Advanced Flat Earth Theory

THE RETURN OF KING ARTHUR



In the hour of Britain's greatest need, King Arthur will return to rescue his people.

In the new radical chronology of history, King Arthur (Akhenaten), the founder of the British Empire, lived some 250 years ago.

After leaving Egypt, passing through modern day Palestine, Akhenaten set for a voyage finally reaching the British Isles. King Arthur is even described as having arrived in North America, the final destination being Avalon.

The Isle of Avallonis is reported as being far away, to reach this island would require a long journey by sea.

And King Arthur is not the only historical figure awaiting a mysterious return, in a time of great peril: Apollo (Horus) is set to return one day, from Hiperborea. There is also a third character who is destined to come back at the end of the fifth age.

In order to understand how such a thing would be possible, we need to study subquark biochirality and its relationship to the human aura.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624 (biochirality and terrestrial gravity)

A very high supply of laevorotatory subquarks in the air, much higher than usual, would constitute a very effective barrier against the effects related to the dextrorotatory biochirality of the human aura, caused by terrestrial gravity.

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem

http://creation.com/god-left-handed

http://creationbc.org/index.php/right-handed-amino-acids-can-they-smack-down-the-evolutionists-chirality-problem/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140921043113/https://creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/50/50_2/CRSQ%20Fall%202013%20lo%20res%20bookmarked%20for%20web.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/homochirality_i059531.html

http://www.creationismonline.com/YEC/The_Origin_Of_Life.pdf

LARGE SEMIPRIME FACTORIZATION - RSA CYPHER I

Presently, nobody has able to provide significant methods for pushing integer factoring toward P . Then again, factoring is probably the hardest problem in analytical number theory.

In my opinion, the factorization of large semiprimes must be as easy as multiplying two integers: the algorithm should be proportional to the number of digits of the semiprime, and not an extremely difficult search using very sophisticated procedures.


For a 200 digit number (semiprime), the required computational time (1990) for the methods then used in integer factorization will take 4 x 10¹⁵ years.

For a 300 digit number, we would need 5 x 10²¹ years

For a 500 digit number, the figure would rise to 4.2 x 10³² years.


"RSA is a public key encryption algorithm which uses two different keys for encryption and decryption.

Procedure :

1.Select two very large prime numbers. (>200 digits)
2. Private key (decryption key) is calculated using p,q which are kept secret
3. Public key (encryption key) calculated as n=p*q , n is made public

Security of RSA relies on the fact that there is no Polynomial time algorithm for factorizing and integers into prime factors. Even if the adversary knows the value of n, it is computationally infeasible to factorize n to retrieve values of p and q. Therefore, the security of internet transactions is intact unless there is any polynomial time factorization algorithm."

We have seen that the sacred cubit fractal is the hidden template behind the distribution of the zeros of Riemann's zeta function.

Is there a relationship between the sacred cubit and semiprime factorization?


Background information

b₁, a₁ and c₁ are the three sides of a right triangle

b₁² + a₁² = c₁²

b₁ = d₁ x d₂ (divisors of b₁)

a₁ = (d₁² - d₂²)/2

c₁ = (d₁² +d₂²/2


If b₁ is prime, then b₁² + a₂² = c₂² (where c₂ = (b₁² +1)/2 )


Modern geometry/trigonometry tells us that Pythagoras' theorem is the only known relationship relating the three sides of a right triangle, in a single equation.


But there is another equation, involving of course the sacred cubit, relating the three sides of right triangle:

b₁^2sc + a₁^2sc =~ [(b₁ + a₁ + c₁)/2]^2sc + ...


Since a₁ + c₁ = d₁², with a reasonable estimate for a₁, we can obtain a very good approximation for d₁.


The Fibonacci numbers are actually sacred cubit numbers.

1,618034 = 4sc² (1sc = 0.636009827, in this case)

Then F_n = 1/(8sc² -1) x 2²ⁿ x sc²ⁿ


Another formula:

b₁^1/sc + a₁^1/sc=~ c₁^1/sc + ...


The first formula proves to be enough to completely solve the large integer factorization involving a semiprime having 10 or less digits. The right side of the equation is an asymptotic expansion, I was able to obtain the main term; of course, adding more terms of this expansion (a very difficult endeavor), would mean we can factorize semiprimes which have more than 10 digits, the accuracy depending on the number of terms in the expansion.

Of course, to attempt to solve the large semiprime factorization problem beyond the case where b₁ has more than 10-20 digits, would mean we need a more precise algorithm, involving sacred cubits.

LARGE SEMIPRIME FACTORIZATION - RSA CYPHER II

"Because both the system's privacy and the security of digital money depend on encryption, a breakthrough in mathematics or computer science that defeats the cryptographic system could be a disaster. The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be the development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers"
(Bill Gates 1995)


http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/rsa.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20130904000227/http://csis.bits-pilani.ac.in/faculty/murali/netsec-09/seminar/refs/atharvasrep.pdf

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/tutorial.htm#q16

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html



List of Fibonacci numbers (F_n) (sacred cubit sequences):

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibtable.html


b₁ has less than 10 digits

How to obtain a reasonable estimate for a₁


b₁ = 8141 x 131071 = 1073602561

1073602561 = 28657² + 252378911 = 28657 x 46368 - 255165215 

F₂₃ = 28657

F₂₄ = 46368

If b₁<a₁, then the a₁ term will be of the form F₂₄² - ..., F₂₄ x F₂₅ - ..., F₂₅ x F₂₆ - ..., or F₂₅² - ...

if b₁>a₁, then a₁ will equal F₂₃ x F₂₄ - ..., F₂₂² - ... , that is, only 4-6 possible choices.


In order to get a very good estimate for d₁, we will use the first remainder (and a few subsequent remainders if needed, more explanation below) obtained from the b₁ for each of the above choices .

For the a₁ =  F₂₅ x F₂₆ - ... choice, using a₁₀ = 255165215, and substituting in the first formula, we get:

d₁ = 132578.957, an excellent approximation.

Actually, a₁ = 8556257280 = 75025² + 2927506655 = 75025 x 121393 - 551252545


b₁ = 65537 x 131071 = 8590000127 = 75025² + 2961249502 = 75025 x 121393 - 517509698

F₂₅ = 75025

Using the same reasoning and the same formula, we get a first estimate for d₁, d₁ = 130095.707


It is only by using the power of the sacred cubit that we can actually get these estimates, impossible to obtain otherwise by any other method, without resorting to sophisticated factoring methods.


The sacred cubit hidden pattern of the natural number system can be used to obtain as much information as possible out of the b₁ semiprime.

b₁ = 821 x 941 = 772561

772561 = 610 x 987 + 170491 = 987² - 201608

170491 = 377² + 28362 = 377 x 610 - 59479

F₁₅ = 610
F₁₆ = 987

We use each and every remainder obtained by dividing b₁ by Fibonacci numbers, in a similar sequence: each subsequent remainder expressed as in the classic division formula (a = qd + r, where q and d are Fibonacci numbers, while r is the remainder to be used in the next division process)

201608 = 377 x 610 - 28362 = 377² + 59479

F₁₄ = 377

28362 = 144 x 233 - 5190 = 144² + 7899

59479 = 233² + 5190 = 233 x 377 - 28362

7899 = 89² - 22 = 89 x 55 + 3004

5190 = 89 x 55 + 295 = 89² - 2731


3004 = 55² - 21 = 55 x 34 + 1134

2731 = 55² - 294 = 55 x 34 + 861


1134 = 34² - 22 = 34 x 21 + 420

861 = 34 x 21 + 147 = 34² - 295

420 = 21² - 20 = 21 x 13 + 147

294 = 21 x 13 + 21 = 21² - 147 ; 147 + 21 = 168

147 = 21 x 8 - 21 = 13 x 8 + 43

43 = 8 x 5 + 3 = 8² - 21

21 = 5 x 3 + 6 = 5² - 4


Interestingly, we can immediately obtain a first approximation for d₁, d₁ = 918; by summing the remainders of b₁ in their corresponding order, for a 3 digit d₁ divisor. Several such sums can be obtained (where d₁ can be assumed to have 3, 4, 5 digits) and one of them will actually represent a nice estimate of d₁.


The crucial observation is that we can actually get the remainders of the a₁ term either by noticing that 6 and 4 (remainders obtained by dividing 21 by F₅ and F₄) can be used to initiate the a₁ sequence of remainders starting from the bottom up, or by using a very interesting shortcut involving b₁^sc, where this can be applied.

Actually, a₁ = 105720 = 377² - 36409 = 377 x 233 + 17879

Using the same scheme as above for the a₁ term (same division by Fibonacci numbers algorithm as was utilized for the b₁ term) we finally get:

40 = 8² - 24 = 8 x 3 + 16

16 = 5² - 9 = 3² + 7

9 = 3 x 5 - 6 = 2 x 3 - 3


65 = 8² + 1 = 8 x 13 - 39

39 = 8 x 5 - 1 = 5² + 14

14 = 3 x 5 -1 = 2 x 5 + 4


Knowing that 6 and 4 are the remainders of a₁, we can see that from the possible choices we eventually get (11, 19, 9, and 14) only 9 and 14 will make any sense, given the fact that the remainders at each stage of the calculation have to be expressed as in the classic division formula (a = qd + r, where q and d are Fibonacci numbers, while r is the remainder).


One of the remainders of a₁ will be 2857.


3004 - 2857 = 147



772561^sc = 5530


5530 - 5063 = 2 x 233

5530 - 2857 = 89 x 30

(5063, another a₁ remainder)

That is, there is a certain symmetry and relationship between b₁^sc and some of the a₁ remainders.



Another example.

b₁ = 1000009

For 1000009 = 3413 x 293, we get a first estimate of 3486, and by summing the remainders of b₁ (576230 + 204130 + 62001 + 25840 + 5104 + 2817 + 947 ...) we get an estimate of 3400, which is amazing, because we only use the remainders from b₁ and very simple approximations.


For 1000009, b₁^sc = 6515.72

9368 - 6515.72 = 610 x 4.66 = 987 x 2.88  (4.66 = 2 x 2.33 , and 2.88 = 2 x 1.44, both 233 and 144 are Fibonacci numbers)

9368 is one of the a₁ remainders

Another a₁ remainder is 3448

6515.72 - 3448 =~ 55² = 233 x 13



Thus, the factorization of semiprimes is related to the sacred cubit, and I believe the above algorithm is a start in studying further this new approach to solving this problem, based on the power of the sacred cubit.

For moderately large b₁ such as:

2³¹ - 1 = 2147483647

2⁶¹ - 1 = 2.3059 x 10¹⁸

b₁ = (2³¹ - 1) x (2⁶¹ - 1) = 4.951760152 x 10²⁷

a computer which can handle the full/entire number of digits could be used to verify the algorithm proposed above, and to see if the same relationship exists between the sequence of remainders obtained for both b₁ and a₁.

In fact, with an a₁ trial function 4 x 10³⁵, we get an estimate for d₁ = 2.353 x 10¹⁸.

Of course for the exact answer, we would need to verify the correctness of the above algorithm, involving the sequence of remainders obtained upon division by the corresponding Fibonacci numbers.

ORIGIN OF URANIUM PARADOX

Uranium exists as high-grade ore at 200,000 ppm (as common as tin or zinc).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

"Along with most people, I hadn't understood until today how prevalent Uranium is in the Earth's crust. Discovering that made me suspicious once more, because it doesn't make any sense, given the current theory of element production.

Elements are said to be produced by fusion in stars. But most stars don't fuse past element number 2, Helium. None fuse past iron. Since Uranium is element number 92, it could only be produced by the very largest stars in collapse. It would spread out across the galaxy when they went supernova. But given how diffuse the galaxy is, you wouldn't expect planets to contain so much Uranium. I will be told that the galaxy is very old, so we have Uranium left over from eons of big stars going nova. Yes, but the half-life of Uranium is about 4.5 billion years, which is about half the lifespan of a star like the Sun.

So while the Sun is alive, ¾ of the existing Uranium will break down. So you see, Uranium doesn't persist to be recycled through several star-cycles. We can't get that sort of buildup over time. Plus, since the Earth is said to be exactly that old, it would have originally had twice as much Uranium as now, doubling our problem."


"We will now ASSUME that the clouds formed themselves into what evolutionists call proto-stars, or first-generation stars.

STARS EXPLODE AND SUPERNOVAS

PRODUCE HEAVY ELEMENTS

The problem—The Big Bang only produced hydrogen and helium. Somehow, the 90 heavier (post-helium) elements had to be made. The theorists had to figure out a way to account for their existence.

The theory—The first stars, which were formed, were so-called 'first-generation stars' (also called 'population III stars'). They contained only lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of these stars repeatedly exploded. Billions upon billions of stars kept exploding, for billions of years. Gradually, these explosions are said to have produced all our heavier elements.

This concept is as wild as those preceding it.

1 - Another imaginative necessity. Like all the other aspects of this theory, this one is included in order to somehow get the heavier (post-helium) elements into the universe. The evolutionists admit that the Big Bang would only have produced hydrogen and helium.

2 - The nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8 make it impossible for hydrogen or helium to change itself into any of the heavier elements. This is an extremely important point, and is called the 'helium mass 4 gap' (that is, there is a gap immediately after helium 4). Therefore exploding stars could not produce the heavier elements. (Some scientists speculate that a little might be produced, but even that would not be enough to supply all the heavier elements now in our universe.) Among nuclides that can actually be formed, gaps exists at mass 5 and 8. Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5. This first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium. Even if it spanned this gap, it would be stopped again at mass 8. Hydrogen bomb explosions produce deuterum (hydrogen 2), which, in turn, forms helium 4. In theory, the hydrogen bomb chain reaction of nuclear changes could continue changing into ever heavier elements until it reached uranium;—but the process is stopped at the gap at mass 5. If it were not for that gap, our sun would be radiating uranium toward us!

