Poll

Is the earth stationary or does it move (upward or in another direction)?

The earth is stationary.
5 (50%)
The earth moves.
5 (50%)
Undecided.
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?

  • 21 Replies
  • 9696 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« on: May 16, 2010, 07:09:11 PM »
The purpose of this poll is to discern who among flat earth proponents believes that the earth tends to move upwards - the so-called "Universal Accelerator" theory and who believes that the earth is stationary.  I myself believe that the earth is stationary, and consider the "Universal Accelerator" theory novel and frankly - absurd.  I would be surprised if anyone could show that this idea taken in connection with flat earth belief is older than this website itself (which was launched in the spring of 2005).

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15678
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2010, 10:52:06 PM »
Couldn't agree more.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2010, 02:30:06 AM »
It was Anaximenes of Miletus who first proposed that the Earth is constantly lofted. Because of his elemental religion, he considered the Universal Acceleration of the Earth to be produced by a jet of air, though most zeteticists in the 'does-move' lobby now seem to think that the Accelerator is of an entirely different constitution.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2010, 02:33:18 AM »
In fact, the debate between zetetics in favour of motion and those against is as old as science itself - Thales, of course, was the corresponding progenitor of the stationary Earth hypothesis.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2010, 05:59:58 AM »
Here is my take on the words attributed to Anaximenes (for those who have read my radical new chronology messages, it should become very obvious that there was no ancient Greece to begin with)...

Anaximenes taught that THE EARTH FLOATS IN A CUSHION OF AIR, here is the original quote:

According to Anaximenes, earth was formed from air by a felting process. It began as a flat disk. From evaporations from the earth, fiery bodies arose which came to be the heavenly bodies. The earth floats on a cushion of air. The heavenly bodies, or at least the sun and the moon, seem also be flat bodies that float on streams of air. On one account, the heavens are like a felt cap that turns around the head. The stars may be fixed to this surface like nails. In another account, the stars are like fiery leaves floating on air (DK13A14). The sun does not travel under the earth but circles around it, and is hidden by the higher parts of the earth at night.

The word Floats means a confirmation of the old cosmogony, where the Earth is placed in the center of the Universe, with the Sun/Moon/Stars rotating above a dome, the whole thing resting/floating on aether (or apeiron).

Apeiron is not any of the existing elements; Anaximenes CHOSE air as the first substance derived from the Aether (air = gas).

WHERE IN THE WORLD DID YOU OR ANY OF THE FES MEMBERS GET THE IDEA THAT ANAXIMENES THOUGHT THE EARTH IS TRAVELLING THROUGH THE UNIVERSE AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?


The problems with the UA ACCELERATOR are quite obvious and are as follows:

That accelerator would have to push over 1 billion trillion tons of water upwards, not to mention the weight of the solid earth itself (and of the round earth supporters as well)...it would be the biggest waste of energy possible...

The gravitational anomalies present at the surface of the earth show that we have a PUSHING gravity phenomenon and not at all an upward moving earth...

What was the starting point of this UA ACCELERATOR, and where exactly is it going? In other words, there are certain assumptions made about the size of the universe itself, which are needed to support the UA theory.

The movement of the clouds show that the earth is completely stationary and not moving anywhere...the photoelectric theory presents the concept of the photon as it is taught in classical/quantum physics...and does not take into account the existence of aether...

Here is the celebrated experiment of Airy (1871) which does prove that there is a layer of aether between the earth and the stars...and that it could not be explained within the framework of the UA accelerator theory...

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871)

'Airy's failure' (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's 'speed around the sun'. Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm

See also the Stellar Parallax/Aberration info at my thread on the alternative flat earth theory...


The INFINITE EARTH MODEL also must rely on the gravitational pull concept, which is completely false...

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541

« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 05:41:02 AM by levee »

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2010, 07:51:18 PM »
Until an adequate theory is developed for a stationary earth, I shall believe in UA.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2010, 05:48:33 AM »
But there is such a theory, not only is it fully developed, it can withstand any and all criticism (from round earth supporters, such as thermaldebutante, generalbowelmovement and parsiphallus; it is so much fun to read the stuff posted by this ignorant bunch, it doesn't take more than a half of message to completely destroy their half-assed beliefs...).

Please read my faq/alternative flat earth theory; it takes everything into account, from A - Z, with rigorous proofs provided for each and every statement.

