Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #120 on: June 19, 2019, 06:04:43 PM »
You seem like a smart guy

You haven't done your homework.

Also masses attracting each other

You are assuming gravity is attractive, which means you are contradicting Newton's own words on the subject.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751


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.

Brilliant.

Why then doesn't your bathroom scale register 2000 pounds?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796



Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #121 on: June 20, 2019, 05:17:00 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.

Does it? How so? Admittedly I don’t know much about the effect but from the articles I found it sounds more related to electromagnetism. Gravity is a force, Newton’s equation gives us the acceleration due to that force. Other forces may be acting on a body which mean the rate of fall is less than g (or more than it) but those are just additional forces with other causes which need to be taken into account.

A feather doesn’t fall at the rate Newton predicts because other forces (air resistance in this case) are at work on it. That doesn’t mean Newton can be thrown in the bin, it just means to model it accurately the other force needs to be considered. With heavier objects air resistance is negligible and can be ignored.
Not clear what your issue is here.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #122 on: June 20, 2019, 05:30:12 PM »
You haven't done your homework.
Oh you're just being modest ;).

Quote
You are assuming gravity is attractive, which means you are contradicting Newton's own words on the subject.
Me no assume, me just look at experiment.
I'm not really interested in what Newton did or didn't say. I'm a clever boy (just like you), so I can look at his maths and see that it matches all the pretty experiments. Newton's opinion is irrelevant.

Quote
The complete demolition of the Cavendish-type experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751
Nice job! Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked - bet you can't!

Quote
Why then doesn't your bathroom scale register 2000 pounds?
Wait, are you fat shaming me?
**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 #123 on: June 21, 2019, 04:47:09 AM »
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)


Not clear what your issue is here.

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

For this is the formula published by Newton in the Principia:

g = GM/r2

In the Biefeld-Brown effect NO MASS, NO RADIAL DISTANCE are involved.


Now do that for the 700,000 search results on Google Scholar that I linked

I told you that you haven't done your homework.

Here is the real Cavendish experiment, carried out by one of the America's most distinguished physicists:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

I can look at his maths and see that it matches all the pretty experiments.

His math is incomplete.

Here is the full acceleration equation:



Newton gave us only the first term of the equation, which means both you and Newton haven't got a clue about mechanics.

To these four terms, we must add two more: the acceleration caused by the Biefeld-Brown effect and by the acoustic levitation.


*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #124 on: June 21, 2019, 12:31:51 PM »
I told you that you haven't done your homework.
Oooh wow, another experiment from the 1920s! You don't seem to understand the concept that science didn't just stop in 1960, and there is actually science still happening today! I can assure you that the advent of computers, as well as improvements in other technologies, has transformed science into a world of hyper-precision.
Did you know that the 1S-2S transition in hydrogen has been measured with a fraction uncertainty of 0.0000000000000042? That's fifteen zeroes! Try doing that in 1920. How many zeroes did Cavendish get? One? None?

Side note: I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. You at some point claimed that gravity isn't related to mass, but now you're linking an equation for gravity that explicity includes a mass term? I'm not even sure what my point is anymore either, I don't think I disagree that electromagnetism and gravity could be related, and in fact I feel that eventually a working Grand Unified Theory will emerge and unite all fundamental forces into one super-theory (kind of like the Avengers)...

Anyway... what are we talking about again?
**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 #125 on: June 21, 2019, 02:11:08 PM »
The UFT was already worked out in the period 1919-1929.

Einstein recognized the limitations of his TGR, and that UFT requires a new concept of space, the hyperspace.

The first attempt at unification was made by Hermann Weyl, a mathematician more formidable than Einstein and Minkowski put together.

"Weyl noted that Riemann’s geometry went only halfway towards attaining the ideal of a pure infinitesimal geometry, so he introduced a gauge symmetry into the space-time geometry as a remedy for that oversight. In his new geometry, the parallel transfer of a length in the field would allow a change in the basic unit of length according to the gauge at any given position in our common four-dimensional space-time. This change accounted for the presence of distant-curvature and thus allowed the introduction of electromagnetism into the metric of space-time curvature."

Kozyrev spotted Minkowski's catastrophic error immediately: time is not a scalar, but has density and a rate of flow.

"Time is not merely a “scalar” or “one-dimensional entity” in the geometry of space-time; it is not, therefore, to be viewed in the sense that the geometry of General Relativity — the Minkowski space — or for that matter, most physical theory, views it, namely, as merely duration"

Kaluza fulfilled Riemann's requirement of imbedding space in a hyperspace.

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.

"In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."

There is even the Kaluza-Weyl space-time-time theory.

However, J.C. Maxwell had already provided a UFT some fifty years earlier, his scalar potential terms, which were deleted/censored by Heaviside and Lorentz. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.