'In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic objection to Gamow’s theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea.'—*William A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90.

Clarification: If you will look at any standard table of the elements, you will find that the atomic weight of hydrogen is 1.008. (Deuterum is a form of hydrogen with a weight of 2.016.) Next comes helium (4.003), followed by lithium (6.939), beryllium (9.012), boron (10.811), etc. Gaps in atomic weight exist at mass 5 and 8.

But cannot hydrogen explosions cross those gaps? No. Nuclear fision (a nuclear bomb or reactor) splits (unevenly halves) uranium into barium and technetium. Nuclear fusion (a hydrogen bomb) combines (doubles) hydrogen into deuterum (helium 2), which then doubles into helium 4—and stops there. So a hydrogen explosion (even in a star) does not go across the mass 5 gap.

We will now ASSUME that hydrogen and helium explosions could go across the gaps at mass 5 and 8:

3 - There has not been enough theoretical time to produce all the needed heavier elements that now exist. We know from spectrographs that heavier elements are found all over the universe. The first stars are said to have formed about 250 million years after the initial Big Bang explosion. (No one ever dates the Big Bang over 20 billion years ago, and the date has recently been lowered to 15 billions years ago.) At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into 'first-generation' stars, most of them are theorized to have exploded and then, 250 million years later, reformed into 'second-generation' stars. These are said to have exploded into 'third-generation' stars. Our sun is supposed to be a second- or third-generation star.

4 - There are no population III stars (also called first-generation stars) in the sky. According to the theory, there should be 'population III' stars, containing only hydrogen and helium, many of which exploded and made 'population II' (second-generation stars), but there are only population I and II stars (*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 35-36).

5 - Random explosions do not produce intricate orbits. The theory requires that countless billions of stars exploded. How could haphazard explosions result in the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, binary stars, galaxies, and star clusters? Within each galactic system, hundreds of billions of stars are involved in these interrelated orbits. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would fly apart! Over half of all the stars in the sky are in binary systems, with two or more stars circling one another. How could such astonishing patterns be the result of explosions? Because there are no 'first generation' ('Population I') stars, the Big Bang theory requires that every star exploded at least one or two times. But random explosions never produce orbits.

6 - There are not enough supernova explosions to produce the needed heavier elements. There are 81 stable elements and 90 natural elements. Each one has unusual properties and intricate orbits. When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months and is called a supernova. It is said that only the explosions of supernovas could produce much of the needed heavier elements, yet there have been relatively few such explosions.

7 - Throughout all recorded history, there have been relatively few supernova explosions. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now. Research astronomers tell us that one or two supernova explosions are seen every century, and only 16 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. Past civilizations carefully recorded each one. The Chinese observed one, in A.D. 185, and another in A.D. 1006. The one in 1054 produced the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. It was recorded both in Europe and the Far East. Johannes Kepler wrote a book about the next one, in 1604. The next bright one was 1918 in Aquila, and the latest in the Veil Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud on February 24, 1987.

'Supernovae are quite different . . and astronomers are eager to study their spectra in detail. The main difficulty is their rarity. About 1 per 650 years is the average for any one galaxy . . The 1885 supernova of Andromeda was the closest to us in the last 350 years.'—*Isaac Asimov, New Guide to Science (1984), p. 48.

8 - Why did the stellar explosions mysteriously stop? The theory required that all the stars exploded, often. The observable facts are that, throughout recorded history, stars only rarely explode. In order to explain this, evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago, the explosions suddenly stopped. Very convenient. When the theory was formulated in the 1940s, through telescopes astronomers could see stars whose light left them 5 billion light-years ago. But today, we can see stars that are 15 billion light-years away. Why are we not seeing massive numbers of stellar explosions far out in space? The stars are doing just fine; it is the theory which is wrong.

9 - The most distant stars, which are said to date nearly to the time of the Big Bang explosion, are not exploding,—and yet they contain heavier elements. We can now see out in space to nearly the beginning of the Big Bang time. Because of the Hubble telescope, we can now see almost as far out in space as the beginning of the evolutionists’ theoretical time. But, as with nearby stars, the farthest ones have heavier elements (are 'second-generation'), and they are not exploding any more frequently than are the nearby ones.

10 - Supernovas do not throw off enough matter to make additional stars. There are not many stellar explosions and most of them are small-star (nova) explosions. Yet novas cast off very little matter. A small-star explosion only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent; yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars. So supernovas—Gamow’s fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently and produce far too small an amount of heavy elements—to produce the vast amount that exists in the universe.

11 - Only hydrogen and helium have been found in the outflowing gas from supernova explosions. The theory requires lots of supernova explosions in order to produce heavy elements. But there are not enough supernovas,—and research indicates that they do not produce heavy elements! All that was needed was to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and analyze the elements in the outflowing gas from the former star. *K. Davidson did that in 1982, and found that the Crab nebula (resulting from an A.D. 1054 supernova) only has hydrogen and helium. This means that, regardless of the temperature of the explosion, the helium mass 4 gap was never bridged. (It had been theorized that a supernova would generate temperatures high enough to bridge the gap. But the gap at mass 4 and 8 prevented it from occurring.)

12 - An explosion of a star would not produce another star. It has been theorized that supernova explosions would cause nearby gas to compress and form itself into new stars. But if a star exploded, it would only shoot outward and any gas encountered would be pushed along with it."

ORIGIN OF URANIUM PARADOX II

Helium Flash Paradox

"The fusion of hydrogen to helium by either the PP chain or the CNO cycle requires temperatures of the order of 10,000,000 K or higher, since only at those temperatures will there be enough hydrogen ions in the plasma with high enough velocities to tunnel through the Coulomb barrier at sufficient rates.


The Mass-5 and Mass-8 Bottlenecks

The helium that is produced as the "ash" in this thermonuclear "burning" cannot undergo fusion reactions at these temperatures or even substantially above because of a basic fact of nuclear physics in our Universe: there are no stable isotopes (of any element) having atomic masses 5 or 8. This means that the two most likely initial steps for the fusion of helium-4 (the next most abundant isotope in stars after hydrogen-1) involve combining the He-4 with H-1 to form a mass-5 isotope, or combining two He-4 nuclei to form a mass-8 isotope. But both are unstable, and so immediately fly apart before they can undergo any further reactions. This produces a bottleneck to further fusion at mass 5 and at mass 8.


High Temperatures and Helium Fusion

Only at extremely high temperatures, of order 100 million K, can this bottleneck be circumvented by a highly improbable reaction. At those temperatures, the fusion of two He-4 nuclei forms highly unstable Beryllium-8 at a fast enough rate that there is always a very small equilibrium concentration of Be-8 at any one instant.

The situation is somewhat like running water through a sieve. Normally the sieve holds no water because it drains out as fast as it is added. However, if the flow of water into the sieve is made fast enough, a small equilibrium amount of water will be in the sieve at any instant because even the sieve cannot empty the water fast enough to keep up with the incoming water.

This small concentration of Be-8 can begin to undergo reactions with other He-4 nuclei to produce an excited state of the mass-12 isotope of Carbon. This excited state is unstable, but a few of these excited Carbon nuclei emit a gamma-ray quickly enough to become stable before they disintegrate. This extremely improbable sequence is called the triple-alpha process because the net effect is to combine 3 alpha particles (that is, 3 He-4 nuclei) to form a C-12 nucleus."


And, of course, this scenario is based on the following assumption: gravity compresses the core where, at high temperature and pressure, nuclear fusion occurs.

But there is no such thing as attractive gravity: the Biefeld-Brown effect, the Lamoreaux effect, the experiments carried out by Dr. N. Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma, defy the notion of attractive gravity, as do the quotes attributed to Newton himself, in letters to Bentley, Halley and Oldenburg.

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XIII

Some of the best mathematicians in the world are beginning to realize that all of the zeros of Riemann's zeta function are actually interconnected/related to each other.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/mathematics/research/research-reports-2/reports-2012/MA12_03Matiyasevich.pdf

Y. Matiyasevich provided the negative solution to Hilbert's tenth problem:

http://www.math.le.ac.uk/people/ag153/homepage/Matiyasevich.htm

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/old511/html/Martin-Davis-Hilberts-10th.pdf

Now, the algorithm in the paper makes use of very large numbers, but it proves that each zero of Riemann's zeta function depends/is related to the previous set of zeros.


The Riemann-Siegel formula describes the end product, that is, the values of the zeros of the zeta function, but does not explain why they are located exactly at those precise points on the 1/2 line:

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/zeros1

     14.134725142
     21.022039639
     25.010857580
     30.424876126
     32.935061588
     37.586178159
     40.918719012
     43.327073281
     48.005150881
     49.773832478
     52.970321478
     56.446247697
     59.347044003
     60.831778525
     65.112544048
     67.079810529
     69.546401711
     72.067157674
     75.704690699
     77.144840069
     79.337375020
     82.910380854
     84.735492981
     87.425274613
     88.809111208
     92.491899271
     94.651344041
     95.870634228
     98.831194218
...

    211.690862595
    213.347919360
    214.547044783
    216.169538508
    219.067596349
    220.714918839
    221.430705555
    224.007000255
    224.983324670
    227.421444280
    229.337413306
    231.250188700
    231.987235253
    233.693404179
    236.524229666
    237.769820481
    239.555477573


The previous twelve messages on this subject prove that the five elements law applied to the sacred cubit distance of 0.636621... will create a sacred cubit fractal, whose values will coincide with values of the zeros of the zeta function.

The zeros of Riemann's zeta function are generated by the subdivision of the sacred cubit distance according to the five elements law.

In turn, these zeros describe completely the distribution of the prime numbers.


The relationship between power tower series and the zeta function:

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/APM_2016042615075938.pdf


While the fact that if Riemann's hypothesis is true could lead in finding a polynomial time algorithm for integer factorization, such a computational breakthrough still has to be discovered on its own. The fact that semiprime factorization is directly related to the sacred cubit, in my opinion, would provide the basis to find an elegant solution (see the two messages posted on this page, on this subject).

SAGNAC EFFECT VIII


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 t_o recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

t_o = t'γ

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

t_o = t'(1 + v²/2c²)


dt_R = (t_o - t')/t_o = v²/(v² + 2c²)

dt_R = relativity time ratio



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

dt' = t_o - t' = t_ov/(c + v)


dt_S = (t_o - t')/t_o = v/(v + c)


dt_S = Sagnac ratio


dt_S/dt_R = (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.


A.G. Kelly's extraordinary analysis of the Sagnac effect, exposing the commonly accepted misconceptions/errors about STR's relationship to the Sagnac effect:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=XVLmihZnsvUC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=al+kelly+challenging+modern+physics+dufour+prunier&source=bl&ots=Xx6Lnjplga&sig=r0M1Y_C9RuIt7xs1MwSXaS6Fx9k&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimjcGQsPHSAhUHKcAKHSybBggQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=al%20kelly%20challenging%20modern%20physics%20dufour%20prunier&f=false pages 34-60

page 45

pages 52-56

pages 56-58


The theory proposed by A.G. Kelly to explain the Sagnac effect, UTR (Universal Theory of Relativity), however, is just as wrong.

http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf (page 30)


"Something was affecting the light in order for it to consistently produce the fringe displacement. Sagnac (1913) demonstrated it was ether.

The optical whirlwind effect of an artificial rotation of an overall system really shows itself, without unexpected compensation, as an effect of the first order of the movement in comparison with the ether.  The experience directly reveals […] the linear delay […] that the overall rotation of the optical system produces in the ether between the two systems of inverse waves T and R during their propagation around the circuit.

G. Sagnac


The translational/linear Sagnac effect IS A FACT OF SCIENCE.

Professor Ruyong Wang, in two well-designed experiments showed unambiguously that an identical Sagnac effect appearing in uniform radial motion occurs in linear inertial motion.

He tested the travel-time difference between two counter-propagating light beams in uniformly moving fiber.

The travel-time difference was found to be:

Δt = 2vΔL/c^2

where ΔL is the length of the fiber segment moving with the source and detector at a v, whether the segment was moving uniformly or circularly.



https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

"For a circular path of radius R, the difference between the different time intervals can also be represented as Δt = 2vl/c^2, where v = ΩR is the speed of the circular motion and l = 2πR is the circumference of the circle.

The travel-time difference of two counterpropagating light beams in moving fiber is proportional to both the total length and the speed of the fiber, regardless of whether the motion is circular or uniform.

In a segment of uniformly moving fiber with a speed of v and a length of Δl, the travel-time difference is 2vΔl/c^2."





Wolfgang Engelhardt, from the Max Planck Institute of Physics, made an even more profound discovery: STR does not apply at all to the Sagnac effect.

http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-401/aflb401m820.pdf

By applying correct relativistic formula composition law for velocities, formula (7) of his paper, the well known infinitesimal time increments formula, used by all relativists,  formula (8 ), and the correct derivation of formula (10) (he even provides three well known references on this formula), the author does show that STR does not predict the Sagnac effect.

SAGNAC EFFECT IX

The Sagnac effect proves the existence of ether.

It also proves geocentrism.

The experiment shows a certain substance, the ether, to be in movement against the surface of the Earth.

Heliocentrists will state that there are two choices:

(a) a rotating Earth in a fixed ether, or

(b) a rotating ether above the surface of a fixed Earth


The reason that (a) must be excluded is the missing orbital Sagnac effect: if one claims that the Earth is rotating in a fixed ether, then in order to account for the four seasons, one must also say that the Earth is also revolving around the sun.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


The Sagnac effect is a direct proof not only of the existence of ether, but also of the fact that the Earth is stationary.

