The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Believers => Topic started by: sandokhan on July 14, 2009, 06:59:41 AM

Title: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 14, 2009, 06:59:41 AM
Flat Earth Theory

New Radical Chronology of History

Riemann's Zeta Function and the Sacred Cubit

Ether/Aether Theory


FET is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.

The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.

The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Each and every statement described above will be proven, using the most precise astronomical datings possible, from Gauss' Easter formula, to the dating using the comets' tails rate of dispersion of matter, see pages 7-12.

The architects of the Gizeh pyramid did use the arctangent function, the precise proofs on page 11.

Many more topics covered: the Allais effect, the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, chaos theory and the RE equations of motion, the Tunguska explosion caused by the ball lightning objects created by N. Tesla, many more details included.


https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183 (https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183) ( (the first FET faq written some seven years ago; it includes only a small portion of the information covered/updated here in much more details; at that point in time, the elements concerning the new radical chronology of history were not included)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 15, 2009, 04:18:45 PM
Whilst I greatly admire your research and the wealth of information you have accumulated, I do perhaps think that calling this a 'new FAQ' is perhaps unnecessarily controvertial. I would certainly support it as an alternative theory, but I do think that presenting it as the de facto new FAQ is perhaps as wise. The information is of great value (I am especially interested in the idea of the Antichone), but it is important that we respect the different viewpoints many FE'ers hold.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 19, 2009, 02:00:40 AM
DAYTON MILLER ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (full analysis)

Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to
dismiss your arguments, and retain clarity about Miller's work.


You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.

How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (part II)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 21, 2009, 02:10:52 AM
DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Dr. Bruce DePalma, MIT and Harvard

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."

(http://www.enterprisemission.com/DePalma%27s--Spinning-Ball--2-grid.jpg)

Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!


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


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."


The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


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


The law of universal gravitation totally violated: 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.


More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:

A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.

He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.

(http://www.esotericscience.com/spinball.gif)

Back in the 70's Bruce Depalma did a series of tests involving spinning objects. In his published findings he goes on to describe that a ball spun at a high rate of speed will actually travel higher (sometimes 20% higher) and fall faster then a ball that is not spinning. Now of course the balls are identical and launched at the same trajectory. This test was also done in a vacuum to go on and prove that drag couldn't have an effect on it.


DePalma’s experiment with steel balls in 1972 showed that certain physical properties of an object are radically altered—both its mass and inertia—if it is rotated. According to DePalma, rotation produces a force field, specifically around the main axis of the rotating object, that he measured and called a torsion field or spin field. Time-lapse stroboscopic photographs revealed that the steel ball rotating at ~27,000 rpm flew higher and fell faster than the companion ball that was not rotating. DePalma had since conducted experiments on “bodies in rotation” including massive objects (e.g., over 30 lbs), spinning at very high velocities (~7600 revolutions/minute).



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 26, 2009, 06:52:44 AM
GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY

According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.

I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.

You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.


Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR



It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.



What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:



Matthew Vlastar:



“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.


Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately the colossal errors inherent in the present day calculations based on the faulty RE equations of orbital mechanics.


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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674662#msg1674662

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504

Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).


Dead Sea scrolls forgery:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071018054645/http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18840220&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.ro/2012/02/who-claimed-dead-sea-scrolls-hoax.html

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30145#30145

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 27, 2009, 06:01:41 AM
MAGNETRICITY = ETHER MAGNETISM

Electricity = Magnetism - both consist of subquark flow, one in a conductor, the other in space

This flow is made up of TWO currents, of opposing spin, traveling in double torsion fashion: the dextrorotatory subquarks and the laevorotatory subquarks.


The recent discovery of magnetic monopoles:

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

Magnetic monopoles = subquarks

https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf) (Dr. Stephen Phillips, Cambridge, UCLA)


PRECISE, REAL TIME, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICAL CURRENTS, THE DOUBLE VORTEX/SPIN/STRINGS AT WORK:

(https://image.ibb.co/mQxM0d/ma1_zpstnoewm3f.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/dzvKmJ/ma2_zps4ijijfcw.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/diVr0d/ma3_zpsyg7asb12.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/dEuUmJ/spintro1.jpg)

SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

http://freenrg.info/Misc/The_Secret_World_Of_Magnets.pdf

HERE IS HOW THE FLOW OF SUBQUARKS OCCURS IN A MAGNET:

(https://i.ibb.co/C83PjcW/leed.jpg)

Not only North-Center-South laevorotatory subquarks, but ALSO a South-Center-North flow of dextrorotatory subquarks/magnetic monopoles.

(http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif)


Absolute proof of the existence of subquarks:


http://web.archive.org/web/20150424110749/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20150424110749/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf) (Dr. Stephen Phillips, UCLA, Cambridge)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101) (what baryons, mesons, quarks, subquarks look like)

This is what the graviton/magnetic monopole looks like, both spins:

(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)

HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

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.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.


NOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW ELECTRICITY FLOWS:

An electric current brought to bear upon the subquarks checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the subquarks exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The subquarks always set themselves to the current.  In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single subquark.

(http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image016.jpg)


Let us now back to the Nipher experiments.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.



Electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity.

Since subquarks = magnetic monopoles, we can see the beautiful and superb link between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the DePalma/Kozyrev/Allais effects:

In one case (Biefeld-Brown effect, performed in vacuum) the very strong electrical field will act as an attractor to telluric/subquark strings to form a plasma tornado around the capacitor, thus rendering it opaque to the usual dextrorotatory strings which do cause terrestrial gravity.

In the other, by torsion, in the DePalma experiment, the subquarks strings will also form a tornado around the ball/object thus producing the noted/recorded antigravitational effects.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 28, 2009, 05:13:28 AM
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

Dr. Paul Biefeld - former classmate of A. Einstein

T. Townsend Brown - student of Dr. Biefeld, studied at CalTech, he demonstrated his ideas on electricity and gravity to invited guests such as the physicist and Nobel laureate, Dr. Robert A. Millikan.

When the poles of a freely suspended charged capacitor (even in vacuum) were placed on a horizontal axis, a forward thrust would be produced which would move the capacitor in the direction of the positive pole. The direction of thrust would reverse in conjunction with a polarity change. This is the phenomenon known as the Biefield-Brown Effect.


VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm) (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html) (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm) (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm)


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/)

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf)

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)

Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)


Reading the section describing the vacuum chamber results, we learn that when the discs are operated at atmospheric pressure they move in the direction of the leading edge wire regardless of outboard wire polarity.  This indicates that in normal atmospheric conditions the discs are propelled forward primarily by unbalanced electrostatic forces due to the prevailing nonlinear field configuration (which causes thrust in the direction of the low field intensity ion cloud regardless of the ion polarity).  On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm (http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm)

In 1985, Dr. Paul LaViolette was in the Library of Congress in Washington, DC and looked up the work "gravity" in the card catalog. Surprisingly, he found the listing for "Electrogravitics Systems," a report that was missing from the stacks. When the librarian tried to locate any other copies through interlibrary loan, she commented, "It must be an exotic document" because she could find only one in the country which was at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Thus, LaViolette was successful in obtaining a copy of the formerly classified document. The mystery continued: seven years later when contacting the Wright-Patterson AFB Technical Library, they surprisingly found no reference in the computer-based card catalog. They did locate the document on the shelves, however, after being asked to search for it. To summarize, the report has historic value because:

It validates T.T. Brown's experiments;
It lists the major corporations that were collaborating on electrogravitics;
It includes the requirements for supersonic speed;
It shows the continuity from Project Winterhaven in 1952;
The report includes a list of electrostatic patents;
It had been classified by the Air Force for an undetermined amount of time which underscores its importance.


This is real science, the greatest American physicist of the 20th century, T. Townsend Brown: it should be the privilege of the FES to immediately claim that the Biefeld-Brown effect can only take place on a flat surface of the earth, but instead, it chooses to post on its official page (no less) the catastrophic UA conjecture, without any proofs.


Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm (http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


Let us also remember the Eotvos experiments, which recorded gravitational anomalies, which also would contradict the UA:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html (http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 28, 2009, 07:47:31 AM
CLOUDS

Let us now apply the foregoing mass of theory and experimental data to the one problem which has NEVER been solved in either the RE scenario, or the failed UA conjecture.


A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.

The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

"Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation."

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD, which would move right along with the cloud on a random trajectory.

Under the catastrophic UA scenario, there is no way to explain the presence of clouds from a gravitational point of view: clouds are the most obvious and apparent counterexample to the failed hypothesis in which the Earth is moving upwards.


Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.


Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.

Let us go directly to the official textbook on ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE.


Cloud droplets are also about 1000 times heavier than evaporated water, so they are much heavier than air.

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

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

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

OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

Clouds can have a large range of mass per volume, depending on how large and numerous the cloud droplets or ice crystals are that are in them.

How much does the water in a cumulus cloud weigh? Peggy limee, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, did the numbers.

"The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons," she calculates.



Another concerned scientist writes:

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity. The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt convection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Another writer states:

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm)

Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.


ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float above the ground.


"It is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the Biefield-Brown Effect, where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometers above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.


THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT EXPLAINS HOW millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometers above the earth by electrical means.

http://repository.ias.ac.in/16485/

The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.


THE CHARGED DROPS WILL EVAPORATE LESS THAN THE UNCHARGED DROPS. WHY? BECAUSE OF THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, WHICH DOES PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY (ANTIGRAVITATIONAL) IN THE FORM OF LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS.

A TOTAL CONFIRMATION OF THE EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT BY DR. FRANCIS NIPHER.

Nikola Tesla, clouds, and stationary waves (telluric currents, ether strings), confirming the discoveries made by the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center:

“It was on the third of July–the date I shall never forget–when I obtained the first decisive experimental evidence of a truth of overwhelming importance for the advancement of humanity.

A dense mass of strongly charged clouds gathered in the west and towards the evening a violent storm broke loose which, after spending its fury in the mountains, was driven away with great velocity over the plains. Heavy and long persisting arcs formed almost in regular time intervals.

My observations were now greatly facilitated and rendered more accurate by the experiences already gained. I was able to handle my instruments quickly and I was prepared. The recording apparatus being properly adjusted, its indications became fainter and fainter with the increasing distance of the storm until they ceased altogether. I was watching in eager expectation. Surely enough, in a little while the indications again began, grew stronger and stronger and, after passing thru a maximum, gradually decreased and ceased once more.

Many times, in regularly recurring intervals, the same actions were repeated until the storm, which, as evident from simple computations, was moving with nearly constant speed, had retreated to a distance of about three hundred kilometers. Nor did these strange actions stop then, but continued to manifest themselves with undiminished force. Subsequently, similar observations were also made by my assistant, Mr. Fritz Lowenstein, and shortly afterwards several admirable opportunities presented themselves which brought out still more forcibly and unmistakably, the true nature of the wonderful phenomenon. No doubt whatever remained: I was observing stationary waves."

Nikola Tesla, “Transmitting Electrical Energy Without Wires, Scientific American, June 4, 1904, supplement

Tesla's device recorded the influence of stationary waves (telluric currents) upon and from the charged clouds.

