[sandokhan]

"Allais noted that the normal, progressive "Foucault motion" of his laboratory's uniquely-designed "paraconical pendulum," during the eclipse, suddenly reversed ... and literally "ran backwards" ... until mid-eclipse, when the pendulum motion reversed again ... rapidly resuming its normal rate and direction of angular rotation (below) ....

This set of completely inexplicable (under any current theory ...) solar eclipse observations has since been termed "the Allais Effect."



A trace of Allais' actual, remarkable 1954 pendulum observations -- made during the eclipse.

"The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."

"Needless to say, this astonishing behavior was completely unpredicted ("unmodeled" is the term ...) by either Newton or Einstein -- in terms of the "normal" inertial motions of a pendulum freely swinging under gravity ...."


"Trying to use Foucault's pendulum as proof for heliocentricity really backfired when Maurice Allais repeatedly observed pendulums slowing their motion during eclipses! This implies that either the "rotating Earth" decelerates during eclipses or the firmament does."

[sandokhan]

"The heart of all good science is “replication.”

By repeating his “anomalous 1954 observations” five years later, during another solar eclipse over Paris (in October, 1959), Allais fulfilled every essence of “good science” – even if the mainstream theoretical community was (and still is!) completely baffled by his remarkable, physically replicable ... meticulously empirical observations.

The overlaid graph (below), containing the paraconical pendulum data from BOTH sets of eclipse observations, proves the elemental point":




"It was the periodicity of the variations in azimuth which proved to be
most interesting. After discounting for the Foucault effect and the “return
effect” due to the anisotropy of the support, Allais found very strong
evidence for a periodic effect which could not be attributed to any known
cause. Harmonic analysis by a mathematical technique known as a BuysBallot
filter showed that the periodicity manifested itself on a cycle of 24
and 25 hours. Analysis showed that the unknown disturbing influence or
influences giving rise to this periodicity was of a strong character, with a
strength on average and as a whole about twice that of the Foucault effect.

An analysis by M. Allais showed that the difference in
gravitational attraction exerted by the luni-solar alignment upon a point on
the Earth could not give rise to such variations in the pendulum, for the order
of magnitude of such effect is 100 million times smaller than the
gravitational field which drives the pendulum’s fall.

Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause."

[shaunm1963]

Hi, thanks for all the wonderful replies, especially to sandokhan for introducing me to entirely hitherto unknown concepts (which I will look into). However, just for a moment put all theorizing, speculation and argument aside...............can anyone link to a web page or two that shows photographs and/or videos of actual satellites in space, doing their thing? We can take photographs of Pluto, so surely, someone must have snapped or filmed a passing satellite; I don't just mean the star-like passing in the night sky. Thanks.

[sandokhan]

There are plenty of videos on youtube, showing a satellite transit across the moon, the ISS transits across the sun/moon.

http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm

[Disgraced_Shield]

Okay. Copy-pasta aside, I'll ask you for a third time.

Simply put- answer me these questions. I know how you'll answer some of them, but...again, humor me.

1. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding satellites in orbit?

2. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding clouds suspended above the earth, since you claim that clouds are too heavy to be held aloft by updrafts as is claimed by conventional science? (That cloud mass is measured collectively)

2a: Is precipitation a result of a charge difference in droplets?

3. What are the operating capacities of these cosmic ray devices? ie: if they're what are controlling cloud suspension, how many of them are supposedly necessary to facilitate an extremely overcast/cloudy day in the area of a small city?

3a. Rough estimate, how many of these devices do you believe are in deployment worldwide? Flat or round, the surface of the earth is fairly sprawling. Could a single device in New Mexico control cloud cover in India?

4. Who is responsible for the manufacture, placement, management, and maintenance of said devices?


I have more, but the answers to these questions will determine the course of questioning from here out.

Thank you.

[sandokhan]

This kind of trolling would be expected on the other forum... but not here.

[markjo]

Your brilliant analogies and observations (helium balloons compared to droplets, and coffee/shower vapour to cloud water droplets) should enable you to have no problems understanding the discussion.


A single image is sufficient to show that the photographs (JSA) are false:



The eclipse and the pendulum - How the pendulum's swing angle changed during the 1954 eclipse

The plane of the oscillation of the pendulum shifted approximately 15 centesimal degrees during the eclipse (approximately 13.5 degrees)

The shifting would probably be easier to explain if it could be reproduced more consistently.  As I recall, this anomaly only occurs occasionally during solar eclipses.

It takes a single counterexample to debunk a hypothesis (in our case, attractive gravity): and the Allais effect is the most important such counterexample.