Biefeld and Brown provided the experimental proofs needed for the unification of gravity and electricity.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #126 on: June 21, 2019, 07:32:11 PM »
The UFT was already worked out in the period 1919-1929.

Einstein recognized the limitations of his TGR, and that UFT requires a new concept of space, the hyperspace.

The first attempt at unification was made by Hermann Weyl, a mathematician more formidable than Einstein and Minkowski put together.

"Weyl noted that Riemann’s geometry went only halfway towards attaining the ideal of a pure infinitesimal geometry, so he introduced a gauge symmetry into the space-time geometry as a remedy for that oversight. In his new geometry, the parallel transfer of a length in the field would allow a change in the basic unit of length according to the gauge at any given position in our common four-dimensional space-time. This change accounted for the presence of distant-curvature and thus allowed the introduction of electromagnetism into the metric of space-time curvature."

Kozyrev spotted Minkowski's catastrophic error immediately: time is not a scalar, but has density and a rate of flow.

"Time is not merely a “scalar” or “one-dimensional entity” in the geometry of space-time; it is not, therefore, to be viewed in the sense that the geometry of General Relativity — the Minkowski space — or for that matter, most physical theory, views it, namely, as merely duration"

Kaluza fulfilled Riemann's requirement of imbedding space in a hyperspace.

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.

"In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S1. Thus the global space has topology R4× S1.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."

There is even the Kaluza-Weyl space-time-time theory.

However, J.C. Maxwell had already provided a UFT some fifty years earlier, his scalar potential terms, which were deleted/censored by Heaviside and Lorentz. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.

Biefeld and Brown provided the experimental proofs needed for the unification of gravity and electricity.
Please stop reminding me of how little attention I paid during my undergrad.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

red_dwarf

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #127 on: June 21, 2019, 07:53:35 PM »
Given Mr Sandokhans encyclopedic knowledge of 'science',  I find it hard to believe that the rest of the science community of today hasn't collectively bowed it's head in shame as it has clearly got a lot of things very wrong according to him. Either that or Mr Sandokhan is wrong but that cannot be the case surely. If he is right then he would be a great one to have on your team at the next local pub quiz. Is there anything he doesn't know?!?.  Just one thing..can anyone tell me (more briefly than he can please!) what on Earth he is talking about?

I presume this is the same Mr Sandokhan who is a member of the DavidIcke.com forums. (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=285266)

All that aside, are we still debating about the original question because I have long since lost the direction this conversation is going in!  It is mentally exhausting just reading and trying to keep a track of it.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 860
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #128 on: June 25, 2019, 03:06:02 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:


Your habit of stating assumptions as fact is getting comical.

Show proof.  And by proof, I don't mean a link to one of your own posts.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #129 on: June 25, 2019, 05:17:22 PM »
I want you to imagine for a minute that you have been selected for jury duty, and you are sitting in the courtroom listening to the evidence. As you watch, the prosecution calls an expert forensic scientist to the stand, and they carefully explain the facts concerning the forensic evidence, all of which point towards the defendant’s guilt. Then, the defendant’s lawyer stands up and shouts, “Objection, this witness has been paid off to lie about my client!” After a moment of shocked silence, the judge says, “That is quite a claim. What evidence do you have to support it?” The lawyer then responds simply by saying, “only someone who had been bought off would say things like that against my client.” Now, what do you think is going to happen next? Is that a reasonable defense that the judge will accept? Obviously not! The defense is making an extraordinary assumption, and it is clearly invalid to do so.

In an example like that, the problem is obvious. You can’t just make things up to dismiss facts that are inconvenient for you. Indeed, when a person’s fate hangs in the balance, we all want the arguments and evidence to be based on facts, not assumptions. Nevertheless, when it comes to science and many aspects of our daily lives (such as politics), people are often more than happy to accept assumptions, and people frequently state them as if they are facts. Therefore, I am going to provide several examples of this flawed line of reasoning, and explain why it not only doesn’t work, but often commits a logical fallacy.

One of the most important concepts in debates and rational thinking: the burden of proof. This states that the person making the claim is always required to provide legitimate evidence to support it. In other words, if you want to claim that scientists have been paid off, then it is your duty to provide actual evidence to support that claim, and if you cannot do that, then you are stating an assumption, not a fact, and your argument is illegitimate. Similarly, if you want to claim that companies are hiding cures, a conspiracy is afoot, etc., you must provide evidence to substantiate those claims. You simply cannot dream about it and assume things that haven’t been verified, because if you could, then we could all dismiss every single argument that we don’t like simply by assuming the existence of some contrary evidence. Also, it is worth explicitly stating that you have to show the evidence, not the other way around. In other words, if you are claiming that a conspiracy exists, you have to provide evidence that it exists, whereas I do not have to provide evidence that it doesn’t exist.  You can not simply create such assumptions and spread to the internet, waiting someone to come up with the evidences, or for the masses popular belief to be considered evidence.  That’s the way that the burden of proof works. In fact, saying “you can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, therefore it is valid to think that it does exist” is a logical fallacy known as an argument from ignorance.