THE ALLAIS EFFECT VIII

An overview of the Allais effect (parts I - VII):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115 (the Black Sun and the laevorotatory subquarks)


Dr. Maurice Allais report to NASA:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

pages 35R - 43R

1. – Periodic structure of the month-long series of observations of
the asymmetrical paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support

a – The seven month-long series of observations of the
asymmetrical paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support
are characterized by a very remarkable periodic structure

c – Analysis together with 13 periods from the harmonic
analysis used in the theory of tides was particularly suggestive

The same periodicities as in the theory of tides appeared
to be significant in the movements of the paraconical pendulum,
but their coefficients of amplitude were very different.

FOR THE PARACONICAL PENDULUM WITH ISOTROPIC
SUPPORT, THE RATIO OF THE COMPONENT OF 24H 50M TO
THE COMPONENT OF 24H IS ABOUT 14 TIMES LARGER,
THAN WITH THE THEORY OF TIDES (4.12/0.294=14.01)

2. – Periodic structure of the month-long series of observations of
the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support

A remarkable periodic structure appeared here as well.

The significant periodicities which appear are the
same as those of the theory of tides, but their relative
amplitudes are quite different.

c – One may well ask oneself why, when it occurs, the near
alignment of the Moon and the Sun does not generate the same
effects as a total eclipse.

In fact, the importance of the monthly sidereal period of
27.322 days shows that these effects exist. But they can only
really be perceived over a period of several months.

Overall, it was the harmonic analysis of the various series
of observations of the paraconical pendulum with
anisotropic support and of the series of observations of the
paraconical pendulum with isotropic support which made
me absolutely certain of their periodic structure as far as
the orders of magnitude of the components of 24h 50m,
24h, 12h 25m, and 12h are concerned, and of the
impossibility of explaining them by the theory of
gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of
relativity.

Seen overall, the harmonic analysis of the month-long
series of observations of the paraconical pendulum with
anisotropic and isotropic supports disclosed a very remarkable
underlying periodic structure.

This makes it clear why experiments for a few hours with
a Foucault pendulum have always been notable for inexplicable
anomalies.

• Particularly, my experiments with the paraconical
pendulum with isotropic support marked a fundamental stage in
my researches, and they enabled me to obtain results of
exceptional importance.

In fact, the periodic structures which were brought to light
exhibited great underlying coherence, particularly as far as
their phases were concerned.

The existence of anomalies in the movement of the
paraconical pendulum has become absolutely certain.

FOR THE LUNI-SOLAR WAVE OF 24H 50M, IN THE CASE OF
THE PARACONICAL PENDULUM WITH ANISOTROPIC
SUPPORT, THE EFFECTS OBSERVED ARE ABOUT TWENTY
MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THOSE CALCULATED.

IN THE CASE OF THE PARACONICAL PENDULUM WITH
ISOTROPIC SUPPORT, THE RATIO BETWEEN THE
OBSERVED EFFECTS AND THE CALCULATED EFFECTS IS
ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION.

THESE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CALCULATED
VALUES AND THE OBSERVED VALUES ARE ENORMOUS,
AND WITHOUT ANY EQUAL IN THE LITERATURE.

V –TOTALLY INEXPLICABLE OBSERVATIONS IN THE
FRAMEWORK OF CURRENT THEORY

1. – Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

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

The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far
as I know, unmatched in the literature.

http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Allais_1997/Allais_1997_1.pdf (L'Anisotropie de L'espace, in French)


The Allais effect is direct consequence of the Black Sun passing in front the Sun (during a solar eclipse) thereby activating the ether strings/subquark telluric currents to a higher degree than usual, and causing the antigravitational effects recorded during the experiments carried out over the past 60 years.

The correlation between the movements of the paraconical pendulum and the periodicities as in the theory of tides means that the SAME force is at work, a force exerted by the pressure of the ether waves which does cause the tidal waves.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127 (tides and radio waves)

9 REASONS WHY THE ROSETTA COMET LANDING WAS A HOAX

When the European Space Agency (ESA) allegedly landed the Philae spacecraft on the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet which is reportedly traveling 84,000 MPH, you may have been thinking, wait, what, really!? Are you serious!? If so, you weren’t alone.

Aside from the fact that the comet landing was strait out of the Hollywood movie “Armageddon” (1998) (see trailer) starring Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck, there are far too many anomalies surrounding the historic event not to scientifically reevaluate exactly what us Earthlings are being asked to believe.

After all, neither NASA nor the ESA has put a man on the relatively stationary Moon since 1972 (allegedly) and its only 249,000 miles away from Earth. Conversely, the 67P comet is some 310,000,000 miles away from Earth and moving at 23.6 miles per second. Therefore, the likelihood that a 10-year old spacecraft landed on the comet first try around is highly improbable to say the least.

Considering that landing on a flying space rock had never been executed let alone attempted in the history of mankind, the ESA either had a severe case of “beginner’s luck”, or the incident was an elaborate hoax. After reading the evidence depicted herein, chances are you will agree with the latter.



1. No Video Footage
According to Rosetta’s Wikipedia page, “Information gathered by [Rosetta’s] onboard cameras beginning at a distance of 24 million kilometers (15,000,000 mi) were processed at ESA‘s Operation Centre to refine the position of the comet in its orbit to a few kilometers.” However, to date, no “live” footage of the comet landing has ever been produced. Instead, the EAS released a 7:56:35 video which contains a lot of computer models, speeches and scientific cheerleading but no actual footage of the event. Since Rosetta and Philae are state-of-the-art spacecraft, the lack of video footage is highly suspect and suggests the ESA has something to hide.

2. No Real-Time Communication
Philae’s alleged landing on the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet was reportedly executed from ESA Mission Control at ESOC in Darmstadt, Germany. Considering that the comet in question is approximately 310,000,000 miles away from Earth, any real-time communication with Philae in respect to its navigation and precision landing on the comet which is traveling 84,000 MPH (23.6 miles per second) would have had to occur faster than the speed of light (i.e., 671,000,000 miles per hour). Even if the ESA was able to communicate with Rosetta and Philae at the speed of light (which they cannot), there would be an approximant 25-27 minute lag between operational maneuvers emanating from Germany and real-time maneuvers in deep space (i.e., this is calculated by dividing 310 million by 671 million). In short, it’s an impossible feat. For lack of a better analogy, it would be like driving a race car at 84,000 miles per hour with a 25 minute delay in respect to the road ahead. Needless to say, a fiery crash would be in short order.

3. No Aerodynamic Shape
Considering that real comets such as Halley’s Comet are flying through space at an extremely high rate of speed, they tend to become rather aerodynamic over time due to the cosmic dust and cosmic rays (i.e., high-energy radiation) the encounter while careening though space. This is clearly not the case with the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet which exhibits a rather odd boot or lion-like shape. In short, the comet is very un-comet like which suggests that its entire likeness was fabricated, most likely in an advanced form of Photoshop.

4. No Stars
In up-close Rosetta-based photos of the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet from August 3, 2014, and September 19, 2014, there are no visible stars in the background. Outside the range of the Sun, stars are extremely bright yet there are none to be found whatsoever. Rosetta-based photos of the 67P comet from August 2, 2014 and August 29, 2014 depict a plethora of stars in the background, suggesting that the up-close photos of the comet were created in Photoshop.

5. No Fiery Glow
In up-close Rosetta-based photos of the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet from August 3, 2014, and September 19, 2014, shadows are being cast on comet from the northeast. Considering that a flash was not used and the comet is roughly 310,000,000 miles away the Sun, the source of the faint light is highly suspect and remains a mystery. Conversely, in a Rosetta-based photo from August 29, 2014, the 67P comet is bright as the sun, dispelling the notion of an exterior light source. Needless to say, the ESA cannot have it both ways. Realistically speaking, the photos of the comet should either be white as the Sun or black as night due to the lack of sunlight. Anything in between is highly suspect.

6. No Vapor Trail
As depicted in the Rosetta-based photos of the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet from August 3, 2014, and September 19, 2014, no visible vapor trail of hot gasses are emanating from the comet. In comparison to Halley’s Comet, a known comet, the lack of a vapor trail is highly suspect. In a Rosetta-based photo of the 67P comet from August 2, 2014, a radiant white glow is emanating from the comet, something which is curiously missing in the aforementioned photos.

7. No Space Sheer
Considering that the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet is allegedly traveling at 84,000 MPH, it’s extremely unlikely that a 220 pound spacecraft that’s only a few feet tall (3.3 x 3.3 x 2.6) would be able to withstand the white hot gasses erupting from the comets fiery surface. In other words, the Philae spacecraft would never be able to get close to the speeding comet let alone attach itself for an extended period of time. According to report dated November 13, 2014, Philae was only able to get two of its three legs in contact with the comet yet it had no problem staying upright or attached. A household chair cannot stand on three legs yet this spacecraft is standing on two while traveling through space?

8. Suspicious Names
The Rosetta space probe and the Philae lander spacecraft were allegedly launched by the ESA on March 2, 2004, by an Ariane 5 rocket, reaching the 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko comet on August 6, 2014. Whether this event occurred in reality is not known, but the name Rosetta was evidently chosen because of its likeness to Rosetta Stone, an international language-based software company. Because the name Rosetta automatically invokes Rosetta Stone, it makes the notion of the Rosetta spacecraft landing on a flying stone in space seem all the more plausible. Considering that “Ph” often constitutes an “F” sound in the English language (e.g. Joseph, Phat, Pharaoh, etc.), the name “Philae” can also equate to “Filae” or “Fool” as vowels in English are ambiguous at best. Considering that comet landing appears to be a hoax, the name of its primary spacecraft was appropriately named “Fool” for billions have succumbed to its fakery.

9. Technological Contradictions
If reports are to be believed, Rosetta and Philae are now “Tweeting” from deep space. We can barely get reliable cellular and Wi-Fi service on Earth yet these spacecraft are Tweeting in real time from 310,000,000 miles away? Even stranger, it was reported on November 15, 2014, that Philae is “asleep” after its batteries ran out. One would think that the ESA would have installed batteries that last longer than 72-hours but clearly that’s not the case. Chances are it’s a convenient way of ending the conversation about the highly improbable comet landing before it even gets started. Needless to say, the technological contradictions surrounding the mission are red flags which suggest that the event never transpired in reality.

David Chase Taylor


Electric Comet Theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619877#msg1619877

TURIN SHROUD/SFUMATO TECHNIQUE: BALL LIGHTNING LASER PRECISION

In the new radical chronology of history, the group of persons who created both the Turin Shroud and the paintings attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci lived some 250 years ago.

https://www.shroud.com/scavone.htm (L. Da Vinci was not responsible for manufacturing the shroud)

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen.pdf

https://shroudstory.com/2015/09/04/what-do-we-really-know-about-volckringer-patterns/


There is only one way that the image featured on the Turin Shroud could have been created: radiation. But this method would involve using laser pulses on the shroud.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html

http://www.sindone.info/DILAZZA3.PDF (very well documented)


Radiation on the shroud caused by the presence of ball lightning:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=xe75CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=turin+shroud+ball+lightning+radiation&source=bl&ots=vTkX0FMNKK&sig=nDlHUkh7bCM3OP4ERZmLLC_fU5A&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0gvi0zqTTAhWH0RQKHfxVBl8Q6AEINTAB#v=onepage&q=turin%20shroud%20ball%20lightning%20radiation&f=false

https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/science_and_religion_meet_in_shroud_research-1.pdf


Earlier in this thread, it was shown that a ball lightning device was used to transport and levitate the colossal blocks of granite found at Baalbek.


But all the researchers into the Turin Shroud phenomenon have not noticed that other artistic creations, belonging to the same period of history, also cannot be explained at all: the sfumato technique attributed to Da Vinci, featured in the Mona Lisa and John the Baptist paintings (the amazing details unmatched by any other painter/artist).

https://phys.org/news/2010-08-x-ray-fluorescence-spectroscopy-unveils-da.html

But the sfumato technique cannot even begin to be explained:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=uGHOqR6zpMgC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=da+vinci+sfumato+laser&source=bl&ots=LF_EbL3SVX&sig=GMOhQfFHV4Z7TP7CXnNJzzxu2Qg&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO6f_30qTTAhWDDCwKHZYpCpsQ6AEIeDAN#v=onepage&q=da%20vinci%20sfumato%20laser&f=false

Because the thickness of the layers applied to create these paintings measures one to two microns each (50 times thinner than a human hair): obviously some kind of a laser precision instrument was used to apply the colors of the paintings.

http://www.esrf.eu/news/general-old/general-2010/new-light-on-leonardo-da-vinci2019s-faces

http://www.cnrs.fr/fr/pdf/cim/CIM19.pdf (page 8 )




https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages: Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1673763#msg1673763

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674108#msg1674108

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619746#msg1619746

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX III

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215 (part II)


Now, the complete demonstration that indeed there will be two forces acting on boat X, and two forces acting on boat Y.

Two boats on lake, boat X and boat Y, are being pulled toward each other using a single rope by the two men on each boat.


The force applied by the first man is force A.

The force applied by the second man is force B.

They are of different magnitude to start with, A does not equal B.


Here is how the RE analysis goes, reaching a most profound contradiction:

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.

A cannot equal B.

Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.


The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.

Which can NEVER be the case.

Force A can never equal force B.

Even if we had, as an example, force A = 100.000,000,000,021 N and force B = 100.000,000,000,034 N, it would still NOT satisfy the RE requirement which is this: |A|=|B|.

The RE analysis leads directly to the ONLY case which can never be experienced in reality.


Here is the correct FE analysis.

Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.

Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.

Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.

Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.


What are the forces acting on boat X?

To the left we will have a negative direction.

Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.


What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?

-A and -B.


What are the forces acting boat Y?

To the right we will have the positive direction.

Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and
-A.


What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?

A and B.


Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B


Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]


The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0


All forces balance out perfectly.

But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.

The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.

A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance, no wild substitutions are to be made, no contradiction is to be reached at all.

TACHYONIC NEUTRINOS = BOSONS FROM THE SUBQUARKS

The carrier of light is the boson (what modern science calls a photon).

A subquark (tachyon/magnetic monopole) consists of billions of bosons and antibosons arranged in double torsion strings.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813


Now, this same modern science has come to the conclusion that actually tachyonic neutrinos do exist:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.2804.pdf

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rehrlich/Tachyon_papers.pdf

What it describes to be a tachyonic neutrino, is actually the boson.


The Higgs boson with a mass of 126 GeV/c^2, discovered on 4th July 2012, can also be regarded as a tachyon.

Accordingly, the other flavours, muon and tau neutrinos, might also be considered to be tachyons.

If the electronic neutrino were a tachyon, the universe would be embedded in a homogeneous tachyonic field.


It is this ether field that produces the variations observed in the radioactive decay rates.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092765050900084X

And it also proves that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, since the existence of the ether (subquark) field means that the variations are due to the changes in the density of this ether field.

http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rates-and-solar-activity

Since the discovery of tachyonic neutrinos can no longer be denied, the papers published against the theory that there is a neutrino field which does cause the changes in the radioactive rates, have to be examined again:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.3265.pdf


ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT/RUDERFER EXPERIMENT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX IV

The universal "law" of gravitational attraction tells us that the force exerted for each body, the Earth - Moon system, must be exactly the same.

Moon attractive force for Earth:

F_mn = 2.1096 x 10¹⁹ kgf

F_mn = [(G x M_mn)/d²] x M_e

Earth attractive force for Moon:

F_e = 2.1096 x 10¹⁹ kgf

F_e = [(G x M_e)/d²] x M_mn


M_mn = 7.349 x 10²⁵ gm

M_e = 5.9736 x 10²⁷ gm

d = 3.7633 x 10¹⁰ cm


If a single counterexample could be found which defies the equation F=GMm/r ², then that would mean that the forces exerted by the Earth and the Moon on each other, in the Newtonian mechanics context, must be different from one another.


DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT:

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

The law of universal gravitation totally defied: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363


NIPHER EXPERIMENT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840


LAMOREAUX EXPERIMENT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174


ALLAIS EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382


TOTAL DEMOLITION OF STR/GTR:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750


Hence, we have a most direct proof of the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

In the two boats on a lake example, connected by a rope, the forces exerted on each of end of the rope, forces A and B, will ALWAYS be different, which means that the balance of forces equation will include TWICE  the forces needed in the Newtonian system.

Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B


Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]


By contrast, the analysis based only on a single force being transmitted through the rope, leads to a most direct contradiction: |A|=|B|. But forces A and B can never be exactly the same.


Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX V

The double forces of attractive gravitation paradox leads directly to the following conclusion: F=GMm/r² is a fake formula.

Since it is completely wrong and erroneous, it means that the figures listed in it for the Earth - Sun system are also wrong: the mass of the Sun, the mass of the Earth, and of course the Earth - Sun distance values, as they are being used in the heliocentrical context, are false.

We are being told that the supposed complete orbit around the sun occurs every 365.256 days (1 sidereal year), during which time Earth travels 940 million kilometers.

And that the distance at the aphelion is 152.10×10^6 km (94.51×10^6 mi; 1.0167 AU) while the distance for at the perihelion is 147.10×10^6 km (91.40×10^6 mi; 0.98329 AU).

But the listed Earth - Sun distance used in the F=GMm/r² formula is completely false.

Which means that the Earth could not possibly orbit the Sun at all: there would be no way to account for the four seasons.


Thus we can infer how the fairy tales of space missions (Nasa, Esa, Mir) have been completely made up.

We can understand how tidal waves have nothing to do with the gravitational influence exerted either the by the Sun or by the Moon; how the works attributed to Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler were all faked to start with; why the acceleration of the rate of precession cannot be solved at all in the Newtonian mechanical context; the Perseid meteor shower mystery; the missing orbital Sagnac effect, and much more.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486127#msg1486127 (tidal waves and radio waves)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860 (N. Copernicus, a fictional character invented much later in time)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638725#msg1638725 (the fake Gregorian calendar reform)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670 (how Nova Astronomia was completely faked/forged, part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082 (acceleration of the rate of precession paradox, part I)

 https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775758#msg1775758 (Perseid meteor shower paradox, followed by parts II and III)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182 (orbital motion Sagnac effect paradox)


Now, we can understand why the orbital equations of motion lead directly to mathematically spurious results:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581


Or why we have been left certain clues along the way, from the group of people who wrote the works attributed to Newton and Huygens, which point out the sheer fallacy of the law of universal gravitational attraction:

“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.”

Huygens dismissed the attraction concept:

”Concerning the cause of the flux given by M. Newton, I am by no means satisfied [by it], nor by all the other theories that he builds upon his principle of attraction, which to me seems absurd, as I have already mentioned in the addition to the Discourse on Gravity. And I have often wondered how he could have given himself all the trouble of making such a number of investigations and difficult calculations that have no other foundation than this very principle."

Or why "Newton" gave the following example without fully understanding the balance of forces involved here:

"If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other."

Even here there will be two forces acting on each end of the rope.

X end of the rope: horse is pulling with force -A, force A reacting on the horse, the stone is exerting through the rope a force B on the horse.

Forces acting on the rope at the X end: -A and -B (reaction forces)

Y end of the rope: -B, while the horse is pulling with force -A

Forces acting on the rope at the Y end: A and B


Double the forces needed in the Newtonian description of mechanics.

GLOBAL COSINE/ARCCOSINE/EXPONENTIAL/LOGARITHM/ARCTANGENT FUNCTIONS



The hypothenuse is labeled as c (which unites points A and C), side a is located on the x axis (which unites points A and B), and we also have side b. Angle θ is located between sides c and a (cos θ = a/c).

Point D will be the intersection of the circle with the positive x axis.

We first calculate the value of segment CD, in terms of a, b and c: (2c² - 2ac)^1/2

We then succesively bisect the chord CD, and each hypothenuse thus obtained (if we divide CD in half the midpoint will be E, and the intersection of the segment AE with the circle will be labeled as F; then we calculate this new hypothenuse CF in terms of the values obtained earlier, and so on, aiming to get as close to the value of s [arc length of CD] as possible], into smaller and smaller equal segments, calculating each succesive value in terms of a, b and c, in order to obtain a very close approximation of s (the arc length between points C and D); since s = rθ, where r = c = 1, by acquiring an exceptional figure for s, we correspondingly then get the value of θ.

Letting c = 1, we finally obtain:


COS θ =  1/2 x (({ [( (2 - θ²/2^N)² - 2)²...]² - 2}² - 2))    (n/2 + 1 evaluations)

COS^-1 θ =  2ⁿ x {2 - ((2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 2θ)^1/2]^1/2}^1/2...))}^1/2   (n + 1 evaluations)


The cosine formula is a GLOBAL formula; by contrast the Maclaurin cosine series is a local formula:



My global cosine formula is the SUM of the Maclaurin cosine expansion.


We know that the Maclaurin hyperbolic cosine expansion is:

cosh x = 1 + x²/2! + x⁴/4! + ...

Therefore, by just changing the sign in the global cosine formula, we obtain immediately the GLOBAL hyperbolic cosine formula:

COSH V =  1/2 x (([(({[(2 + V²/2ⁿ)² - 2]²} - 2))²...-2]² - 2))   (n/2 + 1 evalutions)

This is the global hyperbolic cosine formula which is the sum of the corresponding local Maclaurin power series expansion.


We then immediately obtain the GLOBAL natural logarithm formula:

LN V =  2ⁿ x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)^1/2]^1/2...}^1/2))^1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n+1 - 1/V^1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

For a first approximation,

LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n - 1)

First results appear for n = 8 to 12, all the remaining digits for n = 19 and higher...

Example: x = 100,000        LN x = 11.5129255

with n = 20 the first approximation is LN x = 11.512445 (e^11.512445 = 100,001.958)


We also can get the corresponding arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2ⁿ x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V²)}^1/2)^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


ERROR ANALYSIS

Here is the Maclaurin expansion for e^x:



Let us obtain a remainder form for the Maclaurin expansion for e^x (Lagrange remainder):

R_n(x) = f⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾(c)[xⁿ⁺¹]/(n+1)! , where c is between 0 and x

f⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾(c) = e^c


An approximation is said to be accurate to n decimal places if the magnitude of the error is less than 0.5 x 10^-n.

e¹ to four decimal place accuracy:

R_n = e^c/(n+1)!

since c<1, then e^c < e

since e<3, then R_n < 3/(n+1)!

then, for n=8 we will obtain four decimal place accuracy.


Local formulas are difficult to use because of their very slow convergence.


By contrast, my formula is a GLOBAL formula, which rapidly converges to the result, even for large x.


Cosh v = (e^v + e^-v)/2 =~ 1/2e^v = 1/2 x (({[( ( (2 + v²/2ⁿ)²) -2)²] -2)² ...-2}² -2))       (n/2 +1 evaluations)

We can turn this formula into an exact formula for e^v by simply substituting y for e^v, and then solve the quadratic equation for y.

One might ask, could you not use Taylor expansions to obtain cosh 10 (as an example)? No, because you would need some other value to start with, cosh 9.5 or cosh 9.8 or cosh 10.3, to apply Taylor series.

With my global formula, no such approximations are needed, we can start directly with the value v = 10.

My formula also has a built-in remainder approximation estimation: the term v²/2ⁿ.

That is, we can estimate the accuracy from the very start: this is the power of a global formula.

The higher the value of n, the better the approximation that we will obtain.


Example:

COSH 10 = 11013.233

10²/2²⁰ = 0.00009536

Using the global hyperbolic cosine formula with n = 20, we get: 11012.762

DOUBLE FORCES OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION PARADOX VI

In the official chronology of history, Newton simply copied all of the results from calculus and mechanics attributed to him from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra and other works from Vedic advanced mathematics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1574605#msg1574605


The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Newton's laws of motion copied from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra.

Suppose that the mass of an object is 'm' and in time interval 't', the velocity of the object changes from 'u' to 'v' due to the force acting on it. Then,

Initial momentum = mu
Final momentum = mv
Change in momentum = m(v-u)

Therefore, the rate of change of momentum = m(v-u)/t = ma (from Kanada's first law)

From Kandas second law,
force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum.
Or, p k ma
Or, p = kma (where k is a constant)

If m=1 and a=1, then
1 = k*1*1 or k = 1
Or, p = ma

Therefore, unit force is the one that produces unit acceleration in an object of unit mass.


Having simply copied these laws of mechanics without having a clue as to how they should be properly and correctly applied, Newton (or the group of people who forged the works attributed to Newton) also had to replace the correct context in which these laws were discovered/invented: gravity is a push and not a pull.

Here is the original meaning of the third law of motion as it was written down in the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra:

http://manojvakkeel.blogspot.ro/2014/07/rishi-kanad-s-law-of-motion.html


This is the reason why Newton failed to properly apply the third law of motion to the horse which draws a stone tied to a rope example: he simply copied down the text without having a proper understanding as to how it was to be applied to real life situations.

And precisely why the incorrect way of applying the third law leads to a most direct contradiction: |A|=|B|, which can never be the case.

The correct manner in which the third law is to be applied to the two boats connected by a rope example, leads to the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

SUBQUARK SHAPIRO TIME DELAY

The Shapiro time delay has nothing to do with spacetime/GTR:

http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06B.htm

The Shapiro delay is essentially a transit-time effect which is due to the physical characteristics of a space of an electron density profile that governs the propagation of microwaves.

This "density profile" however is the effect of ether (subquark strings) upon the microwave signal.


Aether frame dragging:

http://www.cellularuniverse.org/R1RelativityofTime.pdf

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0502/0502007.pdf

http://www.treurniet.ca/physics/framedragging.htm

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7149


Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift proofs:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791


The density of ether causes what is being described as "gravitational lensing".

What we see is the effect of the density of ether on the speed of light.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refraction-not-gravity/


Ether redshift theory:


https://web.archive.org/web/20060607031454/http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm

"The late Walther Nernst was one of the the most eminent and interesting scientists with whom I came into contact. His scientific instinct was truly amazing - apart from a masterly acquaintance with a vast amount of facts that he could always readily bring to mind, he also possessed a rare command of methods and experimental findings which he excelled in ... "

A. Einstein describing the work published by W. Nernst

What Walther Nernst did was to discover a huge, humoungous, catastrophic error in Hubble's calculations on the interpretation of the red shift.



"if redshifts are not primarily due to velocity shift … the velocity-distance relation is linear, the distribution of the nebula is uniform, there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principle of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results"

E. Hubble


And as far as expansion is concerned, Hubble concluded with the following statement:

" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

E. Hubble

That unknown principle of nature is the ETHER.

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes, as has been seen.

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.

These mistakes did not happen by chance.

The first was almost certainly due to the influence of Tolman, the relativistic theorist whose aid was sought by Hubble to "interpret" redshifts. Despite the results of the work he did in 1936, Hubble was never able to completely shake off Tolman's influence.

His second mistake was caused in the same way by the influence of Einsteinian relativity. A logarithmic law may be deduced from a normal "classical" effect of exponential decay of energy in photons; this, however, really does postulate the existence of the "intergalactic and interstellar mean" that is "in principle" denied by Relativity.

