Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes

  • 98 Replies
  • 24682 Views
*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« on: September 21, 2012, 01:43:06 PM »
Levee, are you aware that it takes time for gasses to settle?  Put oil and water in a glass, mix it together, then let it sit.  Time how long it takes for them to separate.
Gases are much slower as they have less weight.  And unless our atmosphere is totally screwed up, you aren't going to have no wind in the upper atmosphere for long.

Also:
Why are you comparing a ball of gas and plasma burning at thousands of degrees Kelvin while it shoots out huge waves of matter streams out into space to Earth's atmosphere?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2012, 01:55:00 AM »
The barometric pressure paradox does prove that our entire atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravitational law.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


For those who do not want to understand these straightforward facts of physics, they can go back to their fantasy world invented by LRS.



The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.

Therefore, the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities, which is a contradiction of the law of gravitational attraction.



Here is Sir I. Newton himself telling us that there are two kinds of gravitational forces: terrestrial gravity, which is a force exerting pressure - and planetary/stellar gravity, a rotational type of force.


Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.


Moreover, Newton DISMISSED the currently accepted view that gravity is attractive:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”




The assumption that the Sun evolves over time as a result of consuming itself in a central thermonuclear furnace is absolutely wrong.


This assumption was based on this: in the early 1960s, the physicist John Bahcall had calculated that, based on our understanding of solar physics, 30 million neutrinos should pass through every cubic inch of earth every second. If solar physicists had the correct models for the interior of the sun, then one neutrino encounter should be recorded every day in the chlorine tank beneath South Dakota.

To the shock of theorists and experimentalists alike, Homestake detected one neutrino encounter every three days. Somehow, two-thirds of the solar neutrinos were missing.


Larger neutrino observatories were constructed, using different methods to detect the elusive particles. Over the course of three decades, governments funded and physicists built five new observatories, including the Super Kamiokande (Super-K) in Japan and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Ontario. The results were always disappointing — still two-thirds short.

In 2001, scientists at SNO decided that perhaps they were looking for the wrong type of neutrino.



Here is a extraordinary analysis of the degree of deceit and lies offerred to the public by Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO):

http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm



The sections of the article, especially Some Examples, Analysis of the Official Announcement, A sentence from the conclusion of the report, A logical analysis of the last above sentence, and the Summary show very clearly that:

Although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved.  And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.



*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2012, 05:55:31 AM »
Why is my post in the repository?

Also I repeat:
How long do you think it would take atoms of gas in a mixture to settle based on densities?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 05:58:42 AM by Lorddave »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2012, 06:42:45 AM »
You have become quite an expert in the kinetic theory of gases since you entered in this debate.

Let met turn the table around: why is the movement of the molecules of gases not affected by the law of attractive gravitation?


Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.



Did you know that our own heliocentric planetary system (together with the Sun) travels at some 20 km/s toward the star Vega?

This fact means you have to make a basic choice (no RE can escape this quandary): both Kepler's first law and the fact that the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix, cannot be true.


A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.







Therefore, Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.


The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2012, 06:52:51 AM »
And now there's nowhere to hide from this: the Jupiter IR anomalous radiation and the angular momentum of the Sun paradoxes:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55860.0.html#.UF3Cf7LiaUM



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2012, 07:07:42 AM »
You are going to have to explain this too: the fact that no elements whatsoever could ever have formed out of a big bang scenario.

No clouds made up of gases could have formed either, not by any chance:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.0.html#.UF3F2rLiaUM

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2012, 07:40:32 AM »
Please stick to one discussion topic. Going from barometric pressure to solar system formation isn't helping you.

Also you failed to answer my question. How long does it take a gas mixture to settle by density?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2012, 07:55:43 AM »
There are scientific papers dedicated to this subject, gas mixture settling:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf



You should be interested in the subjects I just brought up.


There is no way any elements could have formed out of a big bang explosion.

No gas clouds could have formed either.

You cannot explain the Jupiter IR anomalous radiation readings or the angular momentum of the sun paradox.

You have no answers for the barometric pressure paradox.

You choose to ignore the fact that the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities, which is a contradiction of the law of gravitational attraction.

You refrain from making a quite obvious choice between Kepler's first law and the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix.



Therefore, you find yourself at a loss to explain anything relating to the theory you hold dear: big bang scenario.


Next items on the list are the faint young sun paradox and the experiment carried out by G.B. Airy in 1871 (stationary earth/existence of aether).



*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2012, 09:43:19 AM »
Thank you for posting that article Levee.  I am pleased to accept your concession on the separation of gases in the atmosphere of Earth.

