Strongest FE Evidence

  • 778 Replies
  • 92056 Views
*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #630 on: December 04, 2019, 01:40:29 AM »
Sandy Deflector shields are strong this morning.


Find me one peer reviewed paper that evidences Larvetororial sub quarks
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #631 on: December 04, 2019, 01:49:01 AM »



This is how planets communicate with each other, using boson stream/strings:

Plasma Flux Transfer Events between Saturn and the Sun

A twisted magnetic field structure, previously never seen before at Saturn, has now been detected for the first time ... When the Sun’s magnetic field interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field (the magnetosphere), a complex process occurs called magnetic reconnection which can twist the field into a helical shape. These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or “flux transfer events” (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury ...

https://web.archive.org/web/20180512121552/https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physical-sciences/images/news/Saturn_3D_final6.jpg



https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-physical-sciences/news/2016/jul/magnetic-rope-observed-first-time-between-saturn-and-sun

"They have been observed at all the planets out to Jupiter."

FLAT EARTH TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY A-Z.

Now it is your turn to explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

So what you are saying is the earth is a sphere, has a magnetic field, is 93 million miles from the sun which has a magnetic influence over the solar system, which its sits at the centre of it.

The evidence of such interactions was captures by a NASA spacecraft, in orbit around Saturn some 886 miles from the sun on average.

I mean im happy to discuss but i think the FE community might resist your stance.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #632 on: December 04, 2019, 01:51:10 AM »
Explain the DePalma effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387

And just stop with the Allais, sagnac effect, no one cares and it's not relevant.

Referencing yourself does not count.

But it is.

No one currently can explain the ALLAIS EFFECT.

If GPS satellites did register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, the discrepancies would amount in the KILOMETERS.

So it does matter.

My posts include the reference to your pal's proof, accompanied by the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

The local-ether model is a fact of science.

Nobody can reproduce it experimentally either its in the needs more work pile, more work to find what was going on in that original experiment.

Its not proof of a flat earth.

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #633 on: December 04, 2019, 01:53:52 AM »
Here is a video that I think scorches his doctored lake pics.

Total demolition of the Pontchartrain FAKE video:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2016747#msg2016747


Commercial planes would have slammed into, or if not, been burned to a crisp by you 9-12km high, 600 meter wide sun. Hasn't happened.

No.

The Sun/Moon/BlackSun, all of the planets and stars, orbit above the Dome, that is, the local-ether model which provides the shield/barrier. Everything else, satellites/airplanes fly below the Dome.


I at no time "proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal"!

BUT YOU DID!

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


What total crap!

You can't even explain HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER WOULD STAY IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


The evidence of such interactions was captures by a NASA spacecraft, in orbit around Saturn some 886 miles from the sun on average.

No, that spacecraft does not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Therefore anything put by Nasa in orbit is flying below the Dome, it cannot go beyond the formidable ether shield/barrier.

If you disagree, explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


Its not proof of a flat earth.

It's proof that jet engines use the SCHAUBERGER-DEPALMA EFFECT.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #634 on: December 04, 2019, 01:57:30 AM »
Explain how a single litre of water remains stuck to the outer surface of a plate.
I JUST DID.
RIGHT ON THIS PAGE.
I just posted the entire FLAT EARTH TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY THEORY.

A - Z.

I left nothing else out: not the subquarks, not the local-ether model, not the bosons.

I dare you to debate with me the Whittaker longitudinal waves, the subquark model, the pressure gravity model.
Why bother it seems unrelated to the topic.

Quote from: sandokhan
From now on, NONE OF YOU HERE CAN CLAIM THAT I DID NOT PROVIDE THE FE GRAVITATIONAL MODEL.
You posted nothing but your hypothesis for a flat Earth gravitational model with no evidence  that it explains anything.

Quote from: sandokhan
ALL I AM ASKING OF YOU NOW, IS TO EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE. ;D
<< Stop shouting, it's rude! >>
One single gallon.

We dig a hole, pour in one gallon of water, on your precious spherical Earth.

HOW DOES THE WATER STAY IN PLACE?
Easy!
Gravitation as explained by Einstein's General Relativity though the sums are far easier if Newtonian Gravitation is used.

Quote from: sandokhan
If you cannot explain as much as this, you can no longer claim that the water of lake Ontario is curved.

What total rubbish!

Did and done but the water of Lake Ontario or Lake Michigan being curved is a matter of observation and that trumps your hypotheses any time!