That might be true if the cause of that counterexample was well understood.  Last I heard, the Allais effect was not well understood.

[Disgraced_Shield]

This kind of trolling would be expected on the other forum... but not here.

Three times I asked simple questions, requesting simple answers and have gotten nothing in return but copy-pasta.

This is not trolling, this is consternation. I clearly tell you I am not of a scientific mind, and ask you to explain things to me in a more elementary fashion, which- if you're as good as they say you are, shouldn't be a problem. Yet, instead of simple answers to my questions, you copy/paste things over and over again.

Who is trolling whom?

You make claims, and post 'proof.' I ask for clarification, and get called a troll.
You ignore questions and are hailed as 'the best in the business.'

I think I see what goes on here.

Thanks.

[sandokhan]

Don't play the hypocrite.

You are not here for any serious discussion, just trolling around.

The consternation is on our part: the junior high school level of your posts.


This whole thing has no tangible proof or reliable verification to distinguish it from mere theory because "It can be camouflaged easily.?"

You were given the exact proofs here:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78010#msg78010


Legitimate if you're talking about the suspension of the cumulative weight. Science though, doesn't work that way. Rather the scientific principals of gravity and buoyancy apply to each water droplet- millions of which could be required to form a single raindrop. (more on these in a moment) In effect, the universal scientific principals at work are not being applied to a million pound cloud, but to a very lightweight droplet individually, a gazillion times over.

This is your "copy & pasta": your own erroneous beliefs, a kindergarten level of approach to science...

Copy & pasta = BIBLIOGRAPHY (do you even know the meaning of the word?)

I present the proofs, in exact wording and images, necessary for you to understand how real science works.


Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds


This means that you do not have even the basic knowledge about clouds, atmospheric physics.


That is why I was obliged to quote directly and precisely the very facts of science you are missing.


What static electricity is causing the steam to rise from your coffee cup in the morning, or from your shower head?

I even took the time to answer this kind of trolling:

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.


Here are more proofs of trolling around.

Think about a helium balloon, if you want to raise the scale for the sake of simplicity. A single balloon weighs a negligible amount. Fill it with buoyant gas, and it will rise. Fill a billion of them with the same gas, and they will all rise into the air, but if you weigh the cumulative formation, I'll bet it's a little heavier than one balloon is.
-According to your arguments though, since the balloon formation now weighs several hundred pounds, there is no reason that it should be able to float into the sky without artificial means. This isn't the defiance of gravity as you claim, but merely circumventing it for a time...and only for a time, since at one point, the balloons will come back to the earth.


The combined state of water in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


Then Disgraced_Shield switches back to the "I am not of a scientific mind" routine:

I'm not a scientifically minded individual- so, without the gazillions of regurgitated links, answer me this question very simply before we can continue:

What is causing the biefeld-brown effect on earth which you claim is keeping clouds and satellites aloft?- Which you so confidently claim negates the video provided by OP?



Then, he goes right back to the trolling routine, EXPRESSELY FORBIDDEN in the rules posted here:

Answer me this without a dissertation and 38 links back to your own forum. Use plain English and don't go off on a tangent, and make an attempt at doing it without the 'you haven't done your homework' snark. It makes you look defensive.

True or False: You are asserting that a cloud is one entity which is too heavy, based on the weight of water- to float in the sky on its own, and needs to be held aloft with a cosmic ray device.


There was no dissertation, in fact I used FEWER WORDS than were included in his previous message, to answer back.


This is the "cosmic ray device" of the water molecule: in just a few paragraphs, using the best available bibliography, we see how the very geometry of the water molecule, the icosahedron, permits the ether waves (copiously proven to exist, if Disgraced_Shield would have taken the time to even lightly look/read over the Dayton Miller and Yuri Galaev articles):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78081#msg78081

Perhaps there are less than 100 words there: a clear, simple, beautiful explanation.


Then he goes back to the "I'm too dumb to understand, make it look better for me" routine:

There's a saying in the IT world- "If you can't explain it to the simplest of users, you have no idea what you're talking about."


So then, I resumed everything to one single image, and one single paragraph:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78111#msg78111


It doesn't get any simpler than this.

FOR THE SAME LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, AND THE SAME MASS OF THE SUN, EARTH, MOON, AND THE PENDULUM IN QUESTION, THERE IS A HUGE SHIFT OF 13.5 DEGREES OF THE PLANE OF THE PENDULUM DURING THE ECLIPSE.


I then wrote two more messages, and, in order to make sure that everybody understands that the Allais effect did really happen, I even posted the letter sent to Werner von Braun by general Paul Bergeron:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78130#msg78130


Did Disgraced_Shield take the time to read this letter? Not at all.