SAGNAC EFFECT X

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37842#p37842

Let Δt _o= the sagnac correction for the earth's orbital path

Let Δt _r= the sagnac correction for the earth's rotational path

RE claim: Δt_o/Δt _r= 1/365

[4A_oω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [4A_rω_r/( c² - v_r²)]
[A_oω_o/( c² - v_o²)] / [A_rω_r/( c² - v_r²)]

Obviously, ( c² - v_o²) and ( c² - v_r²) are very close to the same number, so let's lave them off.

A_oω_o/ A_rω_r
A_o = πR_o²
A_r = πR_r²

So, πR_o² ω_o / πR_r² ω_r

R_o² ω_o / R_r² ω_r.


http://anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34935#p34935

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r² = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r² = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR²ω/(c²-v²)
or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c² - v² ), where v is the linear velocity.

For the earth's rotation, it is 0.4638333 km/ sec and the orbit v = 30km/sec.

∆t = 0.62831852628 for the earth's orbit.
Total path of the orbit is 2πr=2π(150,000,000 km) = 942,477,780km

Hence, the sagnac effect for a 1 km path, that means light source in the center and two receivers placed at .5km is:
0.62831852628 / 942,477,780km = 6.6666667 e-10 sec / km

Now, for the earth's rotation.
∆t = 4.1170061 e-7 seconds
Total path of the rotation is 2πr=2π(6357 km) = 39942.21 km


4.1170061 e-7 seconds / 39942.21 km = 1.0307407 e-11 sec / km


The sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation.



The orbital Sagnac, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered by GPS satellites.


The equation for the sagnac is:

4Aω/( c² - v²)

One must calculatate the area swept out by the path and that is A = πR², where R is measured from the Sun to the center of the Earth (radius of the orbital path loop).




http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


Even in the official version of heliocentricity, the Earth's orbit around the Sun is assumed to be nearly circular.

The radius of the earth very nearly circular orbit around the sun is 1.50⋅10^11 m.

THE GPS SATELLITES' ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH IS ALSO NEARLY CIRCULAR, YET THE SAGNAC EFFECT IS CALCULATED PRECISELY USING THE KNOWN FORMULA:

4Aω/( c² - v²)

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/faq/gps/

The orbits are nearly circular.

http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/GPS_Space_Segment

Orbits are nearly circular.


Eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun (official science information):

Earth's orbit has an eccentricity of 0.0167.

Eccentricity of GPS satellites orbit around the Earth:

Orbits are nearly circular, with eccentricity less than 0.02.

The orbital eccentricity of an astronomical object is a parameter that determines the amount by which its orbit around another body deviates from a perfect circle. A value of 0 is a circular orbit, values between 0 and 1 form an elliptical orbit.



In addition, the orbital solar gravitational potential is not being registered either by the GPS satellites' clocks.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


Thus, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM: NEW VIDEO


(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)


The first video supplied by Gravitec in 2003:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363 (vacuum test #1, Biefeld-Brown effect part I, contains the experiments performed by T. Brown in oil)





One of the best videos which exemplifies the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html


Gravitons are not electrically neutral.

The force which opposes terrestrial gravity is that supplied by the laevorotatory subquarks (gravitons/magnetic monoples), and which can be activated by using sound (cymatics), double torsion (DePalma experiment), and high electrical tension (Biefeld-Brown-Nipher effect).

Electrogravity means that once the laevorotatory subquarks are activated by using a high electrical tension, they will form a double torsion tornado together with the dextrorotatory subquarks around the capacitor, meaning that the effects of terrestrial gravity (the pressure supplied by the action of the dextrorotatory subquarks on the capacitor itself) can be minimized.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830644#msg1830644 (implosion of the atom)


Thomas Townsend Brown:

You have asked several questions which I shall try to answer. The experiments in vacuum were conducted at "Societe Nationale de Construction Aeronautique" in Paris in 1955-56, in the Bahnson Laboratories, Winston-Salem, North Carolina in 1957-58 and at the "General Electric Space Center" at King of Prussia, Penna, in 1959.

In the Paris test miniature saucer type airfoils were operated in a vaccum exceeding 10-6mm Hg. Bursts of thrust (towards the positive) were observed every time there was a vaccum spark within the large bell jar.

These vacuum sparks represented momentary ionization, principally of the metal ions in the electrode material.

The DC potential used ranged from 70kV to 220kV.

Condensers of various types, air dielectric and barium titanate were assembled on a rotary support to eliminate the electrostatic effect of chamber walls and observations were made of the rate of rotation. Intense acceleration was always observed during the vacuum spark (which, incidentally, illuminated the entire interior of the vacuum chamber). Barium Titanate dielectrique always exceeded air dielectric in total thrust. The results which were most significant from the standpoint of the Biefeld-Brown effect was that thrust continued, even when there was no vacuum spark, causing the rotor to accelerate in the negative to positive direction to the point where voltage had to be reduced or the experiment discontinued because of the danger that the rotor would fly apart.

In short, it appears there is strong evidence that Biefeld-Brown effect does exist in the negative to positive direction in a vacuum of at least 10-6 Torr. The residual thrust is several orders of magnitude larger than the remaining ambient ionization can account for.

In subsequent years, from 1930 to 1955, critical experiments were performed at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC.; the Randall-Morgan Laboratory of Physics, University of Penna., Philadelphia; at a field station in Zanesvill, Ohio, and two field stations in Southern California, of the torque was measured continuously day and night for many years. Large magnitude variations were consistenly observed under carefully
controlled conditions of constant voltage, temperature, under oil, in magnetic and electrostatic shields, not only underground but at various elevations. These variations, recorded automatically on tape, were statistically processed and several significant facts were revealed.

There were pronounced correlations with mean solar time, sideral time and lunar hour angle. This seemed to prove beyond a doubt that the thrust of "gravitors" varied with time in a way that related to solar and lunar tides and sideral correlation of unknown origin. These automatic records, acquired in so many different locations over such a long period of time, appear to indicate that the electrogravitic coupling is subject to an extraterrestrial factor, possibly related to the universal gravitational potential or some other (as yet) unidentified cosmic variable.

The experiments performed in Paris several years later, proved that ion wind was not entirely responsible for the observed motion and proved quite conclusively that the apparatus would indeed operate in high vacuum.

Later these effects were confirmed in a laboratory at Winston-Salem, N.C., especially constructed for this purpose. Again continuous force was observed when the ionization in the medium surrounding the apparatus was virtually nil. In reviewing my letter of April 5th, I notice, in the drawing which I attached, that I specified the power supply to be 50kV. Actually, I should have indicated that it was 50 to 250kV DC for the reason that the experiments were conducted throughout that entire range. The higher the voltage, the greater was the force observed. It appeared that, in these rough tests, that the increase in force was approximately linear with voltage. In vaccum the same test was carried on with a canopy electrode approximately 6" in diameter, with substantial force being displayed at 150 kV DC.

SAGNAC EFFECT XI

The missing orbital Sagnac effect proves that the Earth is completely stationary.

What is the center of rotation for the orbit of the earth?

Here is the equation.

∆t = 4πRv / ( c² - v²) = 4Aω / ( c² - v²)

Where A = πR² and v = ωR

So, it is easy to calculate the orbital sagnac is more than 60 times that of the rotational.

But, A is based on R and according to mathpages, "circular loop of radius R".

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Mathpages says one must use the center of rotation which is the sun.

It is a loop and the earth is moving along the loop in its orbit around the sun.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth supposedly moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.


"Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Yet, this same logic applies and works with the earth's supposed rotation.


Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation. On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation. By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion. Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation. Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v²/c²
=~ 10^-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v²/c²∼ 10^-12 which is merely 10^-4 times that due to the orbital motion.


The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Here is how to correctly calculate the orbital Sagnac effect:

Earth's radius = 6357 km; r² = 40411449

Earth's orbital radius = 150,000,000 km r² = 22500000000000000

∆t = 4πR²ω/(c²-v²)
or

I use the linear velocity.

∆t = 4πRv/( c² - v² ), where v is the linear velocity.

For the earth's rotation, it is 0.4638333 km/ sec and the orbit v = 30km/sec.

∆t = 0.62831852628 for the earth's orbit.
Total path of the orbit is 2πr=2π(150,000,000 km) = 942,477,780km

Hence, the sagnac effect for a 1 km path, that means light source in the center and two receivers placed at .5km is:
0.62831852628 / 942,477,780km = 6.6666667 e-10 sec / km

Now, for the earth's rotation.
∆t = 4.1170061 e-7 seconds
Total path of the rotation is 2πr=2π(6357 km) = 39942.21 km


4.1170061 e-7 seconds / 39942.21 km = 1.0307407 e-11 sec / km


The sagnac effect for the earth's orbit is greater than that of the rotation.



The orbital Sagnac, though much larger than the rotational Sagnac, is not being registered by GPS satellites.



The lunar laser ranging experiment is an astronomical version of the Sagnac experiment.

However, G. Sagnac used the fringe-shift method to measure indirectly light travel time;
while Dr. Daniel Gezari uses clocks to measure directly light travel time in both directions.

Shooting light to the moon has to do with the behavior of light like GPS.

The arrival time of light to a receptor is influenced by the motion of
the receptor relative to the earth: this is the basic discovery of G. Sagnac.

This fact has to be incorporated into the lunar laser ranging calculations.

Here is a basic reference which confirms this fact:

Ring-laser tests of fundamental physics and geophysics, G.E. Steadman, 1997, pg 15



One needs both the orbital and rotational Sagnac to calculate the correct timing, there is no way around that.


Dr. Daniel Gezari emitted a pulse of photons from a point on earth, bounced those photons off a reflector on the moon, and then recorded the photons’ arrival time at that same point on earth.


Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.

Motion of the Earth-Moon system in orbit around the Sun would average out in a two-way measurement, and only appear as a small (∼3 m/s) second-order residual.

Because of the two-way averaging, the orbital Sagnac effect registered is smaller than usual, however it is not 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac effect, in fact even in the diluted form permitted by the two-way averaging calculation, it represents a significant percentage of the rotational Sagnac effect.


THE SMALL (~3M/S) SECOND ORDER RESIDUAL IS THE ORBITAL SAGNAC.


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference between co and c measured here is a real second-order residual due to motion of the Earth-Moon system relative to an absolute frame.

THE 8.4 M/S DIFFERENCE IS THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC.


Dr. Daniel Gezari:


For instance, the Earth’s full 30 km/s orbital velocity along the line-of-sight would produce a second-order residual velocity of only ~3 m/s, so we cannot preclude the possibility that some part of the 8.4 m /s difference


3/8.4 = 0.357

1/365 = 0.00274

0.357/0.00274 = 130.3

Now, because of the vast distance, if the RE were correct, we should see 1/365 of the rotational sagnac in the measurements and that will show up on this vast distance.

So, if they are correct, then we should see the 1/365 conclusions in the measurements. Guess what. We do not.

Dr. Daniel Gezari's calculations prove otherwise: even in the diluted two way averaging form, the orbital Sagnac amounts for a 3/8.4 = 0.357 (35.7%) percentage of the rotational Sagnac.


It is also of interest to note that the missing orbital Sagnac effect proves that the lunar missions never occurred in reality, that the lunar laser ranging is actually a small mirror (in the form of a minuscule satellite) orbiting above the flat surface of the Earth right in front of the Moon, using the Biefeld-Brown effect to stay in orbit.


More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001EPJC...21..701S

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service



So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL

EUROPHYSICS LETTERS JOURNAL

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES AND APPLICATIONS

Further information here:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/



Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.


The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.



Faced with the missing orbital Sagnac effect, relativists have begun to renounce both STR/GTR and to rely on the local aether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).


The solar gravitational potential effect upon the GPS clocks is also missing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721


The existence of aether, however, has several other implications:

It shows that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse (the Allais effect):

An overview of the Allais effect (parts I - VII):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115 (the Black Sun and the laevorotatory subquarks)

ALLAIS EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382


The ether is DYNAMICAL and not static:

The most significant development since Miller has been the
experiments of Yuri Galaev of the Institute of Radiophysics and
Electronics in the Ukraine. Galaev made independent measure-
ments of ether-drift using radiofrequency and optical wave
bands. His research "confirmed Miller's results down
to the details".

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


Both the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT and the SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT defy the "law" of attractive gravitation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935

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


New messages:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg789442#msg789442 (gases in the atmosphere paradox)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg819201#msg819201 (stationary atmosphere)

ELECTROGRAVITY: THE SET OF ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL EQUATIONS

The original set of J.C. Maxwell's ether magnetricity equations unifies electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity: the ability to transform electromagnetic force field energy into gravitational potential energy, and vice-versa.

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdf


"Maxwell’s [modified] equations are a brilliant formulation of the laws of electromagnetism. However, they were derived for static systems, i.e.; where there was no motion relative to the relevant coordinate system (RCS). At the turn of the twentieth century some scientists assumed that these equations pertain also to dynamic systems, wherefrom it follows that the speed of light is constant in all inertial coordinate systems. This in turn led to the Lorentz transformation and to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The complete set of the EM (corrected Maxwell) equations is presented in chapter 1. It is shown that the notion of the speed of light being constant in all inertial coordinate systems stems from the wrong application of Maxwell's [modified] equations to dynamic systems. It is also pointed out that due to terms restored to the corrected Maxwell equations they do not equate under the Lorentz transformation rendering it, along with the theory of relativity which is based on this transformation, invalid."

