[Buttercup]

Why is the sky blue? What is the firmament made out of? What is the dome above us? The answer may be something known as silica aerogel.

[beauharlan]

This concept seems more consistent with history and mythology than modern scientific knowledge. Also another perspective.

[jimster]

If you believe in UA and a dome, then the earth is accelerating at 32 ft/second/second and, apparently, so are objects in the sky. so a force adequate for that acceleration must be applied to the sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc to accelerate identically. The material you propose is not strong structurally. The sun produces a huge measurable amount of energy and if the dome model is correct, the sun 35 miles across as calculated from a dome 3500 miles away (or maybe no one knows). Seems unlikely something that produces all that energy and is 35 miles wide would have So if the "dome" is made of aerogel, what holds up the sun? Is it so light that aerogel can support it or is there some other structure we don't know about?

[sandokhan]

If you believe in UA and a dome, then the earth is accelerating at 32 ft/second/second and, apparently, so are objects in the sky. so a force adequate for that acceleration must be applied to the sun, moon, planets, asteroids, etc to accelerate identically. The material you propose is not strong structurally. The sun produces a huge measurable amount of energy and if the dome model is correct, the sun 35 miles across as calculated from a dome 3500 miles away (or maybe no one knows). Seems unlikely something that produces all that energy and is 35 miles wide would have So if the "dome" is made of aerogel, what holds up the sun? Is it so light that aerogel can support it or is there some other structure we don't know about?

It is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous.

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

[AATW]

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

That's roughly in the range of cruising altitude of commercial planes. Why don't they hit it? Or at least be noticeably closer to it.

[jimster]

sandokhan, "t is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous."

Why not? How does the dome cause things to accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec? I bet you many FEs believe in both UA and dome. If there is no dome, where are planets and stars? Is there something like outer space in your model? Do you know the real truth of FE and all FEs who disagree with you are wrong?


sandokhan: "The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km."

If so, where does the sun appear to be when it is noon and you are 100 km from the spot directly underneath it? Rockets can fly over the sun? 636 meters in diameter?

The total solar energy per second on a surface perpendicular to the Sun is about 1350 Joules per square meter or about 0.275 watt-hours. Taking into account incidence angle and the surface area, the effective energy arriving at the Earth is about 1.75E17 Joules. And you are saying something that powerful is 636 meters across and 12 km away? If the sun is 12 km from the surface of the earth, the inverse square law says energy density varies with the inverse of the distance squared. So a plce directly underneath would get 4 times as much energy as on the surface 24km from the sun and places 1000 km away get almost nothing.

[sandokhan]

The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km.

That's roughly in the range of cruising altitude of commercial planes. Why don't they hit it? Or at least be noticeably closer to it.

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

Not one RE physicist can explain how planes fly:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2230939#msg2230939

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

[sandokhan]

sandokhan, "t is either/or: you can't have both a dome and the UA. The dome makes the UA superfluous."

Why not? How does the dome cause things to accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec? I bet you many FEs believe in both UA and dome. If there is no dome, where are planets and stars? Is there something like outer space in your model? Do you know the real truth of FE and all FEs who disagree with you are wrong?


sandokhan: "The Sun measures 636 meters in diameter, the orbital altitude is some 10-12 km."

If so, where does the sun appear to be when it is noon and you are 100 km from the spot directly underneath it? Rockets can fly over the sun? 636 meters in diameter?

The total solar energy per second on a surface perpendicular to the Sun is about 1350 Joules per square meter or about 0.275 watt-hours. Taking into account incidence angle and the surface area, the effective energy arriving at the Earth is about 1.75E17 Joules. And you are saying something that powerful is 636 meters across and 12 km away? If the sun is 12 km from the surface of the earth, the inverse square law says energy density varies with the inverse of the distance squared. So a plce directly underneath would get 4 times as much energy as on the surface 24km from the sun and places 1000 km away get almost nothing.

Amateur rockets

Actually, the way this altitude is measured is the following: According to RRS member Bill Claybaugh (1996, alleged 50 mile altitude reached), "this altitude was estimated from a image of the entire Black Rock Desert taken near peak using known distances between geographic features".

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver.

But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device which is the source of energy for the Biefeld-Brown effect.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

Full moon over Mt. Everest




Your analysis fails to take into consideration the existence of subquark strings which transmit thermal energy, light waves and gravitational waves: remember how Tesla had sent energy through longitudinal electromagnetic waves (the bosons which make up the strings of the subquark itself) without energy being dissipated at an inverse square law.