To describe the Allais effect even more precisely, I posted this message:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78131#msg78131

A single image, less than 100 words, using the exact quotes from Dr. Maurice Allais, as bibliographical material: it doesn't get any simpler than this.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Then, of course, Disgraced_Shield pretends not to have read this simple demonstration, and refuels his trolling routine, using mindless questions:

Okay. Copy-pasta aside, I'll ask you for a third time.

Simply put- answer me these questions. I know how you'll answer some of them, but...again, humor me.

1. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding satellites in orbit?

2. Are cosmic ray devices responsible for holding clouds suspended above the earth, since you claim that clouds are too heavy to be held aloft by updrafts as is claimed by conventional science? (That cloud mass is measured collectively)

3. What are the operating capacities of these cosmic ray devices? ie: if they're what are controlling cloud suspension, how many of them are supposedly necessary to facilitate an extremely overcast/cloudy day in the area of a small city?

3a. Rough estimate, how many of these devices do you believe are in deployment worldwide? Flat or round, the surface of the earth is fairly sprawling. Could a single device in New Mexico control cloud cover in India?

4. Who is responsible for the manufacture, placement, management, and maintenance of said devices?



This is the hallmark of a troll: to pretend he was not given any answers, and then to go right back, using even more dumbfounding words/phrases.


It is at this point that one of the moderators/admin should have stepped in to kindly inform Disgraced_Shield that trolling is not permitted in the upper forums.



Then, of course, Disgraced_Shield goes right back to the "I'm too dumb to understand, you just haven't made it clear for me" routine:

Three times I asked simple questions, requesting simple answers and have gotten nothing in return but copy-pasta.

 I clearly tell you I am not of a scientific mind, and ask you to explain things to me in a more elementary fashion, which- if you're as good as they say you are, shouldn't be a problem. Yet, instead of simple answers to my questions, you copy/paste things over and over again.



Those questions, the revelant ones, were answered plainly and clearly.

It doesn't get any simpler than that: I used less than 100 words, per message, to describe the physics, the Allais effect, the cosmic ray device invented by Tesla, the Biefeld-Brown effect...


Question: why is this kind of trolling even allowed to go on here, in the upper forums?

It is an open invitation, for anybody else, to do the same thing.

[sandokhan]

The shifting would probably be easier to explain if it could be reproduced more consistently.  As I recall, this anomaly only occurs occasionally during solar eclipses.

Exactly, which means that the very source of the antigravitational effect is actually present, in the sky, during the solar eclipse.


The other "anomalies", the DePalma effect, the Kozyrev effect, the Biefeld-Brown effect, the Lamoreaux effect, the Nipher effect tell us that the radiation of the cosmic body which does emit the antigravitational subquarks can be activated/tapped into.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747 (confirmation of the Allais effect from 1999 to 2011)

That might be true if the cause of that counterexample was well understood.  Last I heard, the Allais effect was not well understood.

It is very well understood: it invalidates immediately and absolutely the assumed law of universal gravitation, here are the calculations:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.



Now, let us closely follow the description of the Allais effect during the August 1, 2008 solar eclipse:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747


Abstract — During the solar eclipse of 1 August 2008 three programs of physics observations were independently conducted by teams in Kiev, Ukraine, and Suceava, Romania, separated by about 440 km. The Ukraine team operated five independent miniature torsion balances, one Romania team operated two independent short ball-borne pendulums, and the other Romania team operated a long Foucault-type pendulum.

All three teams detected unexplained disturbances, and these disturbances were mutually correlated. The overall pattern of the observations exhibits certain perplexing features.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner, which is quite typical for long pendulums. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e.between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence no longer acted during the next interval between readings (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).


Comments. This striking deviation during the episode starting at 11:15 is unexplained. Structurally it closely resembles Allais's 1954 observation (Refs. 8, 9, and 10): first an increase of the precession rate, then a plateau, and then a decrease back to the original trend. However it occurred after the end of the visible eclipse, whereas the deviation observed by Allais occurred during the eclipse.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation. The basic reason is that in those models the gravitational influences of several bodies are combined by addition, at least to the accuracy detectable by molar equipment.

However all three of our experiments exhibited rather brusque variations (the abrupt jumps of the Kiev balances, the humps and particularly the sharp spikes in the Suceava short pendulum charts, and the deviation of the Suceava long pendulum) which cannot have resulted from linear combination of the gravitational/tidal influences of the Sun and the Moon, the magnitudes and angles of which vary only gently over the time scales of the effects seen.