Maxwell derived his original set of equations in conjunction with a very specific elastic mechanism that comprised a sea of molecular vortices, and any elastic disturbances propagated with the speed of light relative to that elastic medium.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (original set of J.C. Maxwell equations)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813 (more information)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776 (electrogravity)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852073#msg1852073 (electrogravity and quaternions)

The scalar component of the quaternion, however, was the term which precisely captured the electrogravitational stress of the medium. By discarding this term, Heaviside (aided by Hertz and Gibbs) actually discarded electrogravitation, and the unified EM-G field aspects of Maxwell's theory. However, the theory and the calculations were greatly simplified in so doing, and this excision of electrogravitation provided a theory that was much more easily grasped and applied by scientists and engineers - even though they were now working in a subset of Maxwell's theory in which gravity and EM remained mutually exclusive and did not interact with each other.

Shortly before 1900, the vectorists' view prevailed, and the Heaviside version of Maxwell's theory became the established and universal "EM theory" taught in all major universities - and erroneously taught as "Maxwell's theory"! Though gravitation had been removed, the beautiful unification of the electrical and magnetic fields had been retained, and so the rise in applied and theoretical electromagnetics and electromagnetic devices began, ushering in the modern age."

(Maxwell's lost unified field theory of electromagnetics and gravitation, T. Bearden)


"Maxwell identified the cause of magnetic repulsion in terms of the centrifugal pressure arising in a sea of molecular vortices. He identified the mechanism for the force on a current carrying wire, and also for motionally induced EMF, in terms of differential centrifugal pressure in this sea of molecular vortices. He explained time varying electromagnetic induction on the basis that the tiny vortices in space are acting like fly-wheels.

There was another curl equation in Maxwell’s original list of 1864, but it does not appear in modern sets of ‘Maxwell’s Equations’. This very important curl equation,

curl A = μH (2)

which relates to the fly-wheel nature of the magnetic field, is played down nowadays in favour of the much less informative equation, div B = 0, which is obtained by taking the divergence of equation (2).

 The third curl equation, which appeared in both Maxwell’s original listing and in modern listings, is Ampère’s circuital law, and Maxwell is most famous for having extended it to include the concept of displacement current. The displacement current concept was purely Maxwell’s own idea, although Maxwell’s concept of it bears no relationship to the term which bears the same name in modern textbooks.

Therefore, contrary to what is taught in modern textbooks, Maxwell’s version of Ampère’s Circuital Law does not mean that a changing electric field induces a magnetic field. In the context of an electromagnetic wave, both of these two curl equations must refer to a situation in which the changing magnetic field of a primary circuit induces an electric field in a secondary circuit. The displacement in question, as Maxwell initially suspected, is an angular displacement, which takes place in the fine-grained electric circuits (rotating electron-positron dipoles) which fill all of space, and which press against each other with centrifugal force while striving to dilate. Every cubic picometre of space contains a two-pin electric power point (a rotating electron-positron dipole). These power points exist everywhere and they connect the universe to the source of its animation. Electromagnetic waves are a propagation of angular acceleration (or precession) through this electric sea of tiny aethereal vortices and the undulations correspond to oscillations in fine-grained centrifugal pressure. These pressure oscillations are caused by an excess outflow of aether from the positrons of the electric sea.”

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE ORIGINAL SET OF J.C. MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852073#msg1852073

F. NIPHER EXPERIMENTS: PROOF OF THE ORIGINAL SET OF J.C. MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840

ELECTROGRAVITY: THE SET OF ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL EQUATIONS II

The original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under the Galilean transformation:






The common Maxwell’s equations are valid only for systems at rest (i.e.: static systems, V = 0 ). The application of these equations to dynamic systems, where V ≠ 0 , (often termed “the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations”) is the basis for the erroneous theory of relativity (see previous message).

“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance.

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances.

Maxwell's original EM theory was written in quaternions, which are an extension to the complex number theory and an independent system of mathematics. In short, since the quaternion is a hypernumber, Maxwell's theory was a hyperspatial theory -- not just the limited three-dimensional subset that was extracted and expressed by Heaviside and Gibbs in terms of an abbreviated, incomplete vector mathematics.

Maxwell's quaternion theory was in fact a unified theory of electromagnetics and gravitation, and that the scalar component of the quaternion was the electrogravitational part. That part was discarded by Heaviside and Gibbs, and so electrogravitation no longer appears in the electromagnetics that resulted from Heaviside's and Gibbs' surgery on Maxwell's quaternion theory.”

The set of original ether Maxwell equations expressed in quaternion form:




Electric scalar potential - potential field from which electric force fields arise.

Magnetic vector potential - potential field from which magnetic force fields arise. It arises from the gradient in the scalar superpotential. The ether flow surrounding and being dragged along by an electric current is one example of the magnetic vector potential.

“Potential fields are less tangible and invariant than the physical force fields they may produce. If force fields are likened to the surface waves of the ocean, potential fields are more like the hidden underwater currents, while the superpotential represents the water itself.

The scalar superpotential is the substrate of physicality, the ether permeating and underlying the universe, from which all matter and force fields derive.”

Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centerpiece of his theory.


Aharonov-Bohm effect

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal "electrodynamics" laboratory experiment ("Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory," The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the "hidden potential" of free space, lurking in Maxwell's original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron "wave functions" -- triggered by the "hidden Maxwell scalar potential" created by the shielded magnet].



Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an "impossible" phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”

After the first precise experiment carried out by Tonomura and his team at Hitachi using electron holography followed by more experiments using superconducting shields, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is confirmed and that it is a genuine feature of the standard quantum mechanics.

Non-locality and the quantum entanglement phenomenon are the hallmark of ether waves (scalar waves).

Superluminal signals can easily be transmitted through scalar waves (subquark strings). Information can travel even faster through the aether itself, the medium which makes possible the propagation of ether waves.

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/faster-light
https://teslauniverse.com/sites/default/files/article_files/19311100-01.pdf

ELECTROGRAVITY: THE SET OF ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL EQUATIONS III

“It appears that the union of gravitation and Maxwell’s theory is achieved in a completely satisfactory way by the five-dimensional theory (Kaluza-Klein).”

(Einstein to H. A. Lorentz, 16 February 1927)

“Kaluza's roundabout way of introducing the five dimensional continuum allows us to regard the gravitational and electromagnetic fields as a unitary space structure”

Einstein, A. & Bergman, P., On a Generalization of Kaluza's Theory of Electricity. In: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley, p. 93.


"Hamilton's algebra of quaternions, unlike Heaviside's algebra of vectors, is not a mere abbreviated mode of expressing Cartesian analysis, but is an independent branch of mathematics with its own rules of operation and its own special theorems. A quaternion is, in fact, a generalized or hypercomplex number ..."

H.J. Josephs ("The Heaviside Papers found at Paignton in 1957," Electromagnetic Theory by Oliver Heaviside)


T. Kaluza, Zum Unitatsproblem der Physik, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys.
Math. K1 (1921) 966

O. Klein, Quantentheorie und funfdimensionale Relativitatstheorie, Zeits.
Phys. 37 (1926) 895

In 1921, T. Kaluza showed that the gravitational and electromagnetic fields stem from a single universal tensor and such an intimate combination of the two interactions is possible in principle, with the introduction of an additional spacial dimension.

In 1926, Oscar Klein provided an explanation for Kaluza’s fifth dimension by proposing it to have a circular topology so that the coordinate y is periodic i.e., 0 ≤ y ≤ 2πR, where R is the radius of the circle S¹. Thus the global space has topology R⁴× S¹.

Kaluza-Klein compactification: although there are four space dimensions, one of the space dimensions is compact with a small radius.

Theodor Kaluza and Oscar Klein were able to recover four dimensional gravity as well as Maxwell’s equations for a vector field.

The extra space dimension somehow had collapsed down to a tiny circle "smaller than the smallest atom".

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10^-33 cm."

"Kaluza and Klein showed that this extra dimension would still have an effect on the space around us. In particular they showed that the effect of gravity in that very small fifth dimension would actually appear to us, from our larger-scale perspective, as electromagnetism."


The search for the Kaluza-Klein particle

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/

https://phys.org/news/2008-11-mysterious-source-high-energy-cosmic.html



ATIC high-energy electron counts. The triangular curve fitted to the data comes from a model of dark-matter annihilation featuring a Kaluza-Klein particle of mass near 620 GeV.

N. Tesla discovered the subquark structure of the cosmic rays, the very vehicle for the Kaluza-Klein particles, in 1932:

http://www.nuenergy.org/nikola-tesla-radiant-energy-system/

(the terminology of neutrons/neutrinos wasn't quite set in stone yet in 1932)

See also: http://www.rexresearch.com/deyo/TeslasRadiationsCosmicRays.pdf


Kaluza-Klein particles have the curious property (one of many) that they are their own anti-particle.

There is only one particle which fulfills the conditions set by the Kaluza-Klein electrogravitational theory: the boson.


"The scalar portion of the original Maxwell equations expressed in quaternions was discarded (by Oliver Heaviside) to form "modern" EM theory; thus also the unified field interaction between electromagnetics and gravitation was discarded as well.

The quaternion scalar expression has, in fact, captured the local stress due to the forces acting one on the other. It is focused on the local stress, and the abstract vector space, adding a higher dimension to it.

One sees that, if we would capture gravitation in a vector mathematics theory of EM, we must again restore the scalar term and convert the vector to a quaternion, so that one captures the quaternionically infolded stresses. These infolded stresses actually represent curvature effects in the abstract vector space itself. Changing to quaternions changes the abstract vector space, adding higher dimensions to it.

Quaternions have a vector and a scalar part and have a higher topology than vector and tensor analysis."


A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750 (total demolition of STR/GTR)

There are no higher dimensions: exactly as described by the Kaluza-Klein electrogravitational theory,  dimensions = subtler levels of boson strings in various geometric configuration, and not the higher dimensions pipe dreams conjured up by relativists.

Contrary to the modern quantum mechanics theory, it is the subquark which consists of some 14 billion bosons.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3562


The boson fulfills perfectly the conditions set by the Kaluza-Klein particle theory.

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

In fact, Gell-Mann did not even bother to modify the information concerning the quarks contained in that treatise.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.

OCCULT CHEMISTRY (1908) TABLE OF CONTENTS:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.


A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.

A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.

The particles that make up the magnetic field are the subquarks (also called omegans, tachyons, preons).

Scalar wave vs. normal e/m wave (explained in terms of subquarks)

A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.

Whittaker’s 1903 discovery that sets of longitudinal waves are the actual basis of all electromagnetic waves: Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.


All space is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighbouring whirlpools.

E.T. Whittaker

"Maxwell was quite clear about the fact that the speed of light is measured relative to an elastic solid (comprised of fluid vortices), and that it is most certainly not frame independent as is believed by relativists.

The fact is that Maxwell’s core ideas in electromagnetism had their origins in a sea of molecular vortices exactly along the lines of what Tesla and Sir Oliver Lodge were referring to.

Maxwell identified the cause of magnetic repulsion in terms of the centrifugal pressure arising in a sea of molecular vortices. He identified the mechanism for the force on a current carrying wire, and also for motionally induced EMF, in terms of differential centrifugal pressure in this sea of molecular vortices. He explained time varying electromagnetic induction on the basis that the tiny vortices in space are acting like fly-wheels."

In Part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell proposed the existence of a sea of  molecular vortices which are composed of a fluid-like aether, whereas in  Part III, he deals with the elastic solid that these molecular vortices  collectively form.


These molecular vortices are the bosons, the Kaluza-Klein particles which forms the basis of the electrogravitational theory.

Bosons propagate through laevorotatory and dextrorotatory subquark strings.

ELECTROGRAVITY: THE SET OF ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL EQUATIONS IV

There is only one particle which fulfills the conditions set by the Kaluza-Klein electrogravitational theory: the boson.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/10750/slac-pub-10882.pdf (Stanford University/Oxford University)

Published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2005/07/001

Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, being a boson, is not similarly suppressed and can annihilate directly to e⁺ e^-, µ⁺ µ^- and τ⁺ τ^-, each of which yield a generous number of high energy electrons and positrons.

This theorized particle was of course discovered in 2008:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/


The ether/subquark wave lattice can free a dextrorotatory subquark and a laevorotatory subquark, if it can absorb the required 1.02 MeV energy in any point of space.

"Absorption of this energy frees the pair out of bonds, making the freed particles appear to the detecting apparatus. When a free electron-positron pair is captured into bonds, the particles disappear from our detection, and their binding energy is emitted in at least two quanta of radiation (the bosons/photons which make up the subquarks)."

Electron = dextrorotatory subquark

Positron = laevorotatory subquark


Dark matter consists of KK particles:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.2801.pdf

https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0902.0593/0902.0593#page/n0/mode/2up (published by the Fermi National Accelerator Lab)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206071.pdf


Kaluza-Klein dark matter bosons which can generate subquarks:

http://140.122.144.95/tuCASA/USSP2012/ALMA2012-report_lin.pdf


Kaluza-Klein bosons:

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207125


Madala bosons, dark matter bosons:

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-boson-madala-dark.html


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536 (Journey inside a boson)

A dark boson is a boson which produces more aether than ether (more stillness/silence than sound), that is, the Queen's chamber is more active than the King's chamber in such a boson.

A boson which acts as a carrier of light will produce more ether/sound: light is a form of sound.

http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/Articles/april_8_1934.htm

"Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether."

Dark matter is made up of bosons:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08297 (Cornell University library)


The quanta of the scalar waves (ether strings) are bosons:

http://www.visioninconsciousness.org/Science_A06.htm


The Kaluza-Klein particle, the boson, is the carrier of the electrogravitational force.

When it propagates through the dextrorotatory subquark strings/scalar wave, the boson becomes the conveyor of the terrestrial gravitational force; when it is being transmitted through the laevorotatory scalar wave, it becomes the carrier of the electromagnetic force and light.