I am not going to emphasize these things over again, but I do believe that the FES should modify the official faq to include the ISS/Sun transits, the new map, the pushing gravity theory and much more...then there would be no problem to defend thoroughly the flat earth theory...

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2010, 10:16:15 AM »

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 601
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 11:52:07 PM »
I also believe that the Earth is stationary.  This is an evolving society so it is good to bring these things up.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 11:54:13 PM by bullhorn »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2010, 07:41:11 AM »
We must always remember that there is no such thing as a round earth theory. Here is the best documentation ever put together on the fake nasa/soviet missions (includes voyager, space shuttle):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=606

The trajectory of the Iceland volcano's cloud of ashes(south - east and east -west) is completely impossible on a round earth, whose atmosphere must rotate with it at the same speed. Since the formula for the deflection for a vertically fired projectile can only offer just a few hundred feet at most, round earth theory MUST explain the effect of the frictional force believed to provide the force necessary to rotate the atmosphere (with a certain speed at the latitude of the Iceland volcano) on the trajectories of the cloud of ash (south -east and east - west).

And here, of course, it is where the major problems arise; please read the complete demonstration of the fact that friction COULD NOT POSSIBLY be the restoring force which must move the atmosphere along with the daily rotation of the earth around its own axis; the trajectories observed from the Iceland volcano cloud of ash are possible ONLY on a stationary earth:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143

Geocentric Coriolis Force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2010, 05:10:33 AM »
Here is a photograph, that, again, should end the debate right now concerning the shape of the outer surface of the earth.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=173567

BURLINGTON (VERMONT) - MONTREAL, 117 KM

CURVATURE: 268 METERS

HEIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHER 300 FEET = 91.4 METERS, WE ROUND OFF TO 100 METERS

TALLEST BUILDING IN MONTREAL: 225 METERS

Thus, from Burlington, Vermont, on a round earth, we should see a midpoint curvature of 268 meters (168 meters more than the altitude of the photographer), and NOTHING UNDER 515 METERS AT A DISTANCE OF 117 KM (SKYLINE OF MONTREAL).

But, in this photograph, we see the skyline of Montreal very well, with no curvature whatsoever:



Let us also use the most complex terrestrial/atmospheric refraction formula:

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#Terrestrial
(the formula can be used when the altitude of the photographer is less than that of the visual target) - the skyline of Montreal could not possibly be seen on a round earth, given the 515 meters measure of the visual target itself.

On that site, skyscrapers (farthest distance visible), there are also other numerous photographs that show the inexistence of any kind of curvature at the surface of the earth...

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2010, 02:13:11 PM »
BURLINGTON (VERMONT) - MONTREAL, 117 KM

CURVATURE: 268 METERS

HEIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHER 300 FEET = 91.4 METERS, WE ROUND OFF TO 100 METERS

TALLEST BUILDING IN MONTREAL: 225 METERS

Thus, from Burlington, Vermont, on a round earth, we should see a midpoint curvature of 268 meters (168 meters more than the altitude
You only cited a source for one number (and a rather poor source at that), and did not show any work. Please rectify this.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2010, 05:30:25 PM »
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the Earth being contested in this forum? What is going on?
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2010, 05:50:33 PM »
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the Earth being contested in this forum? What is going on?
Oh, I'm not arguing the Earth is round. I'd just prefer that people support their claims with evidence, instead of expecting us to blindly believe them. That is what separates us from the dogma-spewing RE'ers.

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 601
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2010, 11:34:56 PM »
Brother Leevee, the reason that no curve is visible, is because the earth is flat.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15678
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2010, 11:37:57 PM »
To believe we are hurtling through space at speeds that are impossible to comprehend by the force of what has only been explained and likened to a god force is ludicrous. 
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2010, 02:49:27 AM »
BURLINGTON (VERMONT) - MONTREAL, 117 KM

CURVATURE: 268 METERS

HEIGHT OF PHOTOGRAPHER 300 FEET = 91.4 METERS, WE ROUND OFF TO 100 METERS

TALLEST BUILDING IN MONTREAL: 225 METERS

Thus, from Burlington, Vermont, on a round earth, we should see a midpoint curvature of 268 meters (168 meters more than the altitude
You only cited a source for one number (and a rather poor source at that), and did not show any work. Please rectify this.

Well, I believe that Ben is right, that any photograph must be subjected to a very high standard of scrutiny, in order to meet both FE/RE criteria.

Now, the city of Burlington is located at an elevation of approximately 200 - 300 feet, and that is where that photograph was taken.