I am interested in those subjects, but I find it more difficult to debate with you when you attempt to debate several topics in the same post.  The posts tend to get overly long.  If you would like to discuss any other subject, please create a new thread in the science forum.  :)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2012, 09:59:45 AM »
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that you have failed to address the points I made in my first message. Your mistaken assertion about the separation of the gases betrays, at best, confusion; at worst, it is a misconceived argument, a misrepresentation and a lack of intellectual penetration.


Your accepting of apparent successes where none can be found, is an escape hatch to avoid the very obvious facts: the gases in the atmosphere do indeed defy attractive gravity.





*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2012, 10:07:20 AM »
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that you have failed to address the points I made in my first message. Your mistaken assertion about the separation of the gases betrays, at best, confusion; at worst, it is a misconceived argument, a misrepresentation and a lack of intellectual penetration.


Your accepting of apparent successes where none can be found, is an escape hatch to avoid the very obvious facts: the gases in the atmosphere do indeed defy attractive gravity.
I could say the exact same thing about you.

Anyway, you posted the article which very clearly says on page 11...

Quote
Settling of small particles is a very slow process and many times
I'd consider oxygen molecules to be a small particle.  So I consider your article posting to be admission that you accept what that article says.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2012, 10:53:16 AM »
Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.



The ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.


Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.


You have failed to address any of the following points. That is why I called your message a misrepresentation.


The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.


The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.


If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?



Do you understand the phrase: which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight?


Since gases in the upper atmosphere do not stay separated according to their specific weight (as they should given the attractive gravity hypothesis), it is an obvious contradiction of this same attractive gravity "law".


You have failed, for the upteenth time, to address the barometric pressure paradox:

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2012, 02:52:50 PM »
So oxygen and ozone aren't particles? And by falling by specific gravity you don't mean settling?

Oh and I found the answer to the ozone problem:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=340260

I find it curious that you think gases sink like stones. Are stones gases?


Finally:
If the Earth is being pushed up by an acceleration force creating air pressure, why isn't CO2 on the ground level?

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2012, 07:31:41 PM »
Who keeps moving this discussion?
And why? It's perfectly fine where it started and I hate having to search for my posts every day.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2012, 08:22:46 PM »
I moved everything after the original post out because the repository isn't the place for debate. I don't know who moved what the first time.
(Also, the "Show new replies to your posts" link up top, is a handy tool to find threads you have previously posted in)
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2012, 05:30:41 AM »
You have not read my messages: there is no UA acceleration, the Earth is completely stationary.


Terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure; see the Telluric Currents message in my alternative faq.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899

Inexistence of UA acceleration, attractive gravity:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1363702.html#msg1363702 (gyro drop experiment)


The people who debate the ozone layer paradox do not understand the crux of the matter.

Its "shelf life" is very short, and the only way for it to exist in any
measurable quantity is for it to be constantly produced.


But in fact, the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


First off, higher densities don't sink. The atmosphere does not separate into by compounds.

But in fact they MUST, given the accepted law of universal gravitation (universal attraction); otherwise, we have a contradiction which denies/defies attractive gravity. Nowhere do they explain how or why the gases DO NOT stay separated according to their specific weights, given the permanent effect of the attractive gravitational law.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.


The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.


If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?




Let us now go back to the paper on gas mixture settling. The author does not seem to understand the implications of attractive gravity on gases or the fact that clouds simply defy gravity.


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.

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.



You keep forgetting the gas molecules movement paradox.

Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.


And we have again the barometric pressure paradox:

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

A very clear violation/contradiction of the law of attractive gravity.

Our atmosphere does not obey at all such an attractive gravitational law.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 05:33:58 AM by levee »

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2012, 06:05:59 AM »
Wow. You really are a copy paste debater aren't you?
You post an article as evidence then dismiss the author's understanding of gravity. I think you don't understand gravity. Or pressure for that matter. Or fluid dynamics.

You keep insisting that gases move like solids in air. Why?  What math do you have to show? What experiment do you have to validate this claim?  Do you even know how to calculate terminal velocity?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2012, 06:22:45 AM »
The material I just posted was included for a very good reason: it debunks your fallacious belief that the permanent effect of attractive gravity does not affect gases in the atmosphere.


You complain about the length of the article and yet you have not been able to respond to any of the points I made:


-the fact that the movement of the gas molecules simply defy attractive gravity

-the barometric pressure paradox

-the fact that clouds and mist simply defy the same attractive gravity



I think I understand gravity better than anyone here, ld.


Did you read the telluric currents and gyro drop messages? Certainly you did not.



http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

The gyroscope, of total weight 7.23 lbs (rotor weight 4.75 lbs, case weight 2.48 lbs) was released to fall along its axis. Electrical leads supplying power to the 41/4" diameter rotor were disconnected just prior to release.


Conclusion: a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.

A flagrant violation of the law of attractive gravity.