Chicago from New Buffalo,
MI (40 miles from skyline)
   

Chicago from Michigan City,
IN (33 miles from skyline) - the lake ate 1/2 the sun too!

A better camera ;D isn't going to help you!

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #635 on: December 04, 2019, 01:59:12 AM »
I think who invented the jet engine is a matter of history and has no bearing on the topic of this discussion, it being the strongest evidence for a flat earth.

But it does.

Jet engines can't work without the SCHAUBERGER-DEPALMA EFFECT.

DePalma effect (Dr. Bruce DePalma, MIT, Harvard):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387

non of DePalmas published works or letters points to this.

He did a lot of work on the effects of rotation on inertia and mass, and the field of magnetic reconnection. But once again the evidence presented for this sits the sun at the center of the solar system orbited by spherical planets. Im struggling to link this to FE.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #636 on: December 04, 2019, 02:04:10 AM »
Find me one peer reviewed paper

Detection of subquarks/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”

An advanced knowledge of Quantum Gravity indicated in 1995, quarks and *quarkels would be found to comprise of the electric particle energy of gravity photons. Robert Wood-Smith (RWS) discussed this with Albert Mantiziba who, in July 1995 and with indirect help from Max Planck, established:-
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons:
the neutron comprised of 2.2705 x 10^23 " "
the electron comprised of 1.2349 x 10^20 " " .
These combine to form respectively the quarks of the proton and neutron, and the quarkels of the electron.

[*Quarkels: the term is applied by the Partners to the components of the electron: which RWS predicted in 1994/95, together with their values. Note. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of "quasiparticles" that carry an impossible amount of charge: the reference was to the fractional charges of the electron.]

On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #637 on: December 04, 2019, 02:04:30 AM »
Commercial planes would have slammed into, or if not, been burned to a crisp by you 9-12km high, 600 meter wide sun. Hasn't happened.

No.

The Sun/Moon/BlackSun, all of the planets and stars, orbit above the Dome, that is, the local-ether model which provides the shield/barrier. Everything else, satellites/airplanes fly below the Dome.

Which is literally laughable as:

a) Zero evidence of a "Dome"
b) Your 12 km high Sun is right in the same path as all semi and long haul flights
c) Even if planes didn't slam into you sun they would burn up by being too close
d) You can't tell your good readers where the sun is over the planet at any moment and I can.

Try again.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #638 on: December 04, 2019, 02:05:45 AM »

ALL I AM ASKING OF YOU NOW, IS TO EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


If you cannot explain as much as this, you can no longer claim that the water of lake Ontario is curved.

You provided the evidence that lake Ontario is curved, and haven't provided one explanation of why it isnt?

I mean how do you feel you are in a position to demand answers to questions, when you never answer the simplest of questions put to you, including your own mathematical formulas.

But hey not everyone is as unreasonable as you.

As you well know GR is the theory of gravitation.

20 experimental tests of gravitational theory.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Now do the math for the BD Grimsby to Toronto
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #639 on: December 04, 2019, 02:10:41 AM »
Find me one peer reviewed paper

Detection of subquarks/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”

An advanced knowledge of Quantum Gravity indicated in 1995, quarks and *quarkels would be found to comprise of the electric particle energy of gravity photons. Robert Wood-Smith (RWS) discussed this with Albert Mantiziba who, in July 1995 and with indirect help from Max Planck, established:-
the proton comprised of 2.2674 x 10^23 gravity photons:
the neutron comprised of 2.2705 x 10^23 " "
the electron comprised of 1.2349 x 10^20 " " .
These combine to form respectively the quarks of the proton and neutron, and the quarkels of the electron.

[*Quarkels: the term is applied by the Partners to the components of the electron: which RWS predicted in 1994/95, together with their values. Note. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their discovery of "quasiparticles" that carry an impossible amount of charge: the reference was to the fractional charges of the electron.]

On the 1st March 1997 - in an article in 'New Scientist' on page 14 - results from DESY, the German Electron Synchrotron pointed to the existence of what is described as a “leptoquark”. Robin Marshall of the University of Manchester, who was involved in the work, said “The leptoquark is a bizarre object that we don’t understand completely”. Researchers said this “could mean that quarks and leptons are not fundamental particles after all, but are made up of even smaller particles”.

Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quarter-electrons-may-enable-quantum-computer


Every science student is taught that the indivisible unit of charge is that of the electron. But 2 years ago, scientists found that charge sometimes shatters into "quasi-particles" that have one-third the fundamental charge. And in this week's issue of Nature, researchers announce they have spotted one-fifth-charge quasi-particles--a decisive finding suggesting that its time to change any physics textbooks still claiming that electron charge is indivisible.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130621182913/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1999/05/19-01.html


http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf99/ps/teraz.pdf


https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521

Has the substructure of quarks been found by the Collider Detector at Fermilab?
Keiichi Akama and Hidezumi Terazawa
Phys. Rev. D 55, R2521(R) – Published 1 March 1997

Laveortorial Subquarks was the question.

There is a lot of theory of how far we can go in breaking down matter, but we are not there yet. You are claiming these particles definitely exist, where is the evidence?
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #640 on: December 04, 2019, 02:11:57 AM »
Explain the DePalma effect:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg753387#msg753387
[iI<< Irrelevant and off-topic >>[/i]
Quote from: sandokhan
And just stop with the Allais, sagnac effect, no one cares and it's not relevant.
Referencing yourself does not count.
But it is.
No one currently can explain the ALLAIS EFFECT.
<< Incorrect, irrelevant and off-topic >>
Quote from: sandokhan
If GPS satellites did register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, the discrepancies would amount in the KILOMETERS.
So it does matter.
My posts accompanied by the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

The local-ether model is a fact of science.
<< Incorrect, irrelevant and off-topic >>
Some accept the local-ether model rather than relativity but to say it's "a fact of science" is a gross distortion!

Dr C.-C. Su's local-ether model is, however, nothing like your local-ether model so claiming his support is highly misleading.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #641 on: December 04, 2019, 02:12:16 AM »
How does any of this gish, flip flop deflection get you away from the fact YOU cant do the maths for BD and you cant explain the missing airport, islands etc etc from your Toronto images.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

JackBlack

  • 21900
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #642 on: December 04, 2019, 02:18:16 AM »
your proof for a 600-meter sun, thats of course assuming you have any proof.

Sure thing.
It was your tag team partner, who for the first time, proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal:
He asked for proof, not the same repeated lies.
How about you actually try and prove it, including showing where the 600 m came from?

Explain how a single litre of water remains stuck to the outer surface of a plate.
No, you said if you dig a whole and put some water in it stays there. No actual mechanism.
Instead of providing a mechanism you then went off on a massive tangent with loads of spam and nonsense, and more appeals to the fact that Earth is round and orbits the sun.
Still no explanation for the source of your bosons, and no I don't mean Jupiter, I mean how they come out of Jupiter, what causes it? What is the mechainsm?

If you cannot explain as much as this, you can no longer claim that the water of lake Ontario is curved.
Again, not how it works.
We don't need to explain how it is curved to be able to see and state that it is curved.
Meanwhile, you DO need to explain how the bottom section of Toronto is magically hidden.
If you cannot explain why the bottom is hidden you cannot claim the surface is flat at it clearly shows the surface of the water is curved.

And before you say I am being unfair, notice that I am asking you to provide a justification for why this observation, which clearly shows curvature, could be compatible with your claimed flat Earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #643 on: December 04, 2019, 02:18:47 AM »
You posted nothing but your hypothesis for a flat Earth gravitational model with no evidence  that it explains anything.

Whittaker's PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF LONGITUDINAL WAVES IS NO HYPOTHESIS, BUT A PROVEN FACT.

THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL IS A PROVEN FACT.

THE EXISTENCE OF SUBQUARKS IS A PROVEN FACT, SEE MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE.

Gravitation as explained by Einstein's General Relativity though the sums are far easier if Newtonian Gravitation is used.

It isn't.

General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space. What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.


YOU HAVE NOTHING!


The Chicago photographs have been debunked here, a long time ago:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64904.msg1731153#msg1731153


Zero evidence of a "Dome"

THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL IS A FACT OF SCIENCE.

OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Even if planes didn't slam into you sun they would burn up by being too close

You are trolling this thread.

Planes orbit below the Dome, at a distance of at least 1-2 kilometers from the ether shield.


NOW, EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERICAL EARTH.


You are claiming these particles definitely exist, where is the evidence?

You are trolling the thread.

I referenced even an IOP article for you.


http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-gravity-tests.pdf

Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

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

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

Hafele–Keating experiment

How the data in the Hafele-Keating was faked/fabricated:

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

GPS

GPS do not record/register the solar gravitational potential anticipated by TGR.

The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington from his observations during the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919.

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

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


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf


Dr C.-C. Su's local-ether model is, however, nothing like your local-ether model

But it is.

It is the LORENTZ MODIFIED ETHER MODEL.