"The original quaternionic expression of Maxwell’s theory captured the ability to interchange electromagnetic and gravitational forces, literally turning one into the other. That ability was captured by the scalar part of the quaternion, precisely the part that Heaviside discarded and that most modem scientists have never examined or studied.

The Heaviside vector translation of Maxwell’s theory is a subset of the original  theory, and rigorously applies only to those situations in which gravitation and electromagnetics do not interact, but remain mutually exclusive. Specifically, in a zero vector resultant sum or product, the Heaviside-Maxwell theory does not capture the infolding of electromagnetic forces [inside vector zero resultant EM systems] to form structured electrogravitational stress.

We may say that Heaviside captured vector translation electromagnetics, but  discarded scalar electromagnetics; in short, he discarded electrogravitation."


Existence of magnetic monopoles (subquarks):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=lA8tgLMRu2kC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=Barrett,+T.W.+(ed.)+and+Grimes,+D.M.+(ed.):+Advanced+electromagnetism&source=bl&ots=EPoPeakkVO&sig=qdOQcxKPZWcKTnxmKj2ZJsUpANA&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCwvrUx87UAhXDuBQKHSiCAsgQ6AEINDAB#v=onepage&q=Barrett%2C%20T.W.%20(ed.)%20and%20Grimes%2C%20D.M.%20(ed.)%3A%20Advanced%20electromagnetism&f=false

G. Lochak, "The Symmetry Between Electricity and Magnetism and the Problem of the Existence of a Magnetic Monopole" pg. 105 - 148


https://books.google.ro/books?id=qsOBhKVM1qYC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=Lakhtakia,+A.+(ed.):+Essays+on+the+Formal+Aspects+of+Electromagnetic+Theory&source=bl&ots=Htyx4NU3CC&sig=2owWDI-gaNqGMKsmn6-rl8qdjro&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcm6zuyM7UAhXH7BQKHQA-B1gQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=Lakhtakia%2C%20A.%20(ed.)%3A%20Essays%20on%20the%20Formal%20Aspects%20of%20Electromagnetic%20Theory&f=false

T.W. Barrett, "Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations" pg 6 - 85


https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Terence_Barrett/publication/305636824_The_Ehrenhaft-Mikhailov_effect_described_as_the_behavior_of_a_low_energy_density_magnetic_monopole-instanton/links/57cad9f208ae3ac722b1ea2a/The-Ehrenhaft-Mikhailov-effect-described-as-the-behavior-of-a-low-energy-density-magnetic-monopole-instanton.pdf


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/18/14/014/pdf

ELECTROGRAVITY: THE SET OF ORIGINAL J.C. MAXWELL EQUATIONS V

“The major source of confusion surrounding Maxwell's actual theory, versus what Heaviside reduced it to, is its math — a notation system perhaps best described by H. J. Josephs:

"Hamilton's algebra of quaternions, unlike Heaviside's algebra of vectors, is not a mere abbreviated mode of expressing Cartesian analysis, but is an independent branch of mathematics with its own rules of operation and its own special theorems. A quaternion is, in fact, a generalized or hypercomplex number."

In 1897, Hathaway published a paper specifically identifying these hypercomplex numbers as "numbers in four-dimensional space." Thus, modern physics' apparent ignorance of Maxwell's nineteenth century success — a mathematically based, 4D "field- theory" — would seem to originate from a basic lack of knowledge of the true nature of Hamilton's quaternion algebra itself.

And, unless you track down an original 1873 copy of Maxwell's "Treatise," there is no easy way to verify the existence of Maxwell's "hyperdimensional" quaternion notation; for, by 1892, the third edition incorporated a "correction" to Maxwell's original use of "scalar potentials," thus removing a crucial distinction between four-space "geometric potential," and a three-space "vector field" from all subsequent Maxwellian theory — which is why modern physicists, apparently don't realize that Maxwell's original equations were, in fact, the first geometric four-space field theory, expressed in specific four-space terms — the language of quaternions.

Kaluza-Klein theory: the mathematical unification of the theory of gravity with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic radiation via introduction of a fifth dimension.

Kaluza specified his additional spatial dimension as a fifth. In fact, this was the same spatial dimension as the four-space designations used by Maxwell in his theory over 50 years before.”


“…that we live in a curved four-dimensional space-time” where space and time are somehow fused together into a “fabric.”

Einstein, 1919

The original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under the Galilean transformation: the theory of relativity, based on the concept of space-time, is thus shown to be completely flawed and erroneous.

“Time is the most important and most enigmatic peroperty of nature. Time is not propagated like light waves; it appears immediately everywhere.” – Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev

"Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, a respected Russian astrophysicist, announced almost fifty years ago that he had discovered a new force in physics that he called the “density of time.” He concluded that the rate at which time passes can be altered by other physical processes."

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/articles/334-kozyrev-aether-time-and-torsion

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev

http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/revisiting-november-2014

“After years of careful experiments, Dr. Kozyrev and his colleagues found that in a left-hand rotating system the time flow is positive-it adds energy. In a right-hand system the time flow is negative. ... In Dr. Kozyrev's view our world is a left-hand system and it has a positive time flow that adds energy to our universe.

Time not only has a pattern of flow, says Dr. Kozyrev, but also a rate of flow. He calls "the rate of flow" the difference between cause and effect. "As the rate of the time flow through a substance changes, weight is lost," Dr. Kozyrev told us.”

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624 (biochirality and terrestrial gravity/time and anti-time flow effect upon matter)

“Kozyrev theorized that the interaction of time with substance was responsible for the power generation of the stars in the universe. He observed that scalar energy was spiraling energy that was in itself a, “flow of time,” that acted upon the ether in order to generate power for the stars.

Kozyrev also demonstrated that a scalar energy force field had a direct effect upon the weight of objects leading him to conclude that scalar energy is the cause of gravity.”

Spinning Gyroscope Experiment

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.

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

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.

Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields.
It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

“It turns out that the time pattern of our world is positive in a laevorotary system of coordinates. From this, we are afforded the possibility of an objective determination of left and right; the left-hand system of coordinates is said to be that system in which the time progress is positive, while the right-hand system is one in which it is negative. Hence, time possesses not only energy but also a rotation moment which it can transmit to a system. There also exists a variable property which can be called the density or intensity of time. In a case of low density it is difficult for time to influence the material systems, and there is required an intensive emphasis of the causal-resultant relationship in order that force caused by the time pattern would appear.”

Dr. N.A. Kozyrev


Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.

D" PARAMETER: MOON'S ELONGATION PARADOX

The Moon's Acceleration

"Understanding the moon's orbit around Earth is a difficult mathematical problem. Isaac Newton was the first to consider it, and it took more than two centuries until the American mathematician George William Hill found a suitable framework in which to address this question.

The concern is with the acceleration, D'', of the moon's elongation, which is the angle between the moon and the sun as viewed from Earth. This acceleration D'' is computable from observations, and its past behavior can be determined from records of eclipses. Its values vary between -18 and +2 seconds of arc per century squared. Also, D'' is slightly above zero and almost constant from about 700 BC to AD 500, but it drops significantly for the next five centuries, to settle at around -18 after AD 1000. Unfortunately this variation cannot be explained from gravitation, which requires the graph to be a horizontal line.

Among the other experts in celestial mechanics who attacked this problem was Robert Newton from Johns Hopkins University. In 1979, he published the first volume of a book that considered the issue by looking at historical solar eclipses. Five years later, he came up with a second volume, which approached the problem from the point of view of lunar observations. His conclusion was that the behavior of D'' could be explained only by factoring in some unknown forces.

Newton's results can be interpreted similarly: if we exclude the possibility of mysterious forces, his graph puts traditional ancient and medieval chronology in doubt."





https://web.archive.org/web/20120323153614/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

It is important for some computational astronomical problems to know the behaviour of D'' -- the second derivative of the Moon's elongation - as a function of the time, on a rather long segment of the time line. This problem, particularly, was talked about during the discussion organized in 1972 by the London Royal Society and British Academy of Sciences. The scheme of the calculation of D''  is as follows: we are to fix the totality of ancient observations of eclipses, then calculate. on the basis of the modern theory, when these observations were made, and then compare the results of the calculations with the observed parameters to evaluate the Moon's acceleration.

Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, unexplainable by present geophysical theories ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs".



D" parameter, new chronology of history:




Dr. Robert Newton, Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531060430/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Land. A. 276, 99-110 (1974)


Dr. Robert Newton, Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-Gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120531054411/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

Astrophysics and Space Science 16 (1972) 179-200


Each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 700 BC - 1000 AD is proven to be false.

In the new radical chronology of history, each and every astronomical recording supposedly made in the period 1000 AD - 1750 AD is also proven to be false.


When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111204106/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375



The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

pages 376 - 381


https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 382 - 389)

PILLARS OF THE PAST

In the period 2003-2012, Charles Ginenthal published one of the most extraordinary works on ancient history, the four volume set Pillars Of The Past.

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol1.pdf

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol-II-(large).pdf

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-Vol-III.pdf

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Pillars-IV.pdf

A step by step demonstration, using hundreds of bibliographical references, and most unique historical and scientific insights, that the official version of modern history must start around 1,500 BC, and not some thousands of years earlier.

While validating some of I. Velikovsky's and G. Heinsohn's versions of the chronology of history, C. Ginenthal also brought forth some very interesting arguments against A. Fomenko's new chronology of history.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110517042728/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html (Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn's best work, one of top archaeologists in the world, demonstrating that the assumed historical period 2,100 - 600 BC never existed)

Let us remember that in A. Fomenko's new chronology, the written history only goes back to 1,000 AD, and nothing is known, going back in time, beyond 800 AD.

Then, history was falsified starting with 1,500 AD.

Edwin Johnson proposes that nothing is known prior to 1,400 AD, and that history actually starts around 1,500 AD:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

C. Pfister is the pioneer of the new radical chronology of history: the Renaissance occurred around 1,750 AD, and all of history was falsified before 1,780 AD (see the Pfister archive posted on page 2 of this thread).

As we shall see in a moment, my version of the new radical chronology of history (all of history was falsified prior to 1,800 AD) comes to the rescue for A. Fomenko's new chronology of history.


C. Ginenthal offers four intriguing arguments against Fomenko's version of history: the El-Lahun papyri Sothic date for the late 12th Dynasty, a chronological key to dating Egyptian chronology (Dr. Lynn Rose’s analysis of the El-Lahun papyri which correlated the heliacal rising of the star Sirius with 34, out of 36 lunar festival data points for the documented material of the pharaohs in question, 34 were direct hits, now 37 lunar festival dates; see volume I of the Pillars Of The Past, pg. 73-107), the list of eclipses from the Annals of Ulster (contains from the years 496-884 AD, as many as 18 records of eclipses and comets which agree exactly even to the day and hour with the calculations of modern astronomers, and which were validated even by Dr. Robert Newton, one of the sets of eclipses in the period 500 - 1,100 AD which Dr. Newton believed to be correct, but which were seen to be part of a huge set of falsified data for the historical eclipses within that same period, see the previous message), the VAT 4956 data ( a cuneiform document located in the Near Eastern department of the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, it records the positions of the five planets visible to the naked eye as well as the Moon over a period of about one year, during the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II and can be precisely retrocalculated to the year between 568 and the first month, Nisan, of 567 BC), and the 136 BC eclipse reference ( the most accurate and therefore reliable eclipse ever retrocalculated, from the clay tablets of the astronomical diaries of Babylon).


Given the fact that Dr. Anatoly Fomenko believes that the historical records starting with 1,500 AD are reliable/true, it becomes very difficult to defend the new chronology of history given the above arguments presented by Charles Ginenthal.

ONLY by using the NEW RADICAL CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY can the arguments published by C. Ginenthal be debunked/refuted (volume four of the Pillars Of The Past, pg. 523-548).


The Babylonian cuneiform tablets were created over a period lasting several decades (1,780 - 1,850 AD) by the same group of people who also prepared Tutankhamon's tomb during the 19th century:

Howard Carter knew exactly where to dig back in 1922, as Tutankhamun's tomb had been prepared in a haste just a few decades earlier, in order to fool the entire world as to the antiquity of Egypt.

In fact, modern researchers were stunned when they investigated the tomb:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130924202815/https://www.mediaupdate.co.za/?idstory=55006

Visiting Tutankhamun’s tomb, Naunton and his team take in the ancient pharaoh’s haphazard burial site. With little decoration, modest size and absence of esoteric text, the tomb hardly feels fit for a king. Even more unusual, King Tutankhamun’s famous death mask seems to have been hastily fashioned from a woman’s headdress.

See also: http://thewaxconspiracy.com/pulp/the-tutankhamun-deception


Using the new mathematical tools available at the start of the 19th century, they were able to retrocalculate, using the conventional chronology of history, various solar/lunar eclipses, and thus include them in the faked/falsified Babylonian cuneiform set of tablets.

https://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/babylon/babybibl.htm
http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/babylon1.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/history-eclipse/509891/
http://www.ancient.eu/cuneiform/


The El-Lahun papyri were planted by this same group of conspirators during the 19th century: again, using the new mathematical tools available, the retrocalculations were done very precisely.

http://hekint.org/the-el-lahun-gynecological-papyrus/


The Annals of Ulster/Bodleian Library were created at the end of the 18th century (the Gauss Easter formula applied to the Gregorian calendar reform tells us that the London Royal Society/Leonhard Euler/I. Newton claims regarding the number of days which were to be calculated in this context are totally wrong).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483598#msg1483598

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483917#msg1483917


C. Pfister's analysis of the correct dating for the St. Gallen library:

http://www.dillum.ch/html/sankt_gallen_stiftsbibliothek_kritik.htm

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fsankt_gallen_stiftsbibliothek_kritik.htm&edit-text=

ORBITAL STABILITY OF THE HELIOCENTRICAL SOLAR SYSTEM

Using only Gauss' Easter formula as a guide, I clearly stated that the heliocentrical orbital equations of motion cannot predict the future beyond a time scale of some three hundred years.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

THREE BODY PROBLEM PARADOX

Again, to put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.