Yes, I agree with TomInAustin, Mr. Sandokhan statements are just blind assumptions as facts, and it is being repeated over and over everywhere, getting comical, not a single shread of evidence is proven, other than his own previous sayings or from other people that act in similar way.  I can not believe that Mr. Hawkings, Einstein, Sagan, and so many other thousand scientists were paid off by governmental agencies to lie to the general population, if yes, show me the evidences and proof.  Some people still thinking the actual population knowledge and brain capacity still the same as 1880, not evolved.  You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

Tom Bishop already said, "To accept blindly is to live in ignorance."

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #130 on: June 25, 2019, 06:49:24 PM »
You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

But you can, if their livelihood/careers depend on it.

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'


One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

This sort of thing was happening in the physics departments of ALL major universities (USA, UK, France, Canada).

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #131 on: June 25, 2019, 07:00:13 PM »
You can not make people believe in something just because you say it.

But you can, if their livelihood/careers depend on it.

"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'


One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

This sort of thing was happening in the physics departments of ALL major universities (USA, UK, France, Canada).

So, you are saying that you would LIE through your face, in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.
That is beautiful.
Then I can "assume" that everything you wrote in your life is only based on your own gain, nothing with reality or truth.
I rest my case.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #132 on: June 25, 2019, 07:35:11 PM »
in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.

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://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


Since all of the critics of Einstein's relativity were purged from the physics departments, science was left with this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #133 on: June 25, 2019, 08:45:35 PM »
So, according to you, if even Einstein did it, why can't you do the same, right?
And thanks for not refuting my statement.
Please read this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-career-in-counseling/201110/facts-and-assumptions-what-is-the-difference-and-does-it

There are different ways to communicate in this world.
When you state something as a fact, you NEED to supply evidences of proof, if not, the world stop seeing you as honest or serious.
When you want to expose what you think about something, you need to make sure people understand that is an personal assumption.
All your posts are stating your text as a fact.  Readers can assume that is the reality, not a supposition.

You wrote:
"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 wording lead to a factoid statement of the truth, without any logical evidences.  I understand this is what you believe it could be, but it is not written like that.
Dictators in our history use to say things like "This is like this and that, and it is because I want it to be", even so, they don't last longer.
Humans don't communicate like that when trying to find alternate ideas for something. There is a cooperative exchange of ideas and possible assumptions, nobody is owner of the truth, nor nobody knows everything, thus, nobody can use words like "it is, they are, which use, which orbit", when supposing things, without a minimum shred of evidence, except on dreams.   If you have evidencial facts, several times duplicated and experienced, then expose them, and then, only then, you can use words like "based on my findings, it is..."  But you don't have any personal findings about the retroreflectors, other than the oficial version (a laser reflective device on the surface of the Moon, installed by Apollo astronauts), you are just supposing it could be like you wrote to justify your flat earth assumptions, using explanations of Biefeld-Brown effect, something that you use on every sentence you write, to justify something is floating on orbit.  Seriously, we can not listen to this music track anymore.

Oh, and by the way, don't waste your time posting links to "www.theflatear...", I don't click on those, never did.

Also, did you ever think to imagine that humans of Flat Earth could put something on the Moon at 4800km in altitude? why not?
If the UA helps to fly high above, what could be the problem to reach the FE Moon, and even the FE Sun? nothing, right?
So, why it is impossible to have laser reflectors on FE Moon? Robots, scanners, cameras? photos of FE down here? why not? 




*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #134 on: June 25, 2019, 11:55:11 PM »
"Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity. Distinguished British physicist Dr Louis Essen stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.'
In my experience, this just isn't true. The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug, it's something you're told time and time again if you're taking a physics undergrad. It's one of the big problems in physics, and lots of people are trying to solve this by various means. The place I did my degree even has a whole section of the physics department working on trying to find viable alternatives to relativity. Where are you getting your info?
**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 #135 on: June 26, 2019, 12:40:15 AM »
in order to achieve a career goal, money or objective.

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://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

That is so typical of pseudo science and conspiracy theories: use a (valid) criticism that was written a century ago, and ignore all of the more recent evidence.

Yes, there were questions about the validity of Eddington's measurements. However, they and many others have been repeated over and over again since then. We have measured time dilation by flying clocks on aircraft and satellites. We have seen gravitational waves caused by neutron stars and black holes. Gravitational redshift has been measured in earthbound experiments. We have measured space being dragged by a rotating ball, etc. These and many other measurements have all shown the validity of General Relativity. There has never been an experiment that contradicted General Relativity.