An a very dense envelope of ETHER which surrounds the atmosphere coupled with ether drift all the way to the surface.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #644 on: December 04, 2019, 02:21:18 AM »
We don't need to explain how it is curved to be able to see and state that it is curved.

BUT YOU DO.

At the present time, you are unable to explain how a single gallon of water would stay in place on the outer surface of a spherical Earth.

How then, do you expect people to believe you that water stays curved on the same surface?

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #645 on: December 04, 2019, 02:25:25 AM »
We don't need to explain how it is curved to be able to see and state that it is curved.

BUT YOU DO.

At the present time, you are unable to explain how a single gallon of water would stay in place on the outer surface of a spherical Earth.

How then, do you expect people to believe you that water stays curved on the same surface?

Already pointed out to you

GR

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-gravity-tests.pdf
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #646 on: December 04, 2019, 02:37:14 AM »
GR

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-gravity-tests.pdf


Already debunked.

The showcase of that paper are, of course, the calculations relating to the binary pulsars  PSR J1141−6545.

The author states:

" General Relativity passes all these tests within the measurement accuracy."

Not at all.

Not by a long shot.

It passes nothing, it turns out.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf


Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #647 on: December 04, 2019, 02:42:31 AM »
Sorry for butting in on this (ahem...) fascinating discussion but...

Quote
At the present time, you are unable to explain how a single gallon of water would stay in place on the outer surface of a spherical Earth.

That's one way of putting it.  Another way would be that no explanation has so far been provided which is acceptable to you. That's OK you are never going to satisfy everyone no matter how hard you try. This discussion is obviously going to go on and on and on and on and on until you have managed to get everyone to see things your way.  And that is never going to happen because I for one am not going to change my views on what you obviously disagree with.

The actual reason why those billions and trillions etc etc of water molecules stay in place on a spherical Earth has been explained several times and is quite simple to understand in my view!

 
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 02:49:25 AM by Solarwind »

*

JackBlack

  • 21900
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #648 on: December 04, 2019, 02:53:49 AM »
General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.
Again, that can only be an argument against it if you have an alternative with a mechanism. You are yet to provide one.
Again, what causes the emission of bosons from Jupiter?
Without that you have no mechanism.

YOU HAVE NOTHING!
Again, that would be you.
Rather than providing evidence for a FE, you provided plenty of photos which were evidence against a FE and for a RE.
You then proceeded to repeatedly attack the RE with baseless attacks which in no way support a FE.

We don't need to explain how it is curved to be able to see and state that it is curved.
BUT YOU DO.
No, we don't.
The observation clearly indicates it is curved.

A claim such as yours is akin to saying you need to know exactly how a ball was made and holds its shape to be able to say it is a ball. That is pure nonsense. If I can clearly see it is a ball I don't need to know how it became one.

At the present time, you are unable to explain how a single gallon of water would stay in place on the outer surface of a spherical Earth.
Again, that is just your baseless assertion, and you have been completely unable to explain how any water would stay in place on your pizza planet.

Now again, do you have any explanation for why the bottom of Toronto is missing?
Until you provide such an explanation you have firmly refuted the FE.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #649 on: December 04, 2019, 02:57:41 AM »
I at no time "proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal"!

BUT YOU DID!
Stop this lying! I at no time "proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal"!

Quote from: sandokhan
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!
The following are your words and NOT mine so that I at no time proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal!

Quote from: sandokhan
Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
So you said "If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun" not I, so you lied straight out when you claimed that I "proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal"!

But the earth is orbiting the Sun and Dr C.-C. Su bases his paper on that and the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

Now, get this! I do not debate liars! I tell them where they are wrong - get used to it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #650 on: December 04, 2019, 03:05:13 AM »
You are yet to provide one.
Again, what causes the emission of bosons from Jupiter?
Without that you have no mechanism.


I have provided the proofs of the existence of subquarks. Right here on Earth.

The local-ether model.

The existence of the longitudinal subquark waves.

The mechanism by which the right-handed subquarks affect each object and living matter to produce the effects of terrestrial gravity.

Much more than enough.

Today, I even provided the proofs, coming from Nasa, that Jupiter does indeed communicate with the other planets using radiation.

I provided the inner structure/mechanism of a boson.

How that boson is created (read the links).

Then, how the Black Sun assembles these bosons into a subquark.


No one else could provide you with these details.

Yet, here you are demanding even more, while you are unable to explain the presence of A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERICAL EARTH.


The observation clearly indicates it is curved.