[Disgraced_Shield]

I don't think its at all trolling to want more information on these cosmic ray devices.

Give me more. You told me how they work, which is fine. I liked that. But you told me that three times. You gave me that 'how'
Now I want to know the 'where' 'who' 'why' and the 'what'

Your links and explanations are showing excellent proof of concept. I want proof of application beyond theory.

Stop dodging the simplest of questions, and ramming what you hope I don't bother to read down my throat every time I try to pin down a response out of you.

I'm absolutely not trolling. I'm fishing for answers to inquiries that would support the science you claim is legitimate. You don't get to cry 'foul' when you don't like my questions, that isn't how this works.

I came in here as a skeptic of the flat earth idea. If you continue to get butt-hurt because I want simple answers to simple questions instead of a massive volume of reiterated proof of concept, you're not doing a damn thing to further your cause.

What are these devices? - You answered.
How do they work?- You answered.

As soon as I try to parlay these answers of yours into a real world explanation, you get your hackles up and I'm a troll.

You know what? Skip it. Forget these little questions of mine. If you're so obsessed with not answering them, like it or not....you have anyway.

[markjo]

The shifting would probably be easier to explain if it could be reproduced more consistently.  As I recall, this anomaly only occurs occasionally during solar eclipses.

Exactly, which means that the very source of the antigravitational effect is actually present, in the sky, during the solar eclipse.

Then why does it occur only during some eclipses but not others?

That might be true if the cause of that counterexample was well understood.  Last I heard, the Allais effect was not well understood.

It is very well understood: it invalidates immediately and absolutely the assumed law of universal gravitation, here are the calculations:

Oh?  This doesn't sound like it's well understood to me.

Comments. This striking deviation during the episode starting at 11:15 is unexplained. Structurally it closely resembles Allais's 1954 observation (Refs. 8, 9, and 10): first an increase of the precession rate, then a plateau, and then a decrease back to the original trend. However it occurred after the end of the visible eclipse, whereas the deviation observed by Allais occurred during the eclipse.

The nature of this common influence is unknown...

[sandokhan]

The Allais effect will always occur: however, his experiment used very carefully designed paraconical pendulums, which were not always used in the other experiments (regular Foucault pendulums, torsinds).


http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf (they used a Foucault pendulum)

In order to study more deeply the Allais effect new measurements are necessary, made with the paraconical pendulum (Allais) and also with the Foucault pendulum, during other eclipses.


http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf (they used a paraconical pendulum, and they replicated the Allais effect, they also verified the Jeverdan effect; this was an annular eclipse)


http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22 (both a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance were used; they carefully noted the abrupt new signal, the distinct variation, not only before the eclipse, and during the eclipse itself, but even after the eclipse)


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an
inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the
end of the visible eclipse, some influence exerted itself upon the
Eastern European region containing our three sets of
equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of
kilometers in width.


http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/ (both a paraconical pendulum and torsion balances were used, an observed Allais effect)


In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.


http://www.diaspora-stiintifica.ro/diaspora2010/prezentari/wks18/Dimitrie%20Olenici%20-%20Anomalii%20in%20comportarea%20pendului%20Foucault%20in%20timpul%20unor%20evenimente%20astronomic.pdf (last page, a Foucault pendulum was used, the Allais effect was observed)


http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm (both a torsion balance and a Foucault pendulum were used, the Allais effect confirmed)



How difficult is it for these authors, who have carefully recorded these amazing experiments and results, to realize that it is NOT the moon which causes the solar eclipse?

That it is the radiation emitted by this NEW heavenly body which does cause the Allais effect.


The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.









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


Moreover, these photographs show and prove that the Sun does not orbit at an altitude of 3000 miles, that it does not have a 32 mile diameter, and that it does rise and set, which brings to our attention the precession subject.

[Rayzor]

Thanks Sandokhan,  interesting reading as always,  but I'm confused as to why you think the moon could not cause the solar eclipse.

The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.

His detailed trip report is here.
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

[sandokhan]

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


“There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”

    I. Asimov


Each and every one of the theories relating to the origin of the Moon, has been proven to be false, yet, each of these theories assumes that by either breaking off from Earth, or that it was created from space debris, or by collision with the Earth, or by capture, an unimaginable coincidence took place: the Moon positioned itself at just the right distance from the Earth, to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth.


If anybody here accepts the official chronology of history, then he/she will also have to accept this fact:

From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.




For those who have the read the material posted on the ifes board, it becomes obvious that E. Dubay copied my original research on the Black Sun theory: I introduced this idea and all the details years ago.