"The discovery of the stationary terrestrial waves [indicates]... that, despite its vast extent, the entire planet can be thrown into resonant vibration like a little tuning fork; that electrical oscillations suited to its physical properties and dimensions pass through it unimpeded, in strict obedience to a simple mathematical law, has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth, considered as a channel for conveying electrical energy... is infinitely superior to a wire or cable...

Nikola Tesla, 'Tuned Lightening', 1907


THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.

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

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 29, 2009, 05:49:46 AM
ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


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

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

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

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

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


Dr. Maurice Allais:

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

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


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

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

(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-Allais-Pendulum-motions.jpg)


"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:

(https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.



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)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on August 11, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
TOTAL DEMOLITION OF STR/GTR

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.

(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220px-Riemann_surface_log.jpg)


http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html)

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm)


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html)


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

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


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

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

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

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



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

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


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


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



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

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


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


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:

(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:

(https://image.ibb.co/f1Coyy/88.jpg)


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)


http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)

E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ

The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

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


The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on August 12, 2009, 10:35:03 AM
PAGE 10

The Allais effect and the Black Sun


EDIT

A compendium of my messages posted on the proboards website for the past several years (http://only1rad.proboards.com/ (http://only1rad.proboards.com/) )...

As I said five years ago: it is very easy to see/discover that the Beatles songs are actually modified classical scores.

Martha my Dear is a modified classical song, Martha by von Flotow (see (http://#) ). It is obvious that Paul II had no idea about this connection, when he said that Martha refers to his sheepdog...

Yellow Submarine is actually the theme from Verdi’s Aida March combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.


I invite everybody here again to study the actual complexity of the Beatles songs: it is unimaginable that, as raylo said before: "the beatles went from being a garage band to suddenly composing sophisticated tracks like 'and i love her' overnight, then advanced exponentially and levelled off quickly maintaining that level of musical quality and then broke up and suddenly became virtual garage players again. as judge judy says, 'if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true'."


www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml)
www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml)


Absolute proofs that only an expert in classical music could have been responsible for writing the Beatles music.


Yes, Adorno wrote the entire British invasion by modifying classical tunes, and yes he developed different styles for each and every group; he did not compose the music for money, not at all. Adorno was part of a secret society who recognized his amazing skills in teaching/understanding classical music and put them to good use. Before his death in August 1969 (the very reason the Beatles disbanded, as their master composer was gone) Adorno wrote hundreds of songs to be distributed later (1969 - 1975) to various groups, that is why the early 70s music sounded so much better than the late 70s music, and the very reason why Led Zeppelin were musically dead after the last of the Adorno songs, KASHMIR, was included on Physical Graffiti.

Perhaps you all are curious to understand how did Adorno manage to create a masterpiece such as KASHMIR. Actually it is made up of three classical songs: Ravel's Bolero and Holst's Mars the Bringer of War, combined with the 1st movement from Korsakov's Scheherazade ( (http://#)  5:05 to 5:30, especially 5:20 to 5:30  )


Here is another example for all of you.

(http://#)

The adaggio from Spartacus was modified by Adorno: first into SOMETHING (of course, for the Beatles), then into the RAIN SONG (given to Led Zeppelin).


Had Adorno lived a few more years, there would have been more Beatles albums containing the following songs, among others already mentioned in my first two messages:

Admiral Holsy
Live and Let Die
My Love
Imagine
What is Love


Again, raylo:

"about a yr ago at a friends party i mentioned the theory to the host who is a classically trained musician. he raised an eyebrow and said there's no way they could have written all that music in that little time. it's just not possible. someone helped, coached or wrote for them.
lyrically i believe they, especially lennon wrote a great deal even if the subject matter was impressed upon him. he was clever with words. he was no dummy, but he was no musical genius. listen to his 'rock and roll' solo album. come on people. listen to free as a bird and most of the other feeble efforts he soloed. yes i'm aware of instant karma, imagine, etc. but most of it was dribble compared to the beatles. it's like comparing basic addition with advanced trigonometry.
a few days ago after reading the first comment on this thread i called my previous mentioned friend and started naming the songlist of classical music and its corresponding beatles song. i said 'aiva' etc was yellow sub. he paused for a second, i heard a few 'da da hum daaah, DEE dah da's' and then a yup or ahuh. this was the case for every song on the list. he also stated that it was common in HWD, NY and motown, etc to have classical composers in almost every studio to smooth out the song."


PS Can anybody here guess which classical tune was copied by Adorno and transformed into OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY given to Led Zeppelin?




Let us concentrate on just two songs: Martha My Dear and Kashmir.


MARTHA MY DEAR


www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/mmd.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/mmd.shtml)

The original Paul had no knowledge of the Martha classical tune by von Flotow, nor could he have modified it into Martha My Dear as he could not write/read music; George Martin certainly knew about the classical tune, but he had no musical skills to turn it into Martha My Dear; after 1969 the magical orchestration in the Beatles music (see the Let It Be album) and Paul II's own albums was completely gone.


Analysis of the Martha My Dear musical notes/melody:

The intro/verse section is an extremely unusual fourteen and a half measures in length, the first of its four phrases being foreshortened by six beats; the musical equivalent of a receding chin :-) In this case, the effect is motivated by the dog-chasing-its-tail motif with which the tune opens.

Well before the true E-flat home key is established, the section veers off sharply in the direction of a possible modulation to the key of B-flat Major. Though the B-flat chord becomes clearly established by section's end as V, not I; you still might say that the tonal center of gravity is weighted deceptively more in favor of B-flat rather than E-flat.

The ninths and sevenths applied to all of the A-flat-Major chords above fall under the category of "free" dissonance.

The abrupt transition back to the home key of the verse features that root move of a major third that we discussed back in of all places, "Wild Honey Pie". Note how the second bridge embellishes this gesture with a novel "3-4-5" hook in the toppermost voice.


A clear proof that only a musical genius who could absolutely write/read music could transform the classical tune Martha into Martha My Dear.


Therefore, your assertion that Paul I could have written Martha My Dear is false.

There is no way that Paul I, not knowing at all that he would disappear from the public scene after September 1966, could have written Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Road, not to mention the singles, in the timespan of just two months: July-August 1966.

Martha My Dear is a song which is written in the MUSICAL STYLE of the year 1968, it belongs to that year/age (not to 1966/1967): this style in turn in based on the musical direction/influence offerred by the  Sgt. Pepper album, a fact which could not have been known to Paul I. Paul I could not possibly have anticipated the social/cultural changes brought upon by Sgt. Pepper which in turn lead to the musical style of the White Album.

Martha My Dear includes the magical orchestration which was a hallmark of the Beatles songs; whoever wrote Martha My Dear also wrote all the other songs.


No channeling was responsible for the Beatles songs (as you try to assert): it was a very methodical work, based upon careful modifications of classical tunes/songs, performed by Theodor Adorno.

Please feel free to investigate each and every Beatles song to see how incorrect the channeling notion is:

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF ALL THE BEATLES SONGS:

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml)



KASHMIR

(http://#)

Listen from 0:55 to 1:06


Now listen to this:

1st movement from Korsakov's Scheherazade

(http://#)

5:05 to 5:30, especially 5:20 to 5:30

Obviously, one portion of the song is a modified version of the other, notwithstanding your earlier statements..


Each and every other Led Zeppelin song was NOT written by Jimmy Page (his supposed musical writing skills were gone after 1975, and he had none before 1968; granted he was one of the greatest guitarists ever).




Read carefully here:

www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html (http://www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html)


Certainly the Adaggio from Spartacus was modified into the RAIN SONG.

Certainly OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY is a modified Afternoon of a Faun by Debussy.


In fact, in 1970, J. Page was accused of plagiarism (Friends, a modified version of Carry On by Crosby, Stills and Nash).


Since J. Page did not write a single Led Zeppelin song, and since both Something (Beatles) and the Rain Song resemble strongly the Adaggio from Spartacus, I say that the same person wrote both songs.




George Martin did not have the genius to produce/create the magic of the Beatles music orchestration/sound.

Paul McCartney II's albums LACK completely the hallmark of what constituted the Beatles songs: that spellbound/miraculous orchestral arrangements unsurpassed to this very day and unprecedented before 1964.

There is only one person who could have done it: Theodor Adorno, his death in August 1969 is what actually put an end to the Beatles.

Paul II, John II, George were given then the remaining Beatles songs (Imagine, Live and Let Die, Admiral Holsy, Give Me Love, My Sweet Lord, Mind Games, My Love and much more) to start up their solo careers...but the magic was gone.


Your facts so far amount to this:

1. Paul dreamed up 200 songs, of which about 80 just in the period September - November 5, 1966, or, even more amazingly,

2. Paul wrote, somehow, someway, all these 200 songs; again, of which maybe 80 in that same period.

If you say that you know something about music (see for example the comments by sunssol), then it should strike you immediately, upon actually seeing how the songs were composed (see below), that a person who could not write or read music could not, even in his dreams, get such a job done, that is, to compose 200 songs with no musicological concepts whatsoever, and with no studies of classical music.

The songs themselves speak loud and clear: Paul could not have even dreamed to write such songs, given the way they are structured and written:

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml) (alphabetical order)

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml) (chronologically)

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml) (step by step analysis of all the songs)


Let us have a closer look at Yesterday, for example (supposedly dreamed up by Paul):

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/y.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/y.shtml)

Here is what A. Pollack has to say:

The overall home key is F Major but the music demonstrates a curious tendency to repeatedly veer off toward the relative minor key of d. This device subtly sets a mood for the song in which all attempts at putting on a positive face are betrayed by pervasive melancholy; shades of "beneath this mask I am wearing a frown." Interestingly, Paul had used a similar harmonic trick (actually the same basic idea but in reverse) in his very similar earlier offering of "And I Love Her".

By funny coincidence, we find here the same harmonic cross-relation between G and B-flat chords as we saw last time in "It's Only Love". Granted, the order of the two chords is reversed here, and the semantic meaning of the progression is changed by the difference in home key between the two songs. It's an uncanny parallel, nevertheless.

Let us now look at And I love Her:

Major and minor keys are said to be mutual relatives then they share the same key signature — e.g. C Major/a minor, F Major/d minor etc.

Implicit in the sharing of a key signature is the fact that they share the same chords, although each chord has a different harmonic/grammatical meaning — i.e. crudely put, a different Roman numeral — depending on which mode you're in. For example, in the pair of keys C Major/a minor, the d minor triad is common to both but it's the ii chord of C and the iv chord of A.

The ample selection of common chords in this situation makes it very easy to modulate between the two keys. Such chords are called pivot chords when they're used to effect a smooth modulation from one key to another. In terms of aural perception, one experiences such a chord initially in the old key, but within the following two chords, one retrospectively hears it as part of the new key; a kind of harmonic pun.

This amazing technical know-how of musical arrangement to come from Paul's dreams, or from a guy who could neither write nor read music?

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/ailh.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/ailh.shtml)

It's Only Love: www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iol.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iol.shtml)

Very much like what we saw last time in "I've Just Seen A Face", the verse here is a twelve measure section whose AAB phrasing pattern matches that of the blues even though such a connection is supported by neither the harmony nor the style.

The downward chromatic bassline at the start "forces" a strange root progression of I -» iii -» flat-VII. The effect of this is somewhat softened by the linear logic of the bassline itself and the placement of the iii chord in so-called second inversion; try playing the same progression with the iii chord in root position and see how much more strange it sounds.