We are talking here about LONGITUDINAL e/m waves, not transmission of energy through transversal waves: true wireless means sending energy through longitudinal waves, modern wireless is sending shockwaves through the sea of ether waves. A longitudinal wave propagates through a transversal e/m wave.

You can be sure that the diameter of the Sun measures under 1 km, see here:



That's the height of the Burj Khalifa right there for the Sun.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Not to mention that's the Black Sun which causes the solar eclipse.

[jimster]

Planes fly because of the shape of their wings and Bernoulli's principle. Search youtube for "how do airplanes fly". I grew up at Edwards Air Force Base and my dad and my neighbors worked in aerospace. They all told the same story about how the air traveled faster over the top of the wing, so less pressure. Watch some videos. They worked manufacturing, testing, and flying airplanes, and those airplanes work. Really, people design, certify, insure, and travel on airplanes and no one knows how they work?? Yet somehow, millions of people get where they want to go. The question is, why am I arguing with people who think the earth is flat and no one knows how airplanes work.

[sandokhan]

Planes fly because of the shape of their wings and Bernoulli's principle.

Nope.

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902

Simon Newcomb, directed the American Nautical Almanac Office, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, founder and first president of the American Astronomical Society, vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3p167y1977-78.pdf

The Outlook for the Flying Machine


It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odAffPmcOhVX9D7wVXXiCS7caNOZywXg/view

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air
By Ed Regis

http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf

Addendum January 18, 2020: Scientific American just published an article admitting that “no one can explain why planes stay in the air”. They should say “no one promoted by the mainstream” can explain it, since I just did above. But despite that obvious omission, it is incredible they would be admitting this in 2020, confirming many of the points I make above, as if they had read this paper and were doing their best to respond to it without mentioning it. Because I think that is precisely what is going on. But although I think that is true, I still find it incredible they would admit to their own ignorance this late in the game. They don't completely admit it, and the author Ed Regis makes some weak stabs at promoting old theories, as well as promoting Doug McLean. But it is all sort of half-hearted and desperate, and Regis doesn't even try very hard to disguise that. He starts by admitting that John Anderson, curator of aerodynamics at the Air and Space Museum, can't explain lift, and has said so in print. Anderson hedged in his 2003 interview in the New York Times, confessing there was no agreement on the subject. Bernoulli's Theorem from 1738 is still the go-to explanation for a majority in academia, but it is admitted that fails to answer all questions. Regis includes the least of these questions in his “But...” insert, admitting that the curved upper surface theory has been disproved. He does not admit that Bernoulli's “lift” vector is unsupported by even the least shred of mechanics, being nothing more than a word. A naming standing for an explanation.

The scathing and devastating analysis by M. Mathis reveals that the explanations put forth by modern science regarding the flight of airplanes, are completely false.

But not even M. Mathis can deliver the correct explanation.

There is only one physicist who was ever able to explain why airplanes stay in flight. He even invented the jet engine: Viktor Schauberger.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376 (V. Schauberger effect, jet engine levitation, part I)

[jimster]

There are more types of altimeters than that.

https://www.uavnavigation.com/support/kb/general/inertial-navigation-system-and-estimation/introduction-altimeters

[jimster]

Why is the most recent quote 1902, before the Wright brothers? Because airplanes proved them wrong. Ever flown in an airplane? I have many times.

Airplane designers can explain the effect of wing design on the speed, load carrying ability, and aeronautical characteristics of airplanes. Software models (like Microsoft flight simulator) use the known equations and simulate the airflow over the wing to model flight. Pilots confirm the accuracy of these models. 120 years of experiments by many people around the world, wind tunnels, equations, aircraft manufacturers, working airplanes, and they are all ignorant and you know the truth. Seems unlikely.

[AATW]

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

No it isn't.
But even if it was, that would still mean you're half the distance to the sun when you're flying.
Shouldn't it appear twice as big?

[RonJ]

The real flying altitude of commercial airplanes is some 6-7 km:

Your quote is incorrect.  I know that from personal experiences.  For many years I was an active licensed commercial pilot.  There have been some occasions when the Sun was directly overhead, and we were at an altitude of over 12km.  Your measurements are obviously wrong for that practical reason.