The Allais effect cannot be explained unless we take into account the very possibility which modern astronomy cannot and will not admit: the solar eclipse is caused by another planet, which does emit the radiation that influences the pendulum's swing.

The photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes do prove that the heavenly body observed in the sky between the Sun and the Earth cannot be, and is not, the Moon.

[sandokhan]

The flux of gravitons paradox (how a three body system cannot function given the attractive gravity scenario) - for a better visualization, use Sun - Jupiter - Io


"OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate that this interchange of gravitational particles again will seem to result in violations of conservation of energy. We will do this by demonstrating that, if matter is indeed influenced by gravitational particles, then, even under normal orbital conditions, gravity should decrease, due to a gravitational shadowing effect. This shadowing effect would violate conservation of energy.

Thought Experiment: IMAGINE THAT GRAVITONS BEHAVE LIKE PHOTONS

(for descriptive purposes only)

To better visualize how this partial gravitational influence might be encountered, let us describe gravity and gravitational interaction in terms of light, so that:

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed."

[sandokhan]

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX

Stanley Byers presented his findings to the National Science Foundation, the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research and to Dr. Harold Puthoff, with very interesting feedback.

[shaunm1963]

There are plenty of videos on youtube, showing a satellite transit across the moon, the ISS transits across the sun/moon.

http://home.clara.net/robertkeddie/Astro/geo.htm

Hi and thanks for the reply/link. In my opinion these images show very little of interest and evidence of satellites. I can see white marks. What I really want to see are images/videos of satellites out in space taken by space shuttle/space station crews (ISS, Sky Lab...what happened to that?), other satellites, all the high powered telescopes we have on Earth.

I'm determined to get to the bottom of this FE/RE debate. I don't have a science education nor do I have access to high flying techno talk. I just want simple questions answered in a way that when presented with the data I can then say Ah Yes....therein lies the truth......

So, photos, videos.......actual, close-up, HD, no doubt about it info...

Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

[Rayzor]

Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.   Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.   You can use multiple dishes to triangulate the satellite positions.

As far as pictures of satellites from space,  there have been numerous shuttle missions to repair and overhaul satellites,  but I guess you think those are all somehow faked. 

Here's a 1992 mission to repair Intelsat VI     there are plenty of others.

[shaunm1963]

Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.   Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.   You can use multiple dishes to triangulate the satellite positions.

As far as pictures of satellites from space,  there have been numerous shuttle missions to repair and overhaul satellites,  but I guess you think those are all somehow faked. 

Here's a 1992 mission to repair Intelsat VI     there are plenty of others.

Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.

My satellite dish does not work as a GPS, I have a Garmin for that.

My satellite dish and the aerial on the roof are affected by tall buildings and trees. If satellite dishes work by pointing at satellites in space then why aren't all dishes pointing straight up. In bad weather in winter especially, the signals are poor because Winter Hill is affected.

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.

GPS co-ordinates/signals prove that there is some technology. This statement does not prove that the satellies exist, only that the signals do. However, let's assume/accept that there are man-made objects high above us, triangulating signals for locational purposes. This does not imply a deep space/high orbital location, for 3000+ (as has elsewhere been stated) objects. Official figures are for 27 (?) (24 active and 3 extra) GPS satellies. This does not rule out a flat-earth model. It means that there are 27 objects high above us triangulating signals.

So far then, I have yet to be given real evidence of the existence of satellites spinning around a globe earth.

Oh, and as far as your video is concerned. I'll include a link: please watch it without a viewpoint/belief (hey, don't make any assumptions about me  "but i guess you think they are all somehow faked"   ) I'm 52 and I spent 51 years 'believing' everything I was told, everything YOU still believe in (sorry, did I make an assumption?). I've spent a year looking at everything from a different angle, asking questions that shouldn't be asked, considering other possibilities..........perhaps more people should. If at the end of the day, the truth is just what the official experts and government agencies tell us it is, then great, nothing lost. BUT, unless we remove our supposed blinkers we may remain in a darkness that up to know we didn't know we were in.)



Now, looking at this, and seeing it from an untainted standpoint, what do you see? What do you conclude? I suppose you think this is mindless conspiracy nonsense? Surely, our own government wouldn't lie to us? Surely, our own government is honest and good...? (Don't consider Cambodia, for example when answering this, it might just taint your opinion).

And here's another for good measure. Is she, or isn't she? (that 's what was asked on the Harmony hairspray ad in the 70's.........so, is she or isn't she?) and look at the Comments I made under the vid. I am still awaiting anyone to re-comment!