Certainly this photograph shows that there is no curvature between those two geographical points, as we can see the skyline of Montreal in the background...given the fact that there is no curvature over Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, Strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, or between the river Tunguska and London, it is just another piece of evidence we can add to our collection...

Here is the original photograph on flickr.com (I searched through hundreds of photo collections in order to find this one):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7632901@N04/3917214887/

We can see that the photographer actually lives in that region, Montreal, as there are over 100 photographs of that city; please write to this guy, Monctezuma, to ask him exactly about the details of the picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7632901@N04/

Now, Ben, remember that for our distance of 117 km, one must ascend to 1070 meters (1.07 km) in order to see the first signs of land at Montreal...in the photo we can see that that the photographer is well below that altitude...


*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2010, 10:03:25 AM »
Well, I believe that Ben is right, that any photograph must be subjected to a very high standard of scrutiny, in order to meet both FE/RE criteria.

Now, the city of Burlington is located at an elevation of approximately 200 - 300 feet, and that is where that photograph was taken.

Certainly this photograph shows that there is no curvature between those two geographical points, as we can see the skyline of Montreal in the background...given the fact that there is no curvature over Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, Strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, or between the river Tunguska and London, it is just another piece of evidence we can add to our collection...

Here is the original photograph on flickr.com (I searched through hundreds of photo collections in order to find this one):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7632901@N04/3917214887/

We can see that the photographer actually lives in that region, Montreal, as there are over 100 photographs of that city; please write to this guy, Monctezuma, to ask him exactly about the details of the picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7632901@N04/

Now, Ben, remember that for our distance of 117 km, one must ascend to 1070 meters (1.07 km) in order to see the first signs of land at Montreal...in the photo we can see that that the photographer is well below that altitude...

Brother levee, it appears you have misunderstood me. I have bolded the parts that need citations. Also, from an objective, agnostic point of view, I find the very nature of the photograph suspicious.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17288
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2010, 12:35:47 PM »
I feel that the concept of an accelerating earth is a more coherent answer to what keeps us pinned to the earth's surface than "graviton particles" or "bendy space". The concept of acceleration is known, whereas other theories involve the creation of entirely new branches of science to exist.

As for what is causing this acceleration, this could occur through a known physical mechanism. Plenty of things can cause a body to accelerate. In contradiction, "gravitons" and "bendy space" require absurd additions to the universe to exist.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 09:14:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2010, 05:17:38 AM »
In my opinion, this photograph represents one of the most extraordinary proofs, this time taking into account a portion of land, that the surface of the earth is flat.

Now, to meet even Ben's possible criticism, I will increase the altitude of the photographer all the way to 6000 FEET (1828 METERS).

First, let us suppose that the photographer was flying in a helicopter, at 3000 FEET (about 900 meters). Even then, we could hardly see the first signs of land from Montreal, the curvature itself measuring some 268 meters in height. No such thing present there, in the photograph itself.

And now, let us imagine that the photographer was in a plane, flying at some 6000 feet (1828 meters). Since the curvature itself represents 1/7 of the altitude of the photographer, we could easily discern it in that photograph, especially given the fact that we have a definite visual target, Montreal, whose tallest building measures some 225 meters. That is, we should see a midpoint curvature of 268 meters, exceeding the visual target by some 40 meters, and being 1/7 of the height at which the photographer finds himself.

But no such thing happens, we can see a very plain field, all the way to Montreal, with no midpoint curvature of 268 meters. This in my opinion represents a fantastic proof that between Burlington (VT) - Montreal, the surface of the earth is flat.

Let us go over to lake Michigan, over a distance of some 128 km.

From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=122D5519C959F390&p_docnum=1&p_theme=gatehouse&s_site=HSHH&p_product=HSHH

(you can find the article on their site, on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.


If we resort to the same terrestrial/atmospheric refraction formula, it will inform us of the impossibility of seeing any details from Milwaukee given the 984 meter visual obstacle.

For those who like optical reflection, they should know that the best such phenomenon known today, is the Ice Blink occurrence, where a diffuse, unclear view of the ice sheet is reflected on clouds which travel at a low altitude. There is no way to see buildings reflected in clouds, given the visual obstacle of some 984 meters, not to mention the fact that the shape of the buildings themselves were seen from Holland.

What other proof could the round earth supporters be looking for? No curvature whatsoever, over a distance of 128 km.