Do you understand what is being debated here ld? You believe in attractive gravity, and YET you (and the scientists you quoted) do not want to see any effects of this force on the gases  in the atmosphere.


Read again the barometric pressure paradox, it suffices to destroy any belief in attractive gravity. Read again the gas molecules movement paradox: it simply defies attractive gravity.


ps in case you did not realize, I posted the article NOT for any evidence, but in response to your query - a simple official science bibliographical item. The author, as we have seen, simply chooses to ignore the fact that clouds and mist defy attractive gravity, and you are doing the same thing.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 06:25:36 AM by levee »

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2012, 07:10:35 AM »
I will not be distracted by a poorly done and irrelevant experiment.  You can't fool me so easily.

The fact that you can't answer my question about how fast gases should move shows that you are stalling.
Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.


Oh and BTW: Please answer the tides paradox. 
If a variable pressure is pushing down on the Earth, why does water rise up and lower at various times during the day?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2012, 08:18:02 AM »
The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of engineers/scientists who worked with the late Dr. Bruce DePalma, PhD, researcher at MIT,  (read the link to see the perfect conditions for vacuum were complied with).

It was carefully performed, as we can see from the undeniable data:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

A flagrant violation of the law of attractive gravity.


Torsion physics defies attractive gravity: here are experiments performed by none other than N. Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.



A.N. KOZYREV GYROSCOPE EXPERIMENTS - inexistence of attractive gravity, UA acceleration

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

The results were published in the work The Pendulum of the Universe.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html


Aether, time, Kozyrev torsion fields:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30]http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30



I only use the best bibliographical and experimental data, you should understand that by now.


If you really want to know what pressure gravity is, read here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899


Please answer the tides paradox. 
If a variable pressure is pushing down on the Earth, why does water rise up and lower at various times during the day?


Now you are really beginning to use your brain, finally.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of attractive gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.”

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.



Here is Dr. T. Henry Moray explaining the influence of the telluric currents (ether) upon the sea tides:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space. By this time I was able to obtain enough power to light the old 16-candlepower carbon lamp for about one half capacity, and I did not seem to make any further improvement until the spring of 1925."

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge. The resultant oscillating power would be applied to industrial use.



You are the one stalling the discussion.

Here is a single paragraph of the barometric pressure paradox, it shows that there is no such thing as attractive gravity:

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.



Gases in the atmosphere, or at room temperature, COULD NOT behave the way they do, had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon.

Please read again.

Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.


With attractive gravity, there would be NO Brownian motion, and a complete separation of the gases in the atmosphere according to their specific weights.



Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.

Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, I repeat, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.

Brownian motion is a defiance of attractive gravity; and so is the fact that the gases in the atmosphere do not separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

You seem not to understand what is going on: you are discovering for the first time, thanks to my messages, the defiance of attractive gravity by gases.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 08:25:44 AM by levee »

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2012, 09:37:55 AM »
Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2012, 11:11:31 AM »
You can do the research yourself - I am not going to do your homework (again). If you are really interested in such calculations, there are plenty of references.


Here is the "law" of universal gravitation:



The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


(As we have seen however, earlier, Newton dismissed such a law in no uncertain terms, moreover he believed terrestrial gravity is a force exerting pressure).


Therefore, ld, in a world which would be subject to attractive gravity, gases would separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.


This is one of the main points of the entire discussion.



By the way, you have failed again to address the barometric pressure paradox.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.




And you have failed to take into consideration the very simple gas molecules movement paradox:

Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.



There is no such thing as attractive gravity: I do not have to resort to photographs or videos to show/prove the surface of the Earth is flat.  The spherical earth theory is completely dead without attractive gravity. A pressure type of gravity (terrestrial gravity) is possible ONLY on a flat earth.


Please read again the helium flash (triple alpha process) paradox: there is no possible way the elements (any of them) could have formed in the big bang scenario.

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2012, 02:19:48 PM »
Good.
Now, what would be the force required for that molecule of oxygen to stay afloat?  Assuming gravity exists.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2012, 10:09:46 PM »
Terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure exerted by the telluric currents (ether).


From Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity:

Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.




Discovery of ether by Tesla:

http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/


Tesla's Colorado Springs Experiment (best documentation):

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla1.htm

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla2.htm

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla3.htm


How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm

In 1910, professor Francis Nipher showed that the weight of an object can be modified by applying electricity:

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

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.

Therefore, the mass of a body is an electrical variable! Mass is not directly related to the quantity of matter.