The observation indicates that Kenosha, WI is hidden by a visual obstacle measuring 1.5 km = 1,500 meters.

If you want the water to stay curved, you better explain how this happens.

For a single gallon at least.


But the earth is orbiting the Sun

But it can't be SINCE THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT REGISTER/RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is why the relativists are forced to accept the local-ether model.

You EQUATED the angular orbital velocity with the solar surface gravity.

YOU DID IT.

As such, WITH ZERO ANGULAR ORBITAL VELOCITY YOU GET ZERO SOLAR SURFACE GRAVITY.

Your proof.


Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #651 on: December 04, 2019, 03:11:21 AM »
Quote
I have provided the proofs of the existence of subquarks. Right here on Earth.

How have you managed to do that then when it seems they have yet to be discovered?

Quote
A number of physicists have attempted to develop a theory of "pre-quarks" (from which the name preon derives) in an effort to justify theoretically the many parts of the Standard Model that are known only through experimental data. Other names which have been used for these proposed fundamental particles (or particles intermediate between the most fundamental particles and those observed in the Standard Model) include prequarks, subquarks, maons,[6] alphons, quinks, rishons, tweedles, helons, haplons, Y-particles,[7] and primons.[8] Preon is the leading name in the physics community.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #652 on: December 04, 2019, 03:17:34 AM »
Quote
I have provided the proofs of the existence of subquarks. Right here on Earth.

How have you managed to do that then when it seems they have yet to be discovered?

Quote
A number of physicists have attempted to develop a theory of "pre-quarks" (from which the name preon derives) in an effort to justify theoretically the many parts of the Standard Model that are known only through experimental data. Other names which have been used for these proposed fundamental particles (or particles intermediate between the most fundamental particles and those observed in the Standard Model) include prequarks, subquarks, maons,[6] alphons, quinks, rishons, tweedles, helons, haplons, Y-particles,[7] and primons.[8] Preon is the leading name in the physics community.

That is the wikipedia page.

Here is the real thing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221139#msg2221139

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #653 on: December 04, 2019, 03:58:59 AM »
GR

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-gravity-tests.pdf


Already debunked.

The showcase of that paper are, of course, the calculations relating to the binary pulsars  PSR J1141−6545.

The author states:

" General Relativity passes all these tests within the measurement accuracy."

Not at all.

Not by a long shot.

It passes nothing, it turns out.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf

Do you have any papers that are published in a peer reviewed journal, which isnt actually a scam company?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/123785/is-david-publishing-company-legit

https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/

https://scholarlyoa.com/david-publishing-company-a-massive-spammer-from-china/

Oh dear

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #654 on: December 04, 2019, 04:02:06 AM »
The observation clearly indicates it is curved.
The observation indicates that Kenosha, WI is hidden by a visual obstacle measuring 1.5 km = 1,500 meters.
If you want the water to stay curved, you better explain how this happens.
There's no need to explain that until you have proven that it does happen under normal atmospheric conditions.

That curved water hides ships and cities, etc is confirmed by many observation under good conditions with no sign of looming or miraging etc.
But more evidence of water curving is that the horizon drops below the local horizontal by a quite predictable amount that depends on altitude.
If you doubt that I'll provide some examples.

Quote from: sandokhan
For a single gallon at least.
Already done! If YOU don't accept it, tough!

Quote from: sandokhan
But the earth is orbiting the Sun
But it can't be SINCE THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT REGISTER/RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
That is why the relativists are forced to accept the local-ether model.
What total rubbish!
Dr Su used the the earth orbiting the Sun and rotating on its axis as the basis of his paper.
He claimed that the Sagnac effect did not fit with Special Relativity and most would agree with that because the Sagnac effect needs General Relativity to explain accurately.
You do, I hope remember, this paper
Quote from: G. B. Malykin
The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations
Abstract: Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity. When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves. It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
You might find that "the relativists" accept General Relativity and so have no need of Dr Su's "local-ether model".

So stop talking poppy-cock about the relativists being forced to accept the local-ether model. You've no idea what you're talking about!

Quote from: sandokhan
You EQUATED the angular orbital velocity with the solar surface gravity.
No, I did not and simply would not "EQUATE the angular orbital velocity with the solar surface gravity"!
They dimensionally incompatible so I would not have done it.
Angular orbital velocity has dimensions of simply Time-1 (radian/second) while the solar surface gravity has dimensions of Force.Mass-1 (Newtons/kilogram).

Quote from: sandokhan
YOU DID IT.
No, YOU did it from here on because Dr Su, all astronomers, physicists and I know that the angular orbital velocity is NOT zero.