Of course, at the same time we know that General Relativity does not merge with Quantum Mechanics, so one or both will eventually need to be modified. However, as with Newton's theory of gravity, the current measurements will stay valid.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #136 on: June 26, 2019, 04:44:51 AM »
The wording lead to a factoid statement of the truth, without any logical evidences.

It seems you haven't been paying attention at all.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14949.msg195226#msg195226


The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't play nice together isn't swept under the rug,

That is very obvious; what should be worrying you is the fact that TGR is presented as a viable option.


However, they and many others have been repeated over and over again since then.

Yes, they have been repeated using Einstein's personal unproven opinion (disguised as a "postulate") that the speed of light is a constant. Did you know that there are better explanations for all of these tests once that restriction is removed?

Let us take, as an example, the Pound-Rebka experiment.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

We have measured time dilation by flying clocks on aircraft

You haven't measured anything at all.

Here is how the Hafele-Keating test was faked/fudged:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

and satellites

You haven't done your homework on the gravity probe B.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982291#msg1982291

http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf

These and many other measurements have all shown the validity of General Relativity. There has never been an experiment that contradicted General Relativity.

To this day, there isn't a single experiment which proves the existence of the space-time continuum.

You always forget about the existence of the ether.

Convince yourself that the existence of the ether cannot be denied anymore, the RUDERFER experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The local-aether model is being adopted by modern science:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

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.

GALAEV ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

GLOBAL/GENERALIZED SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA:

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

ORIGINAL MAXWELL EQUATIONS FEATURING SCALAR/LONGITUDINAL WAVES (ETHER):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF SCALAR/LONGITUDINAL WAVES (papers published in 1903 and 1904 by E.T. Whittaker, one of the top mathematicians of the 20th century):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

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

RUDERFER EXPERIMENT: ABSOLUTE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, the first null result in ETHER DRIFT HISTORY

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721


Make sure you understand that the original Maxwell equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, a fact which demolishes any general relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2168036#msg2168036

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #137 on: June 26, 2019, 07:11:54 AM »
The "theory" of general relativity came to a very abrupt end back in 1917:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A very nice paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist! This too has been ignored by the relativists.


None other than Hermann Weyl, the top mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955 (several ranks higher than either Einstein or Minkowski) also pointed out a basic fallacy in Einstein's approach:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090509190344/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/weyl-1.pdf

An interesting treatment by Hermann Weyl (1944) demonstrating that the standard linearization of Einstein's equations is inadmissible because it leads to the requirement of a tensor, which, except for the trivial case of being zero, does not otherwise exist! Another important paper ignored by the orthodox physicists.


And Einstein's TGR was, at best, an incomplete hypothesis.

Again, Hermann Weyl explains:

“But in Riemannian geometry described above there is contained a last element of geometry “at a distance” (ferngeometrisches Element) — with no good reason, as far as I can see; it is due only to the accidental development of Riemannian geometry from Euclidean geometry. The metric allows the two magnitudes of two vectors to be compared, not only at the same point, but at any arbitrarily separated points. A true infinitesimal geometry should, however, recognize only a principle for transferring the magnitude of a vector to an infinitesimally close point and then, on transfer to an arbitrary distant point, the integrability of the magnitude of a vector is no more to be expected than the integrability of its direction.”

“On the removal of this inconsistency there appears a geometry that, surprisingly, when applied to the world, explains not only the gravitational phenomena but also the electrical. According to the resultant theory both spring from the same source, indeed in general one cannot separate gravitation and electromagnetism in a unique manner."
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 07:29:16 AM by sandokhan »

Offline reer

  • *
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #138 on: June 26, 2019, 10:18:24 AM »
Thanks, sandokhan

I will of course take all your links as gospel truth. But I do notice that, going by the documents you link, science seems to have stopped late 19th or early 20th century. What a wasted century.

At the risk of repeating myself: That is so typical of pseudo science and conspiracy theories: use a (valid) criticism that was written a century ago, and ignore all of the more recent evidence.

Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« Reply #139 on: June 26, 2019, 11:44:10 AM »
But I do notice that, going by the documents you link, science seems to have stopped late 19th or early 20th century. What a wasted century.

Why then do you accept 16th century and 17th century science as valid theory?

Here is how Kepler faked/fudged his Nova Astronomia:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (two consecutive messages)

Why do you accept the Constitution as valid law, a documented drafted some 250 years ago?

Here is what Woodrow Wilson had to say about the Constitution:

“The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”

“No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/woodrow-wilsons-new-constitution/

Why did Abraham Lincoln thrash the Constitution? Because he recognized it to be a weak document (from a legal point of view), and showed the way on how to defy each and every amendment for future generations:

http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=30277