John W. Keely's forty laws of ether transmission (discovered by him after painstaking experiments):

http://www.svpvril.com/fortylaw.html

John W. Keely ether secrets, master index:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html


Keely's theory of molecular structure:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theory.html

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theorycontinued.html



Ball Lightning, the Paradox of Physics, Defiance of Gravity by P. Sagan:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=rM5YjjnmIYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ball+lightning+sagan&source=bl&ots=oVKN7oiEaa&sig=rG3AXiY9haD5x4oQS4WKzxwGBK8&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Pl4OUK-DB8SB4gS6vICgDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ball%20lightning%20sagan&f=false


ED LEEDSKALNIN MAGNETIC CURRENT THEORY

Magnetic current is the same as electric current. Current is a wrong expression.

Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed.






http://www.leedskalnin.com/
http://keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt



Now, given all this information, it should be possible, for the first time, to really calculate the force required for a molecule of oxygen to stay afloat, in the ether/telluric currents/pressure gravity context.

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2012, 03:40:11 AM »
Why don't you do the math using both equations. Let me know what the results are in Newtons.

*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2012, 09:23:52 AM »
Have you been able to determine the equation for determining the force needed to keep a molecule of oxygen aloft in an aether pressure/currents?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2012, 10:56:14 AM »
Certainly I would like to devote more time to work out the calculations...


Meantime, let me demonstrate again that a molecule of oxygen cannot stay afloat due to attractive gravity.


There is no such thing as attractive gravity.



http://web.archive.org/web/20071021071531/http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler/elot.htm



2 plumb lines, which in a deep shaft below are 33 cm (13 in. ) farther apart than at the surface


Sometime prior to 1901, the French Government, wishing to determine more accurately the actual size of the Earth, so that they could revise and refine their calculations regarding the distance to the sun, hit on a way to measure the difference in distance apart at the top of two lines perpendicular to the surface of the Earth and the bottom of those same two lines. They wanted a pair of lines long enough to give them an appreciable measurement . Obviously they could not erect two parallel poles a mile high, but they did feel they could suspend two plumb bobs a mile deep into a mine shaft, and thus be able to measure the distance apart at the top and the distance apart at the bottom, which would be slightly less. They wanted to know exactly how much less.


The result of these tests was very strange. So strange that the French Geodetic scientists contacted the scientists of the American Geodetic Survey and conveyed their results to them, with the request that similar tests be conducted in this country. Officially, nothing was done for some years. But in 1901, one of the Geodetic surveyors happened to be working in the vicinity of the Tamarack mines near Calumet, Michigan. He contacted the chief engineer at Tamarack, and informed him of the information transmitted by the French government.


Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines exactly 4,250 feet long were suspended in each mine. At the end of these lines a sixty pound bob was hung. In order to prevent movement through a horizontal direction, each bob was suspended in a tank of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.


In this way, it was reasoned, magnetic forces could not effect them. The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed to hang, so that there would be no possibility of movement from putting them in place still remaining in the lines.


The measurements were begun.


It was then that it was discovered that the French Geodetic engineers had not made a mistake.
Careful re-checking proved that the lines, contrary to expectations, were farther apart at the bottom than at the top!


There can be only one implication to such strange result – the center of gravity is not, as previously believed, at the center of the Earth, but in fact, it must be above the surface of the Earth, somewhere in Space! If these two lines, formed by the suspended plumb lines, were to be extended upward, they would meet somewhere in the void away from the Earth, and that point, by all the rules of gravitational attraction, should be the center of gravity of this planet!



*

Lorddave

  • 15828
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #27 on: September 25, 2012, 01:36:36 PM »
I am glad you're looking at the calculations more closely.
I calculated the force using the gravitational equation in about 10 minutes.  I hope the other equation you're creating isn't giving you too much of an issue.

Though I am wondering: Why are you attempting to disprove gravity with anecdotes while simultaneously saying gravity exists in an impossible way?  You've said that gravity doesn't exist because oxygen would fall if it did yet oxygen doesn't get compressed with pressure.  You then show two plum bobs that are at an angle farther apart from each other yet Etheric pressure would cause them to be equal distance apart.

I think I need to know once and for all:
In your view, does gravity exist or is the Earth being pushed down at a constant acceleration with pressure?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6316
Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
« Reply #28 on: September 25, 2012, 09:12:54 PM »
The discovery at the Tamarack mines is no anecdote.

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition.




Now, I have kept the best for the end: the most elegant proof that the "law" of universal gravitation is completely wrong.


BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/
http://www.libertyandlove.org/advanced-tech/bruce-depalma-n-machine.aspx


Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:


Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.





The experiment performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma (MIT/Harvard) is a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity. And so is the experiment done by his assistants, the gyro drop experiment:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

Conclusion: a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



I think I need to know once and for all

I told you from day one read the telluric current message, you will discover the pressure ether gravity theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899


yet Etheric pressure would cause them to be equal distance apart.

The experiment at the Tamarack mines does show that there is no such thing as attractive gravity; it also shows that the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves decreases as we descend deeper into the Earth.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 09:17:30 PM by levee »