the photons’ arrival time at that same point on earth.

One needs both the orbital and rotational Sagnac to calculate the correct timing, there is no way around that.

The lunar laser ranging experiment is an astronomical version of the Sagnac experiment.

However, G. Sagnac used the fringe-shift method to measure indirectly light travel time;
while Dr. Daniel Gezari uses clocks to measure directly light travel time in both directions.

Shooting light to the moon has to do with the behavior of light like GPS.

The arrival time of light to a receptor is influenced by the motion of
the receptor relative to the earth: this is the basic discovery of G. Sagnac.

This fact has to be incorporated into the lunar laser ranging calculations.

Here is a basic reference which confirms this fact:

Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and geophysics, G.E. Steadman, 1997, pg 15

"Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual."

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.

THE SMALL (~3M/S) SECOND ORDER RESIDUAL IS THE ORBITAL SAGNAC.

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

Dr. Daniel Gezari:

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference

3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

Moreover, Dr. Gezari found something as extraordinary: the speed of light is a variable.

Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.

#### spherical

• 214
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #105 on: June 18, 2019, 08:08:52 PM »
Even pulsing a very narrow power laser beam to the reflector on the Moon, it arrives there with a very wide beam, only a very small part is reflected to Earth, it arrives here very wide beam. No matter how far from the external frame the receiver moved from the 2 seconds delay when it emitted, the very wide and faint returning beam is captured and time/distance is measured accurately.

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0125/c90000-9419444.html

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #106 on: June 18, 2019, 08:40:44 PM »
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

To fake the radio transmissions, the Soviets used the SAME method as that used by Nasa to falsify their lunar retroreflectors: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz).

Next you are going to say: the satellite had to orbit at some 7.7 km/s.

But Nasa had already faked the Explorer mission in much the same way, providing a speed of 18,000 mph for their satellite :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2019748#msg2019748

The fact that the Explorer mission was faked is undeniable: so the same radio telemetry technology was used as duplicates on those satellites.

As for the Apollo 15 mission, here are the wires on the astronauts' backpack:

« Last Edit: June 18, 2019, 08:47:57 PM by sandokhan »

#### Macarios

##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #107 on: June 18, 2019, 10:20:55 PM »
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

Retro-reflectors were not installed in 1965. They were installed in early 70s.

Quote
The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging experiment or Apollo landing mirror
measures the distance between surfaces of Earth and the Moon using laser ranging.
Lasers at observatories on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon
during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the two Lunokhod missions.