With the verse ending on the vi chord (a-minor), you'd much sooner expect the first chord of this refrain to be either IV (F) or ii (d); try this out and see how well it actually works. The move to B-flat, while not at all unsatisfying does work as a surprise, and furthermore sets up a cross-relation when the next chord after it is V (G). This use of flat-VII as a subdominant is something we saw for the first time way back in "All My Loving", of all places. As a device, you might describe it as similar in structure and effect to the gambit in which V-of-V is followed by IV.


Let us remember what the Beatles could actually do, 1960 - 1962:

Beatle biographer Philip Norman writes: "Their only regular engagement was a strip club. The club owner paid them ten shillings each to strum their guitars while a stripper named Janice grimly shed her clothes before an audience of sailors, guilty businessmen and habitués with raincoat- covered laps."
Now, to go from this to actually write I want to hold your hand defies the imagination, and the fact that neither John nor Paul could write or read music, which is absolutely necessary to express any musical talent.

It is sometimes said that G. Martin orchestrated some of the Beatles songs; nothing he published after 1969 resembles in any way shape or form the actual Beatles orchestrations, for example on Strawberry Fields and Martha my Dear.

If you want to believe in a myth, go right ahead, I will not try to stop you, but the fact of the matter is that none of the Beatles could write music, it is obvious that a powerhouse in music writing was behind their success.

Listen closely to the McCartney and Lennon post Beatles albums; they are a far cry from any Beatles LP.

Please explain to me how these songs could have been written (take a look at the extraordinary skill in manipulating the keys and notes to write the songs) by two persons who could neither write nor read music.

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml)
www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml)


Imagine having Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky, together, writing songs for you; you'd instantly become the very best musical artist the world has ever seen, and this is EXACTLY what happened to The Beatles, their songs are modified classical themes, cleverly done by T. Adorno.

The fact that their music was written by Adorno was concealed from public view.

Under the the strict guidance of EMI's recording director George Martin, and Brian Epstein, the Beatles were scrubbed, washed, and their hair styled into the Beatles cut. EMI's Martin created the Beatles in his recording studio.

Martin was a trained classical musician, and had studied the oboe and piano at the London School of Music. The Beatles could neither read music nor play any instrument other than guitar. For Martin, the Beatles musicianship was a bad joke. On their first hit record, "Love Me Do," Martin replaced Ringo on the drums with a studio musician. Martin said Ringo, "couldn't do a [drum] roll to save his life."

The insiders at EMI knew very well that J. Lennon and P. McCartney had no musical talent whatsoever; what they had abundantly was charisma, and that is what won the audience, nobody else since has been able to duplicate The Beatles phenomenon.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 08, 2009, 01:24:54 AM
Let us read carefully the only correct description of the actual orbit of the Sun that we have at our disposal (the reason the year had only 364 days is explained later in this thread):

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#71 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#71)

It becomes very clear that the orbit of the Sun cannot just be made up of two arches of a circle; the actual orbit is a bit more complicated than that; in my opinion it consists of several arches which make up a complete daily orbit, something resembling a rhombus with curved sides or even an enneagram.


Here is a description of the phases of the moon:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#77 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#77)

Thus, the resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon.


GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE PARADOX

The gases in the atmosphere REFUSE to obey the law of universal gravitation.


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


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


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

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

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

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


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



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

We are talking here about TRIOXYGEN (O3), THAT IS, OZONE.

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

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

BUT IN FACT the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.


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

Here is the law of attractive, universal gravitation as it is being presented in our textbooks:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c6ee5510ba3c7d6664775c0e76b53e72468303a)

Gravity, we are told, is proportional to MASS and DISTANCE.


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


Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

The earth's atmosphere is a complex mixture of several "gases", either atomic or molecular in nature. Air consists primarily of N2 (78%) and O2 (21%), with small amounts of several other substances, including Ar (0.9%).


Let us take, as an example, the troposphere.


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect25atmcompo.html

NITROGEN 78%
OXYGEN 21%
ARGON 0.9%


Now, the thermosphere.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-gases-that-separate-by-weight-upper-layers-469654

Thermosphere: 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen

Even in the troposphere, nitrogen is thoroughly mixed with oxygen.


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



The gases in the atmosphere totally and absolutely defy Newton's supposed law of universal gravitation.



Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“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.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 27, 2009, 05:56:39 AM
PAGES 2 - 12

New radical chronology theory


EDIT

Messages from the proboards website continued...

I estimate he wrote at least 800 songs during that time...

How long did it take Adorno to modify the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian to come up with Something? 5 minutes

How long did it take him to modify the same theme to write the Rain Song for Led Zeppelin? Another 5 minutes

Adorno wrote extremely fast, all he had to do was to modify existing music; not only that, but he wrote all partitures backwards, to get more ideas from them, he did that most conspicuously with Because (Moonlight sonata played backwards). He could write the entire Pet Sounds album in one day, or a Rolling Stones album in one week, and time to spare.

Who actually wrote the Beatles music?

The person who actually wrote all the Beatles songs was Theodor Adorno, a music professor from Frankfurt University. And none of the songs were original, Adorno, a genius on the subject of theoretical music cleverly adapted well-known classical partitures, to create the Beatles songs.

Here are some examples...

Yellow Submarine is actually the theme from Verdi's Aida combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.

Can't buy me love is actually Aine Kleine Nacht Musik by Mozart, ingeniously modified.

Penny Lane is the Elvira Madigan Piano Concerto No. 21 by Mozart, modified.

From me to you is the Peer Gynt suite, Morning Mood, by E. Grieg

I want to hold your hand is a modified From me to you (listen carefully and compare the two songs)

Yesterday is a modified Neapolitan song, called "Piccere' Che Vene a Dicere"

Let us remember that the original J. Lennon/P. McCartney duo could neither write nor read music; in the period 1960-1962 they sang only cover songs, and manifested no music writing talent whatsoever

Got to get into my life is a modified Can't buy me love

I feel fine is actually Fire Dance by M. de Falla

Martha my Dear is a modified classical song, Martha by von Flotow:

(http://)

Something is nothing more than the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian

For Hey Jude, Adorno pulled out all stops, he grouped into one song, masterfully, the Ride of the Walkiries by Wagner, the theme from the Piano Concerto no. 1 by Tchaikovsky, and the theme from Symphony no 9 by Beethoven

Blackbird is actually the second movement from Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, modified

Get Back is Obladi Oblada modified

Sgt. Pepper is clever combination of the Radetzky March and the Romanian rhapsody no 1 by Enescu

And Adorno reworked some of the Beatles songs to create others: She Loves You is a modified From Me to You, as is You're gonna lose that girl

A Hard Day's Night is Rossini's Wilhelm Tell overture, modified

Ballad of John and Yoko is a modified And Your Bird can Sing


Theodor Adorno (seen here: http://www.nndb.com/people/754/000026676/adorno.gif (http://www.nndb.com/people/754/000026676/adorno.gif) ) also wrote the entire British invasion: that is, the music of the Rolling Stones, Kinks, the Who, See Emily Play by Pink Floyd, and also Moody Blues' Days of Future Past (Nights in white satin is a modified theme from Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky), the songs for Mamas and the Papas, Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby Stills and Nash, Iron Butterfly (Adorno wrote In a gadda da vida), Cream, Queen (We are the Champions, a modified Hey Jude, and Seaside Rendezvous, a modified Martha my Dear).

John Coleman actually discovered that Adorno owned the Beatles catalogue, from 1962 until his death in August 1969, and that he invented the heavy metal/punk styles of music.

The first five Led Zeppelin albums were also written by Adorno (he wrote music extensively, borrowing from Beatles songs and other, from 1964 to 1969); the Rain Song is a modified Something (that is the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian), see the thieving magpies google search details.

The music for Jethro Tull (the early albums, including Aqualung and Thick as a Brick) were also written years ahead by Adorno, as was the Machine Head album by Deep Purple (Highway Star is a modified Magical Mystery Tour song).

The best B. Sabbath songs, Spiral Architect and She's Gone were also among the songs written for them by Adorno (copies of She's Leaving Home and the Rain Song).

Upon leaving the Featles project (1967-1969), Fohn Lennon was given some songs written also by Adorno to continue a possible solo carrier: Imagine, Bless You, Mind Games (a modified All You Need is Love).

John Lennon: doppelganger: http://doppels.proboards.com/thread/97 (http://doppels.proboards.com/thread/97)

(http://)



F. McCartney was given more songs, but not enough to compare disasters like Ram to the Beatles albums: Another Day, Maybe Im Amazed (a modified Long and winding Road), My Love (a modified All my Loving), Live and Let Die (a modified Magical Mystery Tour), Admiral Holsy (the best post Beatles song by McCartney, that is, by Adorno) and some others.

F. Harrison was given Dark Horse (a modified Gallows Pole by Adorno, who was inspired from black soul music), What is Love (a modified Satisfaction), and What is Life, not to mention My Sweet Lord (which Adorno copied from some early sixties music, and got Harrison into plagiarism trouble).

The Rolling Stones music was written by Adorno, as I have mentioned already: Satisfaction is a modified Ticket to Ride, Lady Jane is a modified Norwegian Wood, Jumpin Jack Flash is a modified Satisfaction, and so on...

The Beach Boys were also created musically by Adorno, who wrote the entire Pet Sounds album, God only Knows (a modified Michelle), Sloop John B (a modified Eight Days a Week), and later California Girls...


Adorno was a master at adapting classical music to suit his own purposes, that is, the institute which hired him to social engineer the entire 60s and 70s.

On the complexity of the Beatles songs:

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml)
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml)

And, all of the ABBA songs are nothing more than modified Beatles songs:

Dum Dum Diddle is a modified Obladi Oblada

Voulez Vous is Hello Goodbye all over again

Rock Me is actually a copied With a Little Help from My Friends

Dancing Queen is a modified Goodnight (from the White Album)

Mamma Mia is a modified Penny Lane

SOS is a modified Here Comes the Sun

Money Money Money is a modified Sgt. Pepper

Move on is a modified Blackbird

Take a chance on me is a modified We can Work it out (which is a modified Help)

Dance while the music still goes on is a modified I Saw Her Standing Her (borrowed by Adorno from one of Mozart's serenades)


Eagle is a modified Maybe Im Amazed

Waterloo is a modified A Hard Days Night

Prior to 1972 both B. Anderson and B. Ulvaeus manifested no musical talent whatsoever (that is, at composing songs), all of a sudden, beginning with 1972, they came up, unexplicably, with a Mozart genius-like talent at writing songs, which expired suddenly in 1979.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 28, 2009, 12:44:09 AM
CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT DEBUNKED


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

The Cavendish experiment is routinely included in a short list of the greatest or most elegant experiments ever done. Like all of the other existing dogma, it has surrounded itself with a nearly impenetrable slag heap of boasting and idolatry, most if not all of it sloppy and unanalyzed. This was true even before the internet arose, but now it is true to the nth degree. Like everything else, the Cavendish experiment has added to its armor a thousand Wikipedia-like entries and glosses by a thousand mid-level physics professors. Of the many thousand recent reruns of the experiment, not one appears to have begun with any level of skepticism. Not one is actually set up to test or extend the experiment. Not one starts with the assumption that Cavendish might have been wrong. Despite the stated sacred nature of the scientific method, actually having an open mind about any standard model theory now appears to be equivalent to heresy or sacrilege.