So you're the one and only one idiotic claim that the surface gravity of the Sun is zero!
I'm certain that Dr A.C. Phillips, author of "The physics of stars (Wiley,1994)" would also have claimed that your ideas are ridiculous.

Quote from: sandokhan
As such, WITH ZERO ANGULAR ORBITAL VELOCITY YOU GET ZERO SOLAR SURFACE GRAVITY.

Your proof.
Nope - that's your bit of deception.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #655 on: December 04, 2019, 04:07:26 AM »
Quote
I have provided the proofs of the existence of subquarks. Right here on Earth.

How have you managed to do that then when it seems they have yet to be discovered?

Quote
A number of physicists have attempted to develop a theory of "pre-quarks" (from which the name preon derives) in an effort to justify theoretically the many parts of the Standard Model that are known only through experimental data. Other names which have been used for these proposed fundamental particles (or particles intermediate between the most fundamental particles and those observed in the Standard Model) include prequarks, subquarks, maons,[6] alphons, quinks, rishons, tweedles, helons, haplons, Y-particles,[7] and primons.[8] Preon is the leading name in the physics community.

That is the wikipedia page.

Here is the real thing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221139#msg2221139

All theory, you say they exist in the upper atmosphere, can you provide evidence?
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #656 on: December 04, 2019, 04:08:13 AM »
Quote
Here is the real thing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221139#msg2221139

Given your ongoing record of outrageous claims, why should anyone take more notice of your flat Earth link over the mainstream Wikipedia page?  Why are you so confident that your flat Earth society links should be taken as the authoritative source of information. And more specifically I would guess those links you publish are to your very own 'advanced flat Earth theory' thread are they not.    So just a little bit biased towards your own opinions then.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #657 on: December 04, 2019, 04:27:10 AM »
Dr. C.Y. Lo has TWO PhD degrees: Physics and Mathematics.

The doctorate in Physics was obtained from MIT.

He was Dr. Philip Morrison's student (Dr. Morrison, Professor Emeritus at MIT).

His most famous paper is: C. Y. Lo, Einstein's Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234454208_Einstein's_Radiation_Formula_and_Modifications_to_the_Einstein_Equation


There's no need to explain that until you have proven that it does happen under normal atmospheric conditions.

But there is, since you immediately claim this:

That curved water hides ships and cities, etc is confirmed by many observation under good conditions with no sign of looming or miraging etc.



Since you think that water stays curved, YOU BETTER EXPLAIN THIS HYPOTHESIS!

Already done! If YOU don't accept it, tough!

You haven't provided anything other than "mass bends space time".

That was debunked in three seconds.

YOU HAVE NOTHING!

NO EXPLANATION AT ALL!

Provide the explanation on how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a spherical Earth.

If that is too much for you, I can reduce the quantity to a SINGLE LITER OF WATER.


He claimed that the Sagnac effect did not fit with Special Relativity and most would agree with that because the Sagnac effect needs General Relativity to explain accurately.

No.

THE CRUCIAL CLAIM, ACCOMPANIED BY A PROOF, WAS THAT THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT REGISTER/RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

No orbital Sagnac effect, no orbit for the Earth.

You cannot bring in Malykin.

He did wrong.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


No, I did not and simply would not "EQUATE the angular orbital velocity with the solar surface gravity"!

BUT YOU DID!

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.


 I know that the angular orbital velocity is NOT zero.

Then, you know wrong.

IT HAS TO BE ZERO, SINCE THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT REGISTER/RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #658 on: December 04, 2019, 04:29:35 AM »
Find me one peer reviewed paper

Detection of subquarks/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laveortorial Subquarks was the question.

There is a lot of theory of how far we can go in breaking down matter, but we are not there yet. You are claiming these particles definitely exist, where is the evidence?
I hope that you didn't miss this gem!
Quote from: Flat Earth Sultan, Flat Earth Occultist Sandokhan
Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Reply #105 on: December 14, 2011, 10:48:35 PM »
All these results confirm the information presented over a century ago in the Occult Chemistry:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf << Link broken >>
See also:
An Esoteric Theory of Everything, From The Science of Spirituality

Occult Chemistry, first chapter:
OCCULT CHEMISTRY: THE NATURE OF MATTER
This might prove enlightening ::): OCCULT CHEMISTRY, INVESTIGATIONS BY CLAIRVOYANT: MAGNIFICATION INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE ATOMS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE AND SOME COMPOUNDS