Laser is light, and light travels at the speed of light.
If pulse travels to reflector and back in some 2.55 seconds, how can reflecting surface be much closer than 385000 km?

~~~~~

Before those reflectors lasers were stronger, pulse was reflected from the rocks and dusts, and local altitudes varied.
All reflected light was equally strong and was triggering the receiving circuits.

With retroreflector you can use lower power for emission, reflector returns much more light than surrounding lunar ground
and only reflector pulse is detected. Local altitude of the reflector is much more precise and now Lunar Laser-Ranging Station
can achieve much higher precision.

Quote
The upcoming MoonLIGHT reflector, that will be placed in 2019 by the private MX-1E lander,
is designed to increase measurement accuracy 100 times over existing systems.

#### stack

• 1772
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #108 on: June 18, 2019, 10:23:29 PM »
Don't even think about mentioning lunar retroreflectors.

Since then you're going to have to explain this.

The "retroreflectors" are simply very small satellites (which use the Biefeld-Brown effect to travel above the surface of the Earth) which orbit in front the Moon in order to reflect the laser beams.

The Leonov mission of 1965 was faked:

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Fakes/Fakes.htm
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Kausch250-253.html

What sort of Soviet craft had orbited the earth then, if it was not a space ship with two cosmonauts on board? All stated contradictions and lies expose the secret of Leonov's 'space flight': What Soviet propaganda called 'Voskhod 2' was actually a tiny satellite that carried tape-recorded voices, heartbeats etc. and (faked) telemetric transmissions for a gigantic hoax!

'Four months of solid research interviewing experts in the fields of photo-optics, photo-chemistry and electro-optics, all of whom carefully studied the motion picture film and still photographs officially released by theSoviet Government ... (indicate them to be) double-printed .. The foreground (Leonov) was superimposed on the background (Earth below).The Russian film showed reflections from the glass plate under which a double plate is made ... Leonov was suspended from wire or cables ...In several episodes of the Russian film, light was reflected from a small portion of wire (or cable) attached to Leonov's space suit ...One camera angle was impossible of achievement. This showed Leonov crawling out of his hatch into space. It was a head on shot, so the camera would have had to have been located out in space beyond thespace ship.'

To fake the radio transmissions, the Soviets used the SAME method as that used by Nasa to falsify their lunar retroreflectors: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz).

Next you are going to say: the satellite had to orbit at some 7.7 km/s.

But Nasa had already faked the Explorer mission in much the same way, providing a speed of 18,000 mph for their satellite :

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72335.msg2019748#msg2019748

The fact that the Explorer mission was faked is undeniable: so the same radio telemetry technology was used as duplicates on those satellites.

As for the Apollo 15 mission, here are the wires on the astronauts' backpack:

The link you cited regarding the Leonov spacewalk mission closes with this (my bolding):

"All this would probably have been forgotten, had not Soviet propaganda on behalf of Party comrade Leonov brought him back to the memory of the world. Perhaps it was designed to bolster their great hoax after its near failure 10 years before. He was supposed to be not only a space veteran older than Stafford, but also "the first to walk in space" - an obnoxious insult aimed at the late Ed White, the really first free-floating spaceman. Alexei Leonov, the Soviet "cosmonaut hero," is truly a remarkable sample of Communist deceit."

Apparently the author's issue is more with the fact that American Ed White should be credited with the first spacewalk and not the Russian Leonov. In other words, spacewalks are real just that the first was credited to the wrong guy.

So whether the Soviets faked the mission or not is not relevant to reflectors on the moon. And I don't see any wires in the video just a lot of grain, dirt and artifacts in the image.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #109 on: June 18, 2019, 11:30:54 PM »
Ahh the classic Sandokhan line of "Since then you're going to have to explain this."

Down another rabbit hole we go!
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #110 on: June 18, 2019, 11:32:51 PM »
What Dr. Daniel Gezari (CalTech) did is to put an end to heliocentrism for good.
I feel like I was concentrating quite hard when I read your post, but I still don't know what your point is. Could you clarify for me?
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #111 on: June 19, 2019, 04:57:56 AM »
If pulse travels to reflector and back in some 2.55 seconds, how can reflecting surface be much closer than 385000 km?

The distance traveled by the light is much smaller: everything comes down to the density of ether/aether.

Retro-reflectors were not installed in 1965. They were installed in early 70s.

The Leonov mission was faked. Then, the Soviets must have found a way to also fake the radio telemetry: a small satellite which flew duplicates of the radio transmitter (20MHz and 40MHz); the same technology used for the laser retroreflectors.

Nasa had to employ the same technology for the faked Explorer missions.

And I don't see any wires in the video just a lot of grain, dirt and artifacts in the image.

They can be seen clearly.

0:42 - 1:00

More wires can be seen here:

Could you clarify for me?

In order to record his measurements, Dr. Gezari HAD TO incorporate into the calculations the ROTATIONAL and the ORBITAL CORIOLIS EFFECTS (called the SAGNAC effect by mainstream science).

Heliocentrists tell us that the orbital Coriolis effect is 1/365th (0.00274) of the rotational Coriolis effect.

However, the calculations published by Dr. Gezari prove that, even in the case where a two-way averaging was performed, the orbital Coriolis effect is 0.357 of the rotational Coriolis effect, an effect 130 times greater than that envisioned by the heliocentrists.