For instance, S.J. Barnett was a professor at UCLA, then went to work at Cal Tech and JPL. He was not some crank or marginal character. And he was not an ancient or outdated character: he was still writing for PRL as late as 1953. He specialized in the field of electromagnetism, and wrote a famous book on electrostatics. He said, Due to the nature of the laws of electrostatics, the experiment of Cavendish is not conclusive.

Likewise, if we have now entered the realm of forces of 10^-10N, we must be a bit more rigorous with our analyses. Let us first return to Cavendish;s machine. Although he has a force 1000 times greater, he is still lacking the rigor required at his level of precision. We are told that his wooden bar was six feet long, and that his box was ten feet wide. According to my calculations, that puts the smaller balls only two feet from the walls. Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall
 would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

Here is another one on Cavendish:

In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes.

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia.

Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn't even bother to include the weight of his walls. He had a 348 lb ball 9 away, and a multi-thousand pound wall 24 away. Sure, only one point on the wall is 24 away; other parts are varying distances, but the wall is not negligible however you look at it. Cavendish assumes an inverse square law but then doesn't apply it to the greatest masses in the vicinity, even though they are quite near. According to the equation and theory he is trying to use, and that he has been used to prove, he should apply the equation to all the walls, determine force differentials, and go from there. Instead, he just ignores all these things. The fact that he is able to get good results despite ignoring all these things does not imply that his assumptions are all correct, or that it was OK to ignore all these masses. It implies that the motion is not caused in the way he assumes. In an experiment about mass, you should not be able to ignore most mass in the vicinity and still get the same answer. If your set-up doesn't matter, your set-up is probably wrong.



Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

 It is even more strange now that we have apples weighing only ounces standing as proof of gravitational theory, the weight and density of the earth, and the accepted value of an important constant. That is to say, we now accept apples as having easily measurable and verifiable gravitational attractions, but we ignore the gravitational attractions of walls weighing thousands of pounds. I can only imagine that we do this because walls are not made of metal, or walls are not spherical, or something. I can’t really fathom it.

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.


This means that the four walls must be taken into account, not only as blockers of wind, but as suppliers of mass and any possible E/M interaction.

This is clear, I think, with Cavendish, and it is equally clear with Walker and all modern machines and environs. Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.


“As Cavendish proved…[there were] enormous effects of air currents set up by temperature differences inside the box.” We don’t hear much of that anymore. We are supposed to assume that Cavendish solved his wind problems by building the box.

Next he says this:

With such small beams as I am now using it is much more convenient to replace the long thin box generally employed to protect the beam from disturbance by a vertical tube of circular section, in which the beam with its mirror can revolve freely. This has the further advantage that if the beam is hung centrally, the attraction of the tube produces no effect, and the troublesome and approximate calculations which have been necessary to find the effect of the box are no longer required.

See that he admits that he has not done any “troublesome calculations” on his box, just assuming it produces no effect.


Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn’t even bother to include the weight of his walls.

The same applies to Walker and the new experiments. They are incredibly sloppy about mass in an experiment that concerns mass, and yet they always seem to get reliable results. Does no one else find this the least bit strange? All they have to do is block the wind and the experiment provides all the right motions. They can switch it from clockwise to counterclockwise without concern: they still get attraction. They don’t have to worry if one wall is bigger than the other, or if there are magnetic fields in the area, or if they have cameras or ladders in the way, or if they are not square to the wall, or if they are nearer the floor or the ceiling. All these things that you would think might matter in an experiment concerning mass don’t seem to matter. Very curious.

You should find it very mystifying that all these scientists not only ignore huge masses only two feet away, masses that may or not be balanced, they also ignore the need to say why they can ignore these masses. In other words, they ignore these facts, then ignore their own ignorance of these facts, and none of it seems to matter. We are such blessed creatures, apparently, that we can stumble on the correct answer every time, without even being fully conscious.


THEN THE AUTHOR PROCEEDS TO CALCULATE THE INFLUENCE OF THE E/M FIELDS SURROUNING THE EXPERIMENT AND FINDS OUT THAT THEY GREATLY AFFECT THE FINAL RESULT.


But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.


This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.


This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2009, 05:19:26 AM
STATIONARY ATMOSPHERE

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph.

From Galileo Was Wrong:

"If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.)

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."


No scientist has been able to explain, so far, how friction would work even for the first hundred meters of the supposed rotating atmosphere.

Remember, that the strength of friction lessens as the altitude increases, that is, FRICTION IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE.

For the atmosphere to rotate along with the Earth, at the same speed, we need A NEW FORCE, a lateral gravitational force, which must be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE, in order for the upper layers to rotate along also.

In the RE model, from the very start, the Earth would be turning in a free roaming gaseous envelope (the atmosphere).

Friction would work only very near the surface, where the "pull" would be strongest; further away from the Earth this force would logically become weaker and weaker, as would the movement of the gaseous envelope surrounding the Earth.

Inversely proportional: the higher the altitude, the weaker the friction.


Now, the proof that friction cannot possibly be responsible for moving the rotating layers of the atmosphere, at the same speed as that of a rotating Earth.

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/bndy.rxml (University of Illinois, Physics of the Atmosphere)

Friction's effects on air motion decrease as the altitude increases -- to a point (usually 1-2 km) where it has no effect at all. The depth of the atmosphere that friction does play a role in atmospheric motion is referred to as the boundary layer.


Complete and absolute proof that what I have been saying is true: friction is inversely proportional to altitude, and that moreover, it will have no effect at all (starting from say an altitude of 1 km).



Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.


"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.


"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8


"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.


"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)


And now, to turn the table against the heliocentrists.


http://www.oupcanada.com/higher_education/companion/geography/9780195425451/student_resources/study_guide/unit_09.html

Friction decreases with an increase in altitude, and friction reduces the velocity of wind.

HERE IS A REFERENCE WHICH SAYS THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BOUNDARY LAYER IS ACTUALLY JUST A FEW HUNDREDS OF METERS THICK.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html

Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.



"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric science.

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why the so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."


No scientist has been able to explain, so far, how friction would work even for the first hundred meters of the supposed rotating atmosphere.

Remember, that the strength of friction lessens as the altitude increases, that is, FRICTION IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE.

For the atmosphere to rotate along with the Earth, at the same speed, we need A NEW FORCE, a lateral gravitational force, which must be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE, in order for the upper layers to rotate along also.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140903074446/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

"This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.

Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.

 

Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.

Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.

Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).

 

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2009, 06:43:34 AM
In my opinion the biggest and most extraordinary conspiracy of all (which actually runs in parallel with the flat earth debate as Joseph Scaliger was a best friend of Johannes Kepler) is the modification and alteration of world history, that is, of the actual chronology of the events that took place in the past.

Although many exceptional books have been published in the last 200 years pertaining to this subject, the modern development of the study starts with the intriguing paper by R. Newton (1970, 'Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon', Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press), in which the author shows that, based on the ancient records of eclipses, the values of the parameter D" (lunar elongation, second derivative) calculated for the  period 1200 BC - 1200 AD, cannot be explained in view of current geophysical theories (especially the law of gravity). This paper created quite a stir in the scientific community, and several leading astrophysicists started to actually research how the law of gravity could be modified to account for such incredible figures.

(http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec1.gif)

In 1980, the well known russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko realized that a different, and correct, approach, would be to realize that the data for the eclipses during that period were falsified and written down much later, he says in the 15-16th centuries AD. As such, the correct graph would look like this:

(http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec2.gif)

The original paper by A. Fomenko: http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

Encouraged by these results, Fomenko demonstrated that the eclipse described by Thucydides (History of the Peloponesian Wars), allegedly having occured in 431 BC, actually happened in the XIth century AD; and he gave other examples, the eclipse in Titus Livy' History which must have taken place at least 1000 years later ( http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fomenko&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false pg. 100 - 110).

Fomenko believes, and certainly does prove, that our history is at most 1000 years old; he started to be criticized by some new chronologists (Gunnar Heinsohn and Christoph Pfister) that he did not go far enough.

The use of tin metallurgy (very complex)  in antiquity is another example of current historical chronology mistakes; bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, but the large scale production of tin actually began in the XV-XVIth centuries AD; therefore, the Bronze Age must be dated much closer to our era.

The destruction of Pompeii by the eruption of Vesuvius actually happened in the 18th century, and not in the year 79 AD.

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien2.jpg)(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien1.jpg)

The Pompeian fresco, the Three Graces resemble perfectly Raphael's Three Graces, and later paintings (del Cossa, Rubens). Raphael did not have a time machine available to take him to the year 78 AD, therefore the logical conclusion is that the actual eruption took place either in the XVI century (the conventional chronology) or even in the late 18th century (radical revised new chronology).

"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007.

I fully believe that the actual duration of our world history is not more than 500 years old (100 years for the antediluvian period, and 400 years for our history); the followers of Akhenaten and the cult of Osiris (that is, Misraim), the later Jesuits and Templars, wrote the Torah and New Testament, introducing the completely false chronologies of Genesis chapters 10 and 11, and much more.

Another extraordinary reference is Ghost empires of the past: did the Sumerians really ever exist? by Gunnar Heinsohn.

Iesous Christos (the Messiah) was born in Thrace, around 1680 AD (80 years after the Flood), and was the grandson of Pelasg (the actual first-born of Noah); the historical figure of Abraham is actually Iesous. The conspirators changed the location of his birth (Abraham's) from Thrace to Sumer and invented the chapters 12-25 in Genesis. Iesous was crucified in Constantinopole (the actual Troy) in 1710-1715 AD; the whole story having been moved by the Jesuit priests to Jerusalem. The actual Solomon temple is the Hagia Sophia, built by Nimrod around 1700 AD; in Jerusalem (Ur-Shulim) there was no such temple, with the exception of the temple of Shulim (Salem) dedicated to the lunar gods.

As we can see from the book of Jubilees (chapter 8: http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/8.htm, verse 19 has been introduced later as a forgery), the center of the world is not Jerusalem (I have been led to believe in this thing, by the misleading world map of the Templars, which of course, would place their object of pagan worship in the center), but the western portion of Anatolia (ancient Bithynia/Mysia); that is there is a territory of about 40 km in diameter next to the sea of Marmara (sea of Miot/Me'at in the book of Jubilees, river Tina is the Megistus/Simav river which runs next to lake Artynia, and mount Rafa/Rafu is actually the Olympus and Temnus mountains of western Anatolia; Riphath lived in Paphlagonia and Bithynia, that is where the name Rafa/Rafu comes from) which is the actual Garden of Eden and is blocked aetherically, veiled from our view. In the book of Enoch, the actual term sea of Atil (Black Sea; in Enoch's time, the Black Sea covered the sea of Marmara and the sea of Azov too, being called the sea of Thetys) was modified to read Erythraean sea, which is wrong.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 13, 2009, 06:12:09 AM
A. Fomenko (see www.scribd.com and www.books.google.com for History: Science or Fiction? vol. 1 and 2) was the first serious researcher to find out that Christ was crucified in Constantinopole; he dates this event in the period 1153-1186 AD.