As for the UA accelerator, there remain the same objections I raised earlier...
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 05:28:16 AM by levee »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2010, 08:26:40 PM »
Those clearly in favor of a stationary earth include John Davis, Sandokhan, and myself.
This is the only significant issue of which I am aware in which I disagree with Tom Bishop.  I already knew that my old friend James (as well as Daniel) believe the earth moves.

It was Anaximenes of Miletus who first proposed that the Earth is constantly lofted.

I will look into it further, but the idea that Anaximenes believed that does not seem to be true.  To state that the earth rests on air (or on water) is completely different from asserting that such air pushes the earth upwards (which would be a gross misinterpretation - simply putting words into Anaximenes's mouth).  

I myself do believe that the earth rests upon the waters which in turn rest upon air which itself rests upon fire which in turn rests upon darkness which is the deepest depth of which man is aware.  Such a flat earth underworld cosmology is illustrated by the essay and accompanying diagram in this link:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/jras/1917-07.htm

One question for Sandokhan with whom I agree on this subject:

Is the following a word for word quote of Anaximenes himself or rather your or someone else's paraphrase?
Anaximenes taught that THE EARTH FLOATS IN A CUSHION OF AIR, here is the original quote:
...
earth was formed from air by a felting process. It began as a flat disk. From evaporations from the earth, fiery bodies arose which came to be the heavenly bodies. The earth floats on a cushion of air. The heavenly bodies, or at least the sun and the moon, seem also be flat bodies that float on streams of air. On one account, the heavens are like a felt cap that turns around the head. The stars may be fixed to this surface like nails. In another account, the stars are like fiery leaves floating on air (DK13A14). The sun does not travel under the earth but circles around it, and is hidden by the higher parts of the earth at night.


The motivation for accepting this (false) theory of an upwardly moving earth appears to be founded upon a perceived need to refute some equally false ("gravity" related) arguments of mainstream science.  If this is the case, then our enemies have backed some of us into a corner because such did not realize certain of their arguments are unfounded, and the moving earth hypothesis was adopted as an explanation of their spurious arguments.  Perhaps, if an alternative refutation of such faulty science were reviewed and understood by reasonable people such as Tom Bishop and James, then they might see the folly of adopting such a novelty as the upwardly moving earth.  

And, no offense to anyone, but this novel upwardly moving earth theory very much buttresses the view that flat earth belief is absurd.  On this issue of a moving earth, I am one with those who ridicule flat earthism because their simple observation is correct - it constitutes an inconsistency on the part of a flat earth believer to hold that the earth moves.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: Do you believe the "universal accelerator" theory?
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2010, 01:54:14 AM »
Dionysios, it seems that this is the most that we can do to show that the earth is actually stationary, and not flying through space.

As I stated from the beginning, the shape of the earth has everything to do with the correct model of the atom; the aether theory IS the flat earth theory.

For those who do not know these facts, I. Newton believed from the very start of his research in TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, responsible for terrestrial gravity and for the movement of the planets/stars.

Let us go back to the very source:

It is astonishing to find out that "at the outset of his 'Principia,' Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word 'attraction' with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his 'Principia' (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, 'Scholium'), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses. In section XI. (Introduction) he expresses the opinion that 'there is some subtle spirit by the force and action of which all movements of matter are determined'

It is obvious that he left it to the stupidity of the public and also to his fellow occult scientists from the London Royal Society (who quietly spread this notion for decades after 1760; now we know that Newton actually lived some 50 years later than what is presented in the conventional chronology) to infer or to construct an attractional gravitation concept, which, as we have seen, is absolutely impossible.

Now, the quotes from Newton himself, specifying clearly the notion of rotational/circulating aether gravitational force responsible for the orbits of the planets/stars:

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.

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.


And the fact that Newton thought that terrestrial gravity was A PUSHING/PRESSURE KIND OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, and not at all an attractive gravitational concept:

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'. His student notes showed him mulling over the design of a perpetual-motion engine to harness the downward flow of the gravity-ether.

Newton, February 1679: from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would endeavour to move downwards.


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'



Flat earth theory CANNOT be presented without the aether concept, and consequently, the Heavenly Dome (which separates the rotational aether from the pressure applied by the Nibiru tachyon radiation).


The best place to start in explaining what gravity actually is, and how this is related to the vorticular physics approach which describes the atom, is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms, bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm

A.N. Kozyrev's celebrated gyroscope experiments also show that there are two vorticular forces at work in the universe:

http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (also contains an account of Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment)

« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 02:09:03 AM by levee »