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.

Dr. Daniel Gezari:

For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference

3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

Moreover, Dr. Gezari found something as extraordinary: the speed of light is a variable.

Abstract: The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observers rest frame was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during the measurements. This result is a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance; the speed of light seems to depend on the motion of the observer after all, as in classical wave theory, which implies that a preferred reference frame exists for the propagation of light. However, the present experiment cannot identify the physical system to which such a preferred frame might be tied.

A variable speed of light = proof of the existence of ether.

The same reason relativists are dumping Einstein's version of relativity and are embracing MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory), a translational (local-aether model) ether which travels with the Earth, a fact supported by the Ruderfer experiment as well.

However, the translational ether hypothesis cannot be true: the ether field drifts above the stationary Earth.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 05:01:26 AM by sandokhan »

#### stack

• 1772
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #112 on: June 19, 2019, 06:07:13 AM »
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

When one of your arguments is challenged you perpetually pivot to another subject that is a total non sequitur. You and Alpha had a nice thing going where you were collectively trying to figure out the maths. When it started to not work out, you spiraled off into Russian spacewalk hoaxes and such. Totally irrelevant. And stop beating the Sagnac horse to death. We get it, it's the crux of your biscuit. But get back on topic. Focus.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #113 on: June 19, 2019, 07:38:00 AM »
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

Here is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect using Weyl fields electrovacuum solutions:

Can you explain to your readers why a capacitor charged to a high potential will exhibit thrust in the direction of the positive electrode?

g = GM/r2

#### stack

• 1772
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #114 on: June 19, 2019, 09:52:59 AM »
What does any of this have to do with suspending satellites over a flat earth?

Here is the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect using Weyl fields electrovacuum solutions:

Which have no relevance as to why or how satellites rotate around the earth. You have to prove that the BB effect is actually used. Utilized. There is nothing in satellite technology, those that engineer, build, launch or maintain them, that suggests that they are hovered or propulsed by this theory. Just because someone postulates another form of levitation does not make it so. The proof is in the pudding, as it were.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #115 on: June 19, 2019, 10:57:36 AM »
You have to prove that the BB effect is actually used.

I just did.

You are assuming that satellites hover above the Earth due to Newtonian gravitation.

The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown is a direct contradiction to the equation proposed by Newton: g = GM/r2. It takes a single contradiction to invalidate a theory, in this case Newtonian gravitation.

You no longer can claim that satellites stay in orbit because of Newtonian gravitation.

My explanation is that the satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect with great success; after all, the B-2 bomber uses this effect to fly.

If you do not like the BB effect, then you must come up with a new explanation, one that excludes from the start Newtonian gravitation.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 4933
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #116 on: June 19, 2019, 01:19:49 PM »
The exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown is a direct contradiction to the equation proposed by Newton: g = GM/r2.
Where exactly is the contradiction?  Why can't Biefeld-Brown and Newton both be correct in their relevant applications?
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.

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #117 on: June 19, 2019, 01:51:42 PM »
Where exactly is the contradiction?  Why can't Biefeld-Brown and Newton both be correct in their relevant applications?

Then, if there is no contradiction, you are a flat earth believer.

Newton said that ONLY the radial component of the acceleration equation is real, the only one that counts: g = GM/r2.

In other words, terrestrial gravitation is independent of electromagnetic forces.

The Biefeld-Brown effect tells us that gravity is totally related to electromagnetism.

Then, the formula provided by Newton is worthless and useless: gravity has nothing to do with mass.

How, then, do you explain the orbits of the planets?

If Newton's law of universal gravitation is defied on such a cosmic scale, then it means that terrestrial gravity is not attractive.

Explain then how four billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

#### sandokhan

• 996
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2019, 03:28:34 PM »
"Einstein unwittingly restricted general relativity to a subset of the theory he intended to write. This over-restriction was again an indirect result of the fundamental Heaviside/Gibbs error in electromagnetics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### Tim Alphabeaver

• 218
• That's no beaver
##### Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2019, 05:45:30 PM »
Then, the formula provided by Newton is worthless and useless: gravity has nothing to do with mass.
Except this is patently false: gravity has everything to do with mass. If I double the mass of an object while keeping its charge the same, its weight doubles. If I double the charge on an object while keeping its mass the same, its weight stays the same.

Also masses attracting each other proportional to their mass can be measured in a lab.