In my opinion, given the new revised chronology, these events took place in the late 17th century (1680-1710/1715) to early 18th century; the temple of Solomon was actually the Hagia Sophia, built by Nimrod in Troy, that is, Constantinopole. Nimrod had at his disposal the full details of the book of Enoch which did include geometry, advanced mathematics, and many other subjects, readily available. The first crusade occurred around 1720 against Troy (Constantinopole); this war become the subject of the Iliad and the Odyssey, invented some years later by the Jesuits.

The Great Wall of China was built in the second half of the 20th century, see http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf for an introduction to this subject.

Tenochtitlan (city of Tenoch, son of Cain) was built some 50 years after Cain was banished to present day Mexico; Tiahuanaco, the Pyramid of Gizeh (and the Sphinx) were built also before the Flood, in the period 1550-1600 AD.

Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India, Sumer, Babylon, were all invented in the 18th century by Joseph Scaliger and the Jesuit priests, see Fomenko's books for details. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Cezar, Archimedes were invented also, as were the ancient wars and historical events. Galilei and Koppernigk also never existed; J. Kepler and T. Brahe lived in the period 1770-1820, as did I. Newton; they were contemporaries with Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael (see my previous message).

Akhenaten was the son of Nimrod, and tried to introduce in Egypt the cult of the planet Mars, to replace the worship of the Sun which was performed by the sons of Misraim; he was forced to go into exile in Canaan around 1720 AD, this story having been transformed into the Exodus of Moses.

Hampton Palace, the Escorial, the Hermitage, St. Peter dome in Rome were built in the period 1780-1820.

See also: http://www.revisedhistory.org/ and http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 15, 2009, 02:01:25 AM
Here is the Triumph of Venus by F. del Cossa, allegedly painted in 1470:

http://www2.moneymuseum.com/frontend/images/images/hires/41312_4_en.jpg

Exactly the same images as in the frescoes unearthed at Pompeii:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien2.jpg

Or, the painting with the same name, Three Graces, by Raphael (allegedly 1504):

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien1.jpg

Here is an article which takes a very close look at the correct historical dating of the Vesuvius eruption which destroyed the city of Pompeii (translation from German):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en


The sites at Pompeii were excavated during the 19th century; and Raphael lived during the early 16th century (conventional chronology), and during the late 18th century (revised new chronology).

Some researchers have even suggested that the construction of the Versailles by Louis "XVI" (and not by "XIV", and these numbers were invented later on) was the cause of the so-called French Revolution (whose events were later greatly exaggerated; see the book Myth of the French Revolution by A. Cobban); there were even early observers (19th century) who made a strong case for the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte did not actually exist (but was a mythological composite of earlier and later French kings/heroes): http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: James on December 15, 2009, 01:04:02 PM
I am interested to know, to the best of your reckoning, when Monteverdi composed the opera Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, given that the sacking of Troy occured in the early 18th Century.

Since the main events of the Odyssey's last books (the subject of Il ritorno) occured two decades after the sacking of Troy, and you place the sacking of Troy somewhere in the immediate aftermath of the year 1720, conventional chronology places the composition of Monteverdi's masterpiece exactly one century prior to the events it claims to imitate.

Do you believe that Monteverdi successfully prophesised the events of exactly one century in the future, or do you believe that he existed in a later century?

If the latter, which century? If the former, I should like to further question you with regard to his alleged career as a Roman Catholic Priest, given that the Crucifixion of Christ occured shortly before the sacking of Troy, approximately 80 years after Monteverdi's death.

In short, what is the status of this opera? Is it prophetic, or is it Georgian?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 16, 2009, 09:39:03 AM
As we have seen, the Pompeii frescoes do certainly prove that a period of at least 1450 years has been fraudulently included in the official chronology. Now more proofs.

Here is the Pompeii mosaic, Battle of Alexander and Darius:

(http://mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Mosaics/BattleOfIssusMosaic.jpg)

Now, the Raphael painting, Battle of Constantine and Maxentius:

(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TEI2455.jpg)

See History Fiction or Science, volume 1, for the comparison between the two works of art, and many more details about ancient (allegedly) art and its relation to the XVII century.

The details about Monteverdi's career need to be moved forward in time about two centuries; as a Jesuit priest he certainly knew very well about the real chronology, he simply copied the Odyssey written in the period 1715-1730 (along with all the other ancient documents). Here is a site with all the major contributors to the new chronology subject: http://www.ilya.it/chrono/enpages/weristwer.html





Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: James on December 16, 2009, 01:03:16 PM
I see, that does make sense, but I must still ask you, did Monteverdi's life, in your opinion, pro- or precede that of Amadeus Mozart? By your reckoning (moved two centuries forward), Il ritorno was composed in roughly 1840, almost a half-century after the death of Mozart. Is this correct, or did Mozart also live two centuries later (i.e. 1956-1991)?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: James on December 16, 2009, 01:04:24 PM
P. S., if so, why was his death not more widely publicised?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 18, 2009, 12:55:30 AM
James, you did not read more carefully what I wrote; I appreciate very much your historical insights, and I think that you will research this subject to convince yourself that at least 5000 years of history have been fraudulently included in the official chronology. It is my opinion that Bach, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven lived in the period 1760-1840, most probably Monteverdi having lived in the earlier phase of that interval of time (we move Monteverdi about two centuries ahead in time, to the period 1760 -, we leave Mozart in the period listed officially (although we could move a few decades within that chronology, perhaps 1780 - 1815). I also believe that their approximate years of birth and death (Bach - Haydn) were made up to suit the chronology invented by J. Scaliger (who actually lived at the end of the 18th century).

I also believe that the great architect Andrea Palladio lived in the middle of the 18th century; his treatise on architecture belongs to that period (the mathematics and the drawings) and not at all to a 16th century era. Also, it becomes very clear that Rembrandt and Rubens lived in the latter period of the 18th century and not earlier.

I urge you to read History: Fiction or Science?, vol. 1 and 2, I think you will find them fascinating:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here is the exceptional analysis by Garri Kasparov concerning the invention of ancient Greece and Rome by J. Scaliger:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

You will find in this last link, the Book of Civilization, another proof that the Iliad could not possibly have been written in the period 1200-1100 BC, pg. 398, an analysis of the term Theo Hwana used by "Homer".

And James, the second derivative of the moon elongation, the D" parameter, shows clearly that our history is at most 1000 years old, see the first volume of History: Science or Fiction? by Fomenko, and my first message here. I believe that Fomenko stopped much too early during his research, and did not see that even the period 1200-1750 has been invented by later historians.



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 19, 2009, 05:25:11 AM
The best researcher in the field of the radical new chronology (and this will answer your question further) is, in my opinion, Christoph Pfister; he investigated all major "medieval" monuments/buildings and all ancient/medieval documents in Switzerland, and found out that they were built/written well after 1720; in fact he discovered that before 1700 AD nothing whatsoever is known about the history of Switzerland. Here is his best work, Matrix of Ancient History:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gk5T6bt1fA4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=pfister+die+matrix&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

And here, his site, one of the very best available today:

http://www.dillum.ch/html/inhalt.html (also includes fantastic information about the Nasa missions, in one of the links)

He discovered also that the gothic style of architecture was developed after 1750, and lasted only 20 years, and not 300 years. What Pfister was not able to determine, is what happened before 1700 AD, and this is just what we have been doing here.

Bach, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, were born in the period 1740-1745, and their style of classical music (1760-1780) was followed immediately by a short transition, to be replaced by the music composed by Mozart (I believe he lived in the period 1780 - 1816). There was no 80 year pause or period between Bach and Mozart.

Pfister came across the fact that the Vesuvius eruption which destroyed Pompeii (many proofs gathered over the years) occurred after 1750, thus Raphael must have lived in the period 1770-1790, when the Three Graces was painted (I believe the eruption took place around 1800).

The knowledge to extract metals (gold, silver, iron, copper, tin) was passed to Noah's sons (especially Khem) from the information that was available before the Flood (see the book of Enoch; the first six chapters, the Apocalypse of the Animals, the Ten Week Apocalypse were added later on however); much more technical information was also transmitted about masonry and how to build large structures, Khem's descendants inherited this knowledge, which led to the organization of the first freemasonry lodges in Troy (they built the Hagia Sophia, the Chartres cathedral, and much more).

Japhet's sons and descendants were the Slavs, and formed further (by mixing with Pelasg's heirs) the tribes of the Goths and Aryans.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: James on December 22, 2009, 06:29:08 PM
I think I know what books will be going on my Christmas list this year. This could be the start of an illuminating voyage into the annals of history, fake and real.

Thanks for your clarification on the lives of the composers. Perhaps I shall never again listen to Il ritorno with quite the same ear! I assume of course that I will discover the answers to many of my questions when I examine these materials in greater depth, however, in the mean time, I do have some further queries of you if you wouldn't mind.

In the last part of the 15th Century, and for most of the 16th Century according to the old-school version of history, the Spanish Conquistadors sailed to the New World, dismantling the Incan Empire as they went, and introducing Spanish, Smallpox and Christianity to the South American continent. Once again, I am having difficulty reconciling the 18th Century crucifixion of Christ with the zealous evangelism of 15th Century Christians, so I would like to know when the events of the Spanish Conquest actually occurred (presumably it was after events at Troy/Constantinople).

I notice also that you have mentioned a strong case for the non-existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. This is a fascinating assessment, but neccesitates some substantial revisions. I am interested as to whether you (1) explicitly accept this thesis, (2) if so, do you still consider the Battle of Waterloo to have occured? (3) If not, do you believe in the Duke of Wellington, and (4) how about George IV?

A final query, your characterisation of Nimrod is an interesting one. I notice that you've dismissed Genesis 11 as invented, does this mean that Nimrod did not in fact construct the legendary Tower of Babel? Is the tower entirely made-up, or was it in fact built at Constantinople.

By the way, I was very impressed with your analysis of Akenhaten and his followers as the originators of the the Exodus myth of Moses. I have read Freud's Moses and Monothesism, which also argues that the so-called Israelites were in fact Atenist heretics on the run. On this point I am utterly convinced. Elements of Freud's assessment closely match your own (in this one highly specific regard), to such an extent that I think you must have read it already, although if you have not I would thoroughly recommend it. An excellent stocking filler!!

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/m_and_m.jpg)

Merry Christmas Levee, and keep up the good work. I will look forward to hearing your answers.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/bell.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/boy_on_sled.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ho_ho_ho.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/merry_christmas_santa.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ho_ho_hoII.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/boy_on_sled.gif)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/bell.gif)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 24, 2009, 01:28:21 AM
The discovery of the Americas occurred first in the period 1690-1700, by Nimrod, who was called Xelhua (the giant with beard and horns); the descendants of Noah, especially Khem/Kush, had detailed maps of the continents, and on that ark they also had with them boats to take them directly and precisely to their territories (the ones they had inherited).

A few incas did escape the Flood, by hiding in a cave (the Flood lasted for only 7 days and nights), having been warned of what was to follow. Nimrod brought to the Americas the Olmecs, a tribe of kushites, which mixed with the descendants of the incas (some of them travelled to present day Guatemala/Mexico, becoming the mayas and the aztecs).