The true sizes/masses of the planets and the Sun were modified in such a way AS TO TEMPORARILY FIT the set of ordinary differential equations.

This set of ordinary differential equations cannot predict anything relating to the future of the solar system even if we look at a time scale of some three hundred years from now; in the same manner, they cannot say anything about the past beyond the same three hundred year mark.

We have at our disposal the most formidable proof, the Gauss Easter formula, which does show that the entire history of the world, its very chronology, was faked/falsified at least after 1700 AD. (see page 1 of the present thread).

Now, the full mathematical proof of this statement: the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951


Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society


Dr. Bass' basic discovery:

In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf










The astronomers who rely upon Nekhoroshev's theorem regarding the stability of the solar system, must understand that the threshold value of the small parameter ε obtained from various statements of the theorem provide values which, when applied to
Solar System dynamics, are very small, and can be hardly compared to the existent perturbations.

Unfortunately, most attempts of application of Nekhoroshev results have turned to frustration. Indeed it is very hard to check if the conditions for the application of Nekhoroshev theorem are  fulfilled (in particular the one imposing the non-integrability parameter to be small enough), and to compute analytically the value of the stability time. The results are often unrealistic.

Moreover, any computer-assisted program designed to aid in the verification of Nekhoroshev's theorem does not take into account Professor Bass' basic discovery: observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false.

D.G. Saari's theorem (1971) on the collisions in Newtonian gravitational systems suffers from a basic flaw: its very hypothesis stipulates that inverse square law of attractive gravitation plays a crucial role in the proof of the result.

A single counterexample to the attractive model (the Allais effect, the DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Kozyrev gyroscope experiment, the Biefeld-Brown effect) is sufficient to prove that the assertion that the force of gravity is attractive is false.

FLAT EARTH GEOCENTRISM: THE ULTIMATE PROOF

One of the very few questions to which I. Velikovsky could not provide a clear answer was this:

One other question, of a like nature. I think it is generally accepted that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh was built before this close approach. The sides of the Great Pyramid are oriented—north, south, east, west—within, as I recall, about three minutes of arc, about the smallest angle one could expect the orientation to be if surveying was done with the naked eye. It seems a rather unusual coincidence that this north, south, east, west orientation could have come out of an Earth that had been thrown into such a chance disorientation by the close approach.

The other best known proponents of catastrophism in the Earth's history, Alfred de Grazia and Charles Ginenthal, also could not provide an answer to the fact that the almost perfect north-south orientation means that no tilt or change of poles has occurred since the Great Pyramid was constructed.


The fact that the Gizeh Pyramid is perfectly aligned to reveal the winter/summer solstices and the spring/autumn equinoxes as a calendar, also is a basic proof against past catastrophism, even though the proofs for the existence of a pole shift in the recent geological past are overwhelming.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1726000#msg1726000 (Gizeh pyramid calendar)




The extinction of the mammoth provides the most direct proof that indeed a massive pole shift must have taken place recently, in the heliocentrical context.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

"The sudden extermination of mammoths was caused by a catastrophe
and probably resulted from asphyxiation or electrocution. The immediately
subsequent movement of the Siberian continent into the polar region is probably
responsible for the preservation of the corpses."

"It appears that the mammoths, along with other animals, were killed by
a tempest of gases accompanied by a spontaneous lack of oxygen caused by fires
raging high in the atmosphere. A few instances later their dying or dead bodies
were moving into the polar circle. In a few hours northeastern America moved
from the frigid zone of the polar circle into a moderate zone; northeastern Siberia
moved in the opposite direction from a moderate zone to the polar circle. The
present cold climate of northern Siberia started when the glacial age in Europe
and America came to a sudden end."

"Why did the glaciers of the Ice Age cover the greater part of North America and Europe, while the north of Asia remained free? In America the plateau of ice stretched up to latitude 40° and even passed across this line; in Europe it reached latitude 50°; while northeastern Siberia, above the polar circle, even above latitude 75°, was not covered with this perennial ice.

If we look at the distribution of the ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, we see that a circle, with its center somewhere near the east shore of Greenland or in the strait between Greenland and Baffin Land near the present north magnetic pole, and a radius of about 3,600 kilometers, embraces the region of the ice sheet of the last glacial age. Northeastern Siberia is outside the circle; the valley of the Missouri down to 39° north latitude is within the circle. The eastern part of Alaska is included, but not its western part. Northwestern Europe is well within the circle; some distance behind the Ural Mountains, the line curves toward the north and crosses the present polar circle. Now we reflect: Was not the North Pole at some time in the past 20° or more distant from the point it now occupies—and closer to America? In like manner, the old South Pole would have been roughly the same 20° from the present pole."


It is to be noted that both the proponents of catastrophism and the mainstream scientists who believe that astronomical/geological cataclysms did occur in the recent past have practically given up on the hypothesis that the velocity of the diurnal rotation of the Earth slowed down or that the direction of rotation was reversed as they could not explain how the Earth regained the same velocity of the diurnal rotation as before.

Pole Shift in the Heliocentrical Context Proofs

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Mammoth.pdf

The Extinction of the Mammoth represents a tremendous compendium of all the possible proofs/arguments which show that at least one pole shift must have occurred in the recent geological past, and which was responsible for the extinction of the mammoth.

"The mammoths and their bones, in their untold millions, all required sudden deep
burial and freezing. It is simply not credible to suggest that predominantly large animals
were buried by sudden landslides, but not smaller ones. Larger animals could more
easily extricate themselves from landslides than smaller ones. Burrowing animals are an exception, but most of the animals preserved were not of this burrowing type.

Furthermore, this destruction and extinction could not have occurred during the Ice Age
because the ground was frozen to great depth, and the remains of mammoths and trees, etc., are buried at great depth, often hundreds of feet deep. There is no uniformitarian method that will bury parts of animals or trees to these depths during the Ice Age in frozen ground or permafrost. What is required is soft, unfrozen ground to bury these relics to great depth. Both the type of organisms found in the ground—large ones—and the depth to which they may be buried, contradicts their gradual burial during the Ice Age.
 
Was the vegetation of the arctic that of a mosaic mammoth steppe, or an arctic tundra, or that of a much more temperate climate caused by a poleshift when the mammoth lived there? As will be disclosed below, the evidence from the flora and fauna is in complete disagreement with the mammoth steppe concept and also with that of an arctic tundra but in full agreement with a much more temperate climate.

According to Peter James, the "Vegetation in its [the mammoth's] stomach was of a type that now grows in latitudes some 20 to 30 degrees warmer than present-day Siberia."

In fact, in 1958 B. A. Tikhomirov found grasses that presently only grow well south of a site in northern Siberia in association with frozen mammoths. The incongruity of such clearly temperate flora together with animals he had concluded live only on tundra drove Tikhomirov to suggest the mammoth had traveled from the far south and somehow did not digest these temperate grasses.

Can anyone imagine a mammoth migrating for hundreds of miles keeping in its gut grasses it had eaten weeks or months earlier? This is clearly absurd, since it was shown in 1975 that elephants keep food in their alimentary canals for only about 12 hours.

In unmistakable terms it is shown that the mammoths did not live on a mammoth steppe nor did they inhabit an arctic tundra environment. In clear and undeniable terms, it has been demonstrated that the mammoths lived in an environment which contained grasses that only grow in "temperate climates."

"Ivory, being an animal substance, can both dry out and splinter, or rot, and the greater part of the mammoth ivory does one or the other."

"Tens of thousands of skeletons and individual bones of many kinds of animals have been discovered in the permafrost. Among them have been found the enormous numbers of mammoths' tusks. . . . To be of any use for carving, tusks must either come from freshly killed animals or have been frozen very quickly after the deaths of the animals and kept frozen. Ivory experts testify that if tusks are exposed to weather they dry out, lose their animal matter and become useless for carving (see Richard Lydekker, "Mammoth Ivory," Smithsonian Reports, (1899), pp. 361-366.)

Therefore, these great numbers of ivory tusks, taken from the vast frozen area of Siberia, could not have been deposited on tundra during the Ice Age because they would have been leached and destroyed by root acids in the frozen soil. If they had been deposited in temperate soil, they would rot.

But most significantly, useful ivory tusks, to survive, would have to have been buried
suddenly and frozen suddenly.

If it is extraordinary to expect that any of the ivory survived the hipsithermal, then
it is next to impossible to expect that the soft parts of mammoths in Siberia and Alaska,
and any of the other extinct mammals in the muck of Alaska, would have survived with
the flesh still undecayed with their red blood cells still intact. During the thousands of
years of warmth of the hipsithermal, almost all of the bones, ivory, and flesh in the
ground would have rotted and disappeared."

Paleontologists understood that the process necessary to create the carnage and splintered tree destruction found across the arctic could only be the result of great catastrophic elements and attributed it "to a great tidal wave that uprooted forests and buried the tangled carnage in a flood of mud. In the polar region this froze solid and has preserved the evidence in permafrost to the present."

On page 228, the proof concerning the drawing of a mammoth on a pharaonic tomb.

Starting with page 274, the proofs offered by phytogeography:  plant geography, related to the new climatic regime, should also be systematically and symmetrically arranged on the globe to fit this plate tectonic poleshift.

The climatic and plant geography of the entire Earth should exhibit a distribution that
would naturally follow if the rotational poles of the Earth were much more perpendicular
to the plane of the ecliptic, and this is is strongly corroborated by the evidence.

On pages 354-355, the notion of photoperiodic rhythm of trees constitutes another proof of the pole shift in the heliocentrical context.


https://web.archive.org/web/20160305043642/http://www.truthseekersministries.org/files/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1644103#msg1644103

One of the very best written works on paleogeology which provides numerous proofs that the Earth must have undergone a pole shift in the recent past, in the heliocentrical context.

Chapter V, Tidal Wave, pg. 46

Chapter VI, Mountains and Rifts, pg. 65

Chapter VIII, Poles Displaced, pg. 99 (evidences the fallacies of the sliding shell/rotating crust and of the continental drift theories, among other subjects)

Chapter IX, Axis Shifted, pg. 118 (the cause of the Ice Age; pg. 131, the strength of the magnetization in the rocks)


Other works signed Charles Ginenthal:

http://bearfabrique.org/History/floods/mfloods.html

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Global%20Floods%20Evidence%20%28Veli-Jrnl%29.pdf


In the heliocentrical context, a massive pole shift must have taken place in the recent historical time; however, this fact is disproven by the north-south orientation of the Gizeh pyramid, not to mention its precise calendar of the solstices and of the equinoxes (the Gizeh pyramid was constructed, we are told, well before the time of the pole shift itself).

Moreover, the facts concerning the north-south orientation are even more startling.

"To understand why, we look at Livio Catullo Stecchini, who was a professor of ancient history at Paterson State Teachers College and wrote on the history of science, ancient weights and measures (metrology), and the history of cartography in antiquity.
Professor Stechhini is best known for his numerological theories about the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.

In the 1960’s Professor Stecchini wrote about the apparent inaccuracies detected in the north-south orientation of the Great Pyramid and how these were present with a purpose.

As Stecchini claimed, the alignment axis of the western side of the Great Pyramid was drawn first by its builders, then, the builders outlined the northern side so it could be perfectly perpendicular to the western side. The eastern side, however, was intentionally placed at a larger angle of 3 arcmins, resulting in a larger side.

In other words, the northeast corner should have been 90 ° 03 ’00 “, not 90 °. As for the southern side of the Great Pyramid, it was predicted to be half an arcminute larger than perpendicular, so that the southwest corner measured 90 ° 00 ’30.
However, Stecchini also studied a small line on the floor of the base of the Great Pyramid located near the center of the northern side. Some authors have assumed that this was the original north-south axis of the Great Pyramid.

The data shows that the axis line is located at 115.090 meters in the northwest corner, and 115.161 meters in the northeast corner, so it seems to be a bit off center. This variation was typically rejected as human error.

However, Professor Stecchini concluded that this was not a mistake. Rather, the north-south axis of the Great Pyramid was misaligned on purpose. Therefore, the apex was also misaligned on purpose by about 35.5 millimeters westward."


Only by taking into consideration a stationary Earth, can the posited pole shift/extinction of the mammoths (in the heliocentrical context) be fully explained.

"Billions of tons of ice would have fallen on the polar regions, flash-freezing everything in little more than an instant.
 
This, at last, would explain the mystery of the mammoths found frozen where they stood. The mammoth, contrary to belief, was not a cold region animal, but one which lived in temperate grasslands.
 
Somehow those temperate regions were frozen in a moment. Some mammoths have been found frozen in the middle of eating! There you are munching away and the next thing you know you’re an ice lolly. If this ionized ice did rain down, the biggest build up would have been nearest to the magnetic poles because they would have had the most powerful attraction. Again, that is the case. The ice mass in the polar regions is greater at the poles than at the periphery and yet there is less snow and rain at the poles to create such a build up."


A stationary Earth must have a flat surface in order to explain how four billion trillion liters of water would stay glued next to the outer surface of a fixed and spherical Earth (there is no such thing as attractive gravity).


The Gizeh pyramid was constructed some 350 years ago, the ultimate proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages: the use of the arctangent series at Gizeh)

In the new radical chronology of history, the Great Flood occurred some 310 years ago, while the extinction of the mammoth took place some 250 years ago.