There was no journey by Columbus, who never existed; slavery went on from about 1750 to the latter part of the 19th century. There was no Jamestown, no Pilgrims; I believe the American "Revolution" took place some decades later than what we have been told; 1776 is a magical number with connections to 666, 1110, and much more. The architectural styles of Monticello, the Capitol, and White House, belong to early 19th century.

The Americas were first colonized, officially, well after the fall of Troy; maybe in the 1740s. We know now that Akhenaten (Freud does make a point in his book for the case that Moses was actually Akhenaten) and his descendants left for France after Nebuchadnezzar (a worshipper of the Sun, follower of Horus, the enemies of Akhenaten and Kush) attacked Canaan, after the death of Nimrod, then his descendants left for the New World, to establish the US. I believe the spaniards and the portuguese arrived in Central/South America after 1750, as the architectural style of the buildings in Santo Domingo (the ones we are told were built in Columbus' time) belongs clearly to the late 18th century.

Let us now put a more precise date on the eruption of Vezuvius which destroyed Pompeii.

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejidt.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-instrum.jpg)

Steel alloys for tools/instruments used in surgery dates, according to the official chronology, to 1666 (Fabritius); bronze instruments were used much later.

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-torn.jpg)

(from the Naples national archaeological museum)

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grifo.jpg)
(faucet from Pompeii)

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-vaso1.jpg)(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-vaso2.jpg)

Translation from German to English:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gie?tischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely evenly! As if it had come from the table, rolls of Saint-Gobain.



At Pompeii, we know now, there existed a large Colosseum; since the destruction of Pompeii must have taken place well after 1688 (official chronology), or after 1780 (radical revised new chronology), the technology for building the Rome Colosseum does belong to the same interval of time. Then, the official chronology which tells of Vespasian, Titus, the siege of Jerusalem, never took place, as the Colosseum was built in the 17th century (official chronology), and as we see here, actually in the end of the 18th century.

Nimrod tried to built (using the plans/drawings saved by Khem on the ark) an UFO; the term SHEM should be used instead of NAME, in the account of the tower of Babel; this tower was a launching pad for the UFO; how could a tribe of some few thousands of people (Nimrod's followers, and we can substract from that number, down to a few hundred) build a tower to reach the Heavenly Dome (at least 15 km in height)? That tower meant a ziggurat, the top of which would be used to launch the UFO (the ziggurat was used as a battery or an antenna to start the process of the mercury gyro which powered the UFO).

 
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 24, 2009, 02:47:14 AM
You wrote also about Napoleon/Wellington/George IV.

http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte will show that the historical figure of Napoleon, as described in our books, is a far cry from what actually happened at the end of the 18th century. Yes, there was a Wellington, I believe, and a battle of Waterloo, but the actual dating of these events could be modified, maybe they took place some years later perhaps. And the identity of Napoleon must be brought into question, was he actually Louis XVIII?

The French king in 1819, King Louis XVIII, is a Bourbon king and claims to have been king of France for 23 years. During this time France and England have fought many battles. This makes it quite probable that the figure "Napoleon" is actually a mythological composite of many different French heroes from many different contemporary battles between England and France.

Let us take a closer look at the alleged reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV. We are taught that Louis XIV reigned for no less than 72 years (!), 1643-1715, and Louis XV reigned for almost 60 years, 59 to be precise, 1715-1774. It is obvious that these dates were added much later, perhaps at the end of the 18th century, to account for the fact that all official documents were falsified after 1750 (see Pfister's site, www.dillum.ch, presented here earlier).

Very strange is also the reign of George III, 1760-1820; sixty years is a bit too much to be king of England, in my opinion this chronology was made up sometime after the 1840s.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 24, 2009, 03:49:24 AM
(Il ritorno by Monteverdi, one of the most accomplished composers, now we know, of the 18th century)

I think this was written sometimes after 1760 (but before 1780), and that this musical style was replaced by that of Haydn, and later by Mozart (after 1790). As Pfister discovered in Switzerland, the baroque style of architecture lasted for only about 20 years (instead of the 300 years taken into consideration by the official chronology).

As we have seen, the destruction of Pompeii did take place at least after 1688, and that Raphael must have lived, in this official chronology, in that period; the inhabitants of Pompeii would not have painted frescoes of the works of someone who lived some 170 years earlier (the Three Graces, 1504), as we can see from the artefacts, they liked everything to be modern...

Other works by Monteverdi which are very nice:
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 30, 2009, 09:01:25 AM
FAKE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY EXPERIMENTS

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..95d0404S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvD..74h1101S

In the first paper, Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, the authors of the paper committed a grave omission, failing to take into account the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf

In the second paper, signed Trimmer and Baierlein, the authors made a horrendous error, subsequently having to withdraw their article.

(https://image.ibb.co/ibmsQd/ref1.jpg)

The third paper included another huge error: the omission of the Cahill criterion.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Here is more technical proof that an ether drift experiment performed in vacuum will nullify the final results: an effect altspace had no knowledge of.

In vacuum ONE HAS TO use either torsion, pressure, sound or electricity to detect ether.

(https://image.ibb.co/g9y0BJ/mm1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jOxtWJ/mm2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nhTiWJ/mm3.jpg)

Not even if they go to 10^-30, nothing will be detected for the reasons explained above.

Fake Hafele-Keating experiment:


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

Dr. A.G. Kelly requested the actual test results that "gave figures that were radically altered from the published results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified."


Kennedy[14]   Pasadena/Mt. Wilson   1926   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.002   35   ∼ 5 km/s   0.002   yes
Illingworth[15]   Pasadena   1927   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.0004   175   ∼ 2 km/s   0.0004   yes
Piccard & Stahel[19]   with a Balloon   1926   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.006   20   ∼ 7 km/s   0.006   yes
Piccard & Stahel[20]   Brussels   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0002   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Piccard & Stahel[21]   Rigi   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0003   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Michelson et al.[22]   Mt. Wilson   1929   25.9   0.9   ≤ 0.01   90   ∼ 3 km/s   0.01   yes
Joos[16]   Jena   1930   21.0   0.75   ≤ 0.002   375   ∼ 1.5 km/s   0.002   yes

But these were VERY POORLY PERFORMED experiments which used metallic chambers to detect ether drift, which led to the discovery of the Atsukovsky effect.

Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:


"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesirable
while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212


https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992

But the team of Kopeikin and Fomalont committed a huge error in a similar study.

And that study also used VLBA.

A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says the announcement by two scientists, widely reported this past January, about the speed of gravity was wrong.

Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, has demonstrated that an “ill-advised” assumption made in the earlier claim led to an unwarranted conclusion.

“In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.”

According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light and gravity travel at the same speed, about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. Most scientists believe this is true, but the assumption was that it could only be proven through the detection of gravity waves. Sergei Kopeikin, a University of Missouri physicist, and Edward Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), believed there was an alternative.

On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar’s radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter.

To measure the delay, Fomalont set up an interferometry system using the NRAO’s Very Long Baseline Array, a group of ten 25-meter radio telescopes distributed across the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, plus the 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Kopeikin then took the data and calculated velocity-dependent effects. His calculations appeared to show that the speed at which gravity was being propagated from Jupiter matched the speed of light to within 20 percent. The scientists announced their findings in January at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Samuel argues that Kopeikin erred when he based his calculations on Jupiter’s position at the time the quasar’s radio waves reached Earth rather than the position of Jupiter when the radio waves passed by that planet.

Samuel was able to simplify the calculations of the velocity-dependent effects by shifting from a reference frame in which Jupiter is moving, as was used by Kopeikin, to a reference frame in which Jupiter is stationary and Earth is moving. When he did this, Samuel found a formula that differed from the one used by Kopeikin to analyze the data. Under this new formula, the velocity-dependent effects were considerably smaller. Even though Fomalont was able to measure a time delay of about 5 trillionths of a second, this was not nearly sensitive enough to measure the actual gravitational influence of Jupiter.

“With the correct formula, the effects of the motion of Jupiter on the quasar-signal time-delay are at least 100 times and perhaps even a thousand times smaller than could have been measured by the array of radio telescopes that Fomalont used,” Samuel says. “There’s a reasonable chance that such measurements might one day be used to define the speed of gravity, but they just aren’t doable with our current technology.”


GALAEV ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS: TOTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER

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

Dr. Galaev remarks:

Orbital component of the ether drift velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected [during the Dayton Miller experiments].

Dr. Galaev also concludes:

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.

The most precise experiments ever undertaken in ether-drift detection thus prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at a speed of 30km/s.



http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/civilevents.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

Easier access for History: Science or Fiction (1&2):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9647635/History-Fiction-or-Science-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9647726/History-Fiction-or-Science-2


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 03, 2010, 08:38:00 AM
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html (one of the best works by G. Heinsohn)

Fomenko quotes:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28896#28896
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1081&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27617#27617
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27879#27879 (not so ancient egypt)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27888#27888 (not so ancient india)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27892#27892 (not so ancient china 1)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27945#27945 (not so ancient china 2)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27981#27981 (not so ancient china 3)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1081&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120&sid=0a81b9a31c348e3a7a7375fd89e97a78

Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30145#30145

A Mysterious Metal

One of the best-kept secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been the discovery of metals in the black ink. That finding was buried in unpublished results, and wasn't unearthed until 1996. The presence of metals further points to the scrolls being of medieval origin.
Scientific testing of the scrolls in the early 1950s found silver, manganese, iron and other metals in the black ink used on the scrolls. Scholars tried to downplay the discovery of these metals by saying that some of them, like copper and lead, were byproducts of leaching from a bronze inkwell. Yet silver, manganese and iron are not components in the making of bronze. The 1990s tests also detected the presence of strontium and titanium but could not tell if they were pure. (In its purest form, neither element was isolated until the 1800s.)

Edwin Johnson, who proved that the pauline epistles were written at least after 1533 BC:

http://www.radikalkritik.de/antiqua_mater.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/pauline_epistles.htm
http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

C. Pfister: ancient/medieval documents written after 1730, Trajan's column built in the same era as the columns of the Charles Cathedral in Viena, the Bern Cathedral built after 1730:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Finhalt.html&sl=de&tl=en

(follow the links in the main page for the St. Charles Cathedral, Bern Cathedral, Abbey Library)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 05, 2010, 12:48:22 AM
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 [1]. This problem, particularly, was talked about during the discussion organized in 1972 by the London Royal Society and British Academy of Sciences [1]. 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 ([4], [6]).

While calculating the date of an observation, the parameter D'' may be ignored. The dependence of D'' on t has been obtained by Newton ([4], [6]), who received 12 values (evaluations) for D'', based on 370 observations of ancient and medieval eclipses preserved in ancient documents ([4], p. 113). These eclipses were supplied with the dates contained in [2], [3] [gorm].

References

[1] 'The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World', A discussion organized jointly for the Royal Society
and the British Academy. 1972, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A, Math. and Phys. Sci. 276(1976), 1-276.
[2]. Ginzel, F. K.: 1899, Specieller Canon der Sonner und Mondfinsternisse, Berlin, Mayer-Muller.
[3] Oppolzer, Th.: 1887, Canon der Sonner und Mondfinsternisse, Denkschriften, Wien, 52.
[4] Newton, R. R. : 1974, 'Two Uses of Ancient Astronomy', Phil. Trans. Roy. Sic. London, Ser. A. Math. and Phys. Sci. 276,99-115.
[5] Newton. R. R. : 'Astronomical Evidence Concerning Non-gravitational Forces in the Earth-Moon
System', Astrophys. Space Sci. 16, 179-200.
[6] Newton, R. R.: 1970, 'Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon', Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press.


(http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec1.gif)

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" ([4], p.114-115).

R.R. Newton:

I shall not treat the famous question of how Ptolemy obtained his star table. Instead, I shall mention briefly his solar data, which, it seems to me, are unquestionably a hoax. Ptolemy (ca. 152, chap. m.2) gives, to the hour, the times of two autumnal equinoxes, one vernal equinox, and one summer solstice. He says that these times were measured with great care. However, the errors in them are more than a day, whereas Hipparchus three centuries before him had made such measurements with errors of only 2 or 3 h. On the other hand, the data agree exactly, to every numerical digit written down, with what we would calculate from Hipparchus's data and the value for the mean motion of the Sun. It is almost impossible that such errors and such agreement could happen by chance.

(http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/nnt2p1.gif)

The most striking feature of figure 1 is the rapid decline in D" from about 700 to about 1300. When we remember that the values plotted in figure 1 represent the average between any epoch and 1900, this decline means that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D", and that the osculating D" during the period 700-1300 had a value around 40"/century2 or more. Such changes in D", and such values, are incapable of explanation by present geophysical theories.

The small value of D" during the period of classical antiquity (before about 500) should also be noted. From -700 ro +500, the mean D" was probably smaller in magnitude than it has been at any time during the past 1000 years.

Ancient and medieval astronomical data allow us to form 25 independent estimates of the important acceleration parameter D", at various epochs from about -700 to +1300. These estimates, combined with modern data, show that D" has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 years.

In two recent studies (Newton, 1970 and 1972), I have analyzed about 600 observations, with dates ranging from June 15, 763 BCE to April 2, 1288 CE, for the purpose of studying the accelerations of the Earth and Moon. This is many times the number of observations that had been used before for this purpose. Further, except for one oversight, I believe that I have analyzed every ancient astronomical record that has been used by any earlier worker for the purpose of studying the accelerations.

Newton, R. R.: 1970, Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Newton, R.R.: 1972, Medieval Chronicles and the Rotation of the Earth, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, in press.

I have found about 375 records that seem to be independent and reliable, which we can date accurately, and for which we know the place of observation with useful accuracy (Newton. 1972).

I divided the medieval records chronologically into twelve sets and formed an estimate of D" for each set. The results are shown in Figure 3, which is reproduced from the reference. The straight lines in the figure are those from Figure 2, without the refinement of the curved section. The twelve points and error bars are the estimates of D" formed from the twelve sets of data. The figure provides almost overwhelming confirmation of the hypothesis that D" is far from constant and that its behavior changed suddenly near the year 700, if the analysis has been done correctly.

(http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/nnt1p3.gif)

The parameter D", which is a linear combination of the accelerations of the Earth and Moon, can be followed as a function of time with high confidence from about 700 BCE to the present. From its behavior, we are apparently forced to conclude that there was something like a 'square wave' in the non-gravitational forces that began about 700 CE and that lasted until about 1300 CE. During the time of this square wave, the accelerations apparently changed by factors of around 5.


HERCULANEUM WINDOW GLASS:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhiTvOymZiRyKVsDGRQBrehOYDKiyQ#15

google translate http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm#15


(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg)
(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg)

Translation from German to English:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gietischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely evenly! As if it had come from the table, rolls of Saint-Gobain.


THE TECHNOLOGY FOR MANUFACTURING THIS KIND OF WINDOW GLASS WAS INVENTED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY IN 1688 AT ST. GOBAIN:

http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp

THEREFORE THE ERUPTION OF THE VESUVIUS TOOK PLACE AT LEAST AFTER 1700 AD, WHICH MEANS THAT BOTH SCALIGER AND PETAVIUS MUST HAVE LIVED SOME 100 YEARS LATER THAN IS CURRENTLY ACCEPTED.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 06, 2010, 03:57:04 AM
It is easier to show and to prove that the official chronology of world history has been drastically altered, this being the work of the same conspirators who invented the round earth scenario.

As we have seen here, the actual eruption which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum took place at least after 1700 AD, and NOT in the year 79 AD.

Here is the Mystery of the Egyptian Zodiacs:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/Zodiacs.html (http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/Zodiacs.html)
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/timeline.html (http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/timeline.html)



Let us summarize the dates obtained for the Egyptian
zodiacs:

1. Round Denderah Zodiac (DR): the morning of March
20, 1185 A.D.
2. Long Denderah Zodiac (DL): April 22-26, 1168 A.D.
3. Big Esna Zodiac (EB): March 31-April 3, 1394 A.D.
4. Small Esna Zodiac (EM): May 6-8, 1404 A.D.
5. Athribis Zodiacs of Flinders Petrie:
 Upper Athribis Zodiac (AV): May 15-16, 1230
A.D.
 Lower Athribis Zodiac (AN): February 9-10, 1268
A.D.
6. Brugsch's Zodiac (BR) containing three main horoscopes,
each of them showing different date:
 Demotic Horoscope: November 18, 1861 A.D.
 Horoscope withoutWalking Sticks: October 6-7,
1841 A.D.
 Horoscope in Boats: February 15, 1853 A.D.
7. Thebes zodiac of Ramses VII (OU): September 5-8,
1182 A.D.
8. Petosiris Zodiacs (P1) and (P2):
 First Solution:
Outer Petosiris Zodiac (P1): August 5, 1227 A.D.
Inner Petosiris Zodiac (P2): March 24-25, 1240
A.D.
 Second Solution (conditional for (P2)):
Outer Petosiris Zodiac (P1): August 10, 1430 A.D.
Inner Petosiris Zodiac (P2): April 17, 1477 A.D.
 Third Solution:
Outer Petosiris Zodiac (P1): August 2, 1667 A.D.
Inner Petosiris Zodiac (P2): April 2, 1714 A.D.
9. Ramses VI Zodiac (RS):
 First Solution: February 4-5, 1289 A.D.
 Second Solution: February 20-21, 1586 A.D.
Notice that, although there are three final solutions possible
dates for the Petosiris zodiacs, all of them are late medieval
dates.

It is estimated by Egyptologists that the burial tradition
in the Valleys of the Kings lasted for about 400-500 years.

Based on our astronomical dating of the zodiacs from the
tombs, this period should be shorten to about 250-300 years.

On the other hand, the epoch these burials should be shifted
in time much closer to the present times.

Conclusion: We can claim with high probability that the
events of the pharaohs epoch described in ancient history of
Egypt took place not many thousand years before the Christian
era, but during the epoch from the 11th to 15th centuries
A.D.

That means 400-1000 years ago. However, in the
case of the great Egyptian temples, the dates encoded in the
zodiacs indicate the epoch from the end of the 12th century
till beginning of the 15th century A.D.

There was no ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt (see also the Book of Civilization, posted earlier).

JERUSALEM, ACTUALLY TROY/CONSTANTINOPOLE, WITH THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN THE BACKGROUND:

SEE PAGE 12

THE ORIGINAL QUOTE FROM THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS, WHO ACTUALLY WITNESSED THE CRUCIFIXION, WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 1715 AD, AT CONSTANTINOPOLE:

SEE PAGE 12

Here, these conspirators have committed a grave error, and forgot to change the actual wording used. See also the Pauline Epistles classic, by E. Johnson posted earlier here...

ENTRANCE OF CHRIST IN TROY:

SEE PAGE 12

PILATE THE TROJAN:

SEE PAGE 12


This is how our official world history (this chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360) has been changed so that we would believe in an ancient world which never existed; this conspiracy goes even beyond that of the shape of the earth, and it is easier to show how it happened.



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 07, 2010, 02:47:07 AM
In every direct debate, so far, none of the detractors have been able to prove anything pertaining to the existence of the round earth hypothesis; the flat earth debate is pretty much over, as we have shown here very easily that there is no curvature at the surface of the earth, and that gravity is not attractive (on the contrary).

Here is the Black Sun in all its splendour, the heavenly body which ACTUALLY DOES cause the solar eclipse:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913473#msg913473
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910271#msg910271


More facts on the new chronology of history:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg854193#msg854193 (the Three Graces by Raphael completely identical to the fresco unearthed at Pompeii)

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

History: Fiction or Science?, vol. 1 and 2:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false


More artifacts from Pompeii:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg861961#msg861961

Edwin Johnson, who proved that the pauline epistles were written at least after 1533 BC:

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

We have shown here that both Scaliger and Petavius lived at least at the beginning of the 18th century; before 1720 there were no cathedrals, no new/old testaments, everything was made up after this date, and the events of the crucifixion of Christ (who was thracian and NOT hebrew) were moved back in time and the place itself was changed to Jerusalem.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 09, 2010, 02:30:16 AM
FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM

Heliocentrism (or the more commonly referred to Acentrism) has never been proven, despite having been taught as fact for the last four-hundred years. Even supposed proofs like Foucault's Pendulum do not prove the rotation of the world either, because firstly on a very basic level this phenomenon could be explained in a geocentric model via the gravitational pull caused by the rotation of the entire universe rotating diurnally about a fixed Earth.

The true answer is that all of the serous three story high pendulums that are located in museums around the world (like the one in Paris for example), have there own problems which are not usually talked about.

For instance, not many know that at the very top of the pendulum next to the cable mounting there is a small motorized pin that always stays horizontally opposed to the cable. This pin rotates very slowly, once daily, so as to always ensure the pendulums reliability when hitting the radial teeth once every hour as it swings to and fro. Finally, the pendulum is always cranked up every morning by the caretaker.

From Galileo was wrong:

One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion' it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.

Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.

Einstein was intrigued by, but ambiguous about, Mach's principle. This is strange, because Mach's principle states a principle of relativity for rotation, similar to Special Relativity's assertion concerning relative linear motion. An inconsistency with relativity would arise if rotational effects were not reciprocal. Distant masses would be discounted as a potent source of inertia.

No measurement of absolute or preferred rotation has been made to test whether the Earth is rotating or its surroundings. Until such a test is performed, Mach's principle is a valid statement; it has not been disproven experimentally. It is only a hurdle in the minds of those who wish it were not so.

By maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, he maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.

The Foucault Pendulum

By 1851, despite Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler no proof existed of the rotation of the earth.

At that time Leon Foucault 'invented' a contrivance that supposedly PROVED the rotation of the earth. 

Foucault was a failure until Napoleon III became his patron!!

Foucault was a failure at everything he did until Louis Napoleon became his patron. Louis was the nephew of the emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and became president of France in 1848. In 1851, he abolished civil liberties and declared himself dictator of France.

Foucault's pendulum in the church of the Pantheon in Paris. The pendulum had a specially rigged device on top to make it sway a certain way. Of course it was not visible from the floor. Notice also that the pendulum was not swinging in a VACUUM where air currents could not influence its sway.

In front of this display was a big sign which read: COME SEE THE PROOF THAT THE EARTH IS TURNING!!

The French scientific community were not amused by Foucault's folly and refused to make him a member of the French Academy.

Pressure from the emperor finally caused them to relent and 2 years before his death, Foucault was finally made a member of that august body.


Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as 'proofs' of heliocentricity!

Richard Elmendorf has done a tremendous amount of research on the Foucault Pendulum and has published it in an illustrated 84-page monograph entitled Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum.

It may be ordered for $5 from the Pittsburgh Creation Society, P.O. Box 267, Bairdford, PA 15006, U.S.A. Please add appropriate postage (about $2.50 should cover postage, and shipping envelope, I think). 

One personal note about Elmendorf's work. He writes that most Foucault pendulums are not free-swinging, that they are damped and are constrained to swing in a plane. Without such damping the bob tends to start tracing out an ellipse which makes it hard to see the precession.




There are eloquent FE theory proponents here, which however must rely upon a FAQ which is immediately taken advantage of by the round earth proponents; as you can see on the main boards, the debate centers always around the supporting theory (size/diameter of the sun, origin of satellites), which the RE believers have shown to be wrong.


Since we are told that J. Kepler was a best friend of J. Scaliger, we can see that Kepler actually lived in the 18th century (mid-18th century); both R. Newton and A. Fomenko have shown that Kepler was the author of the Almagest and wrote all the books ascribed to Ptolemy, Hipparchus and other "greek" astronomers; there were no Koppernigk, Galilei or Brahe; the conspirators cleverly invented a controversy which never existed, in order to justify the introduction of the disastrous round earth theory.


More details re: the jump of the second derivative of the moon elongation, in History: Science or Fiction, vol.1, pg. 93-94 and here:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm
http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

All ancient astronomical records, between 700 BC - 1300 AD, have been completely falsified, this having been done in the 18th century.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 04:51:35 AM
I think you've made the link between The Conspiracy and your ideas on the falsification of history much clearer in your last couple of posts. Also, do you think there's any chance we could make a new thread containing the actual content posted on the .net site, instead of just links? I'd be happy to help out in putting it together.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 09, 2010, 05:18:20 PM
What spurred me to ask is that when .net went down, the vast majority of his content (linked earlier in this thread) was no longer accessible. It would be a real shame to lose any of it, so I'd like to see it here as well.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 09, 2010, 05:21:47 PM
Dante was actually part of the Knight's Templar affair?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 10, 2010, 02:20:29 AM
There were no Knights Templar before 1700 AD; as for Dante...

http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm

"WE ARE GLUTTONS FOR FALSE FACTS; OUR CRAVING FOR FRAUD REJECTS ALL TRUTH BUT THE LOOK OF IT. We bring to the most improbable past an 'immense assumption of veracities and sanctities, of the general soundness of the legend', notes Henry James; we accept the 'extraneous, preposterous stuffing' of its empty reliquary ["repository or receptacle for relics"] shell. GLORYING IN FRAUD HELPS TO EXORCISE THE ANCIENT TERROR THAT A PAST NOT PERFECTLY TRANSMITTED WILL REVENGE ITSELF ON US. WE NEED FAKES TO SHIELD US FROM TOO SHARP A KNOWLEDGE. THE FALSE PAST COEXISTS ALONGSIDE THE TRUTH THAT EXPOSES IT, TO CUSHION THE EROSION OF SUSTAINING MYTH."

Also read the book by Edwin Johnson, The Pauline Epistles...and the Book of Civilization (with an introduction by Garry Kasparov).

http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm

(http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5bk.jpg)

Baalbek stones, 1200 tons

The descendants of Misraim (Osiris) and Kush (Seth) used levitation to move the huge blocks of stone seen at Stonehenge, the temples of Egypt (as we have seen, the zodiacs were created in the last few hundred years; H. Carter KNEW EXACTLY where to dig to find Tutankhamon's burial chamber, as the tomb was prepared for such a discovery in the 19th century).

Levitation can be accomplished by applying a very high electrical tension or by sound:

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

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

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

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

Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

The biography of F. Nipher:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?ArticleID=0000301&file=Data&report=SingleArticle


http://www.labyrinthina.com/coral.htm (Coral Temple; levitation)

Tibetan Stone levitation:

http://www.rense.com/general42/soundlev.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid08.htm (exceptionally documented)

http://theunexplainedmysteries.com/levitation-secrets.html


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on April 10, 2010, 05:06:03 AM
What spurred me to ask is that when .net went down, the vast majority of his content (linked earlier in this thread) was no longer accessible. It would be a real shame to lose any of it, so I'd like to see it here as well.
I keep daily local backup sof all .net data.  It will never be gone for good.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 10, 2010, 07:34:02 AM
What spurred me to ask is that when .net went down, the vast majority of his content (linked earlier in this thread) was no longer accessible. It would be a real shame to lose any of it, so I'd like to see it here as well.
I keep daily local backup sof all .net data.  It will never be gone for good.


Oh, well that's good. Still, it would make things easier to navigate if it was all here. I'll talk to levee about this and other organisational issues via PM. I'd like to see his material presented in the best possible manner.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on April 10, 2010, 03:16:09 PM
So do you think levitation is something commonly preformed [currently]?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 11, 2010, 09:13:11 AM
Yes, it is performed by using the Biefeld-Brown effect, which unifies "gravity" and electricity; levitation can be achieved by sound also, as you have the account re: tibetan stone levitation.

Sound is the highest quality of the fourth state of matter (ether or akasha). The first state of ether arises due to high vibrations of sound. It says that matter has a sound aspect, and when a vibration is caused it generates an acoustical wave which travels through the air working with it concurrently and resulting in oscillations of paticles in the air and this causes the intermolecular space of the air to rise in vibrations and causes the atoms to eventually work into the first state of the ether.

The german UFO used a different strategy, as they needed much more power to achieve their flight performances; they used mercury gyros. To power up the torsion field generator, they used a modification of the Hans Coler tachyon device:

http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb.htm

(http://kendalastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/anu.jpg)

This is what a tachyon looks like (subquark/omegan/preon). The bubbles of light which make up the strings are the Higgs bosons (akasha in vedic physics terminology); magnetism is a flow of astral atoms (strings of bubbles of light) which come out of the tachyon.

Implosion of the atom means that the mercury dissolves into positive and negative subquarks, which then are used to create a powerful aetheric shield around the UFO.

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm


For every claim re: the flat earth theory and the radical new chronology I make in my messages, I bring copious proofs, as you all know well by now; what I am saying is that the official FAQ needs to be changed given the fact that the transit videos show clearly that the diameter of the sun cannot be 1,4 million km or 32 miles (50 km), and the earth-sun distance could not possibly measure 149 million km or 3000 miles (4800 km); the matter of the Dome must be taken into account also, I have shown that gravity is not attractive, therefore we are left with just two choices: a rotational type of gravity, and gravity caused by pressure. It is obvious that the force which is currently thought to be attractive gravity, is actually of a pressure type; but the force which keeps the planets/stars on their orbit is rotational, therefore there must a screen/dome between the earth and the planets (a large scale version of the Tesla Shield).

None of the users who say that there are mistakes or ridiculous passages in my messages, have been able to prove this once I got into a direct debate with them, on the contrary.

Here is the most detailed FAQ possible, taking all aspects into account, each and every one of them accompanied by PROOFS and sound arguments:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=b9adab5d2e057ad672036df7d4a830b6

I believe that my work can and should be used by the FES, as it provides the proofs needed to combat any and all round earth claims/arguments.

Now, to get back to the new radical chronology matter.

The same people who thought up the round earth fairy tale ARE THE SAME conspirators who invented a fictional history, prior to 1720 AD. For those who think that this is ridiculous, here are the facts re: the eruption which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, again.

The Three Graces, Pompeii fresco, official chronology 79 AD:

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien2.jpg)

The Three Graces, Raphael painting, official chronology 1504 AD:

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien1.jpg)

As the official excavations began after 1750 AD, and Raphael did not have a time machine to take him back 14 centuries, it is obvious that the Pompeii fresco IS A COPY MADE AFTER THE ORIGINAL BY RAPHAEL.

Here are the Three Graces by F. del Cossa, 1474 AD (official chronology):

http://www2.moneymuseum.com/frontend/images/images/hires/41312_4_en.jpg

"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007.

The Renaissance occurred during the period 1720-1750 AD, and not two to three centuries earlier.

Here are the artifacts from Pompeii:

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-instrum.jpg)

Surgical instruments which, according to the official chronology were used only after 1666 (the treatise of Fabritius Hildanus).

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-vaso2.jpg)

Translation from german to english:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gie?tischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely even! As if it had come off from the table rolls of Saint-Gobain.

The window glass from Herculaneum:

(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg)(http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg)

This window glass, according to official chronology, could have been manufactured ONLY AFTER 1688 AD: http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp

I have just proven to you that the eruption which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum took place at least AFTER 1700 AD: there were no Plinius the Elder, Dio Cassius, Vespasian.

The Colosseum was built around 1725-1730 (see the smaller version unearthed at Pompeii), as was the Pantheon.

The Romans could not have built ANYTHING, not even a single brick, because of the number system they used, according to official chronology:

But let us return to mathematics and to ancient Rome. The Roman numeral system discouraged serious calculations. How could the ancient Romans build elaborate structures such as temples, bridges, and aqueducts without precise and elaborate calculations? The most important deficiency of Roman numerals is that they are completely unsuitable even for performing a simple operation like addition, not to mention multiplication, which presents substantial difficulties (see Figure 2). In early European universities, algorithms for multiplication and division using Roman numerals were doctoral research topics. It is absolutely impossible to use clumsy Roman numbers in multi-stage calculations. The Roman system had no numeral "zero." Even the simplest decimal operations with numbers cannot be expressed in Roman numerals.

Just try to add Roman numerals:

MCDXXV
+
MCMLXV


or multiply :

DCLIII and
CXCIX

Try to write a multiplication table in Roman numerals. What about fractions and operations with fractions?

(http://www.revisedhistory.org/images/mtable.jpg)

Christoph Pfister, one of the best researchers of the new radical chronology, discovered that there were NO HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PRIOR TO 1700 AD IN SWITZERLAND, and that all major gothic buildings (including the Bern cathedral) were built after 1730, and that all "medieval" documents kept at the Abbey Library were in fact forgeries belonging to the 18th century (see his site, I posted the address earlier).

I always use the very best proofs, here is the Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon Elongation (proving clearly that all astronomical records between 700 BC - 1300 AD are later forgeries):

(http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9299/moon1v.jpg)

(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/135/moon2i.jpg)
(http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/6551/moon3l.jpg)

Are you going to call R. Newton's work as "ridiculous"? R. Newton is one of the most prestigious astrophysicists of the 20th century, here is the impecable analysis of the ancient astronomical records:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm
http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm








Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 11, 2010, 10:00:21 AM
DAYTON MILLER ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg751624#msg751624 (part I)

And there is more...

Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland, when the most serious data which requires
attention is from his Mt. Wilson experiments. I'm sure one could find
unpublished data from Michelson as well, or from Einstein's work -- it
may have historical significance, but is not the point of discussion if
you wish to refute what provides a foundation for much of new interest
in ether and ether-drift. I have no idea why Glen Deen gave you this
data set, instead of something from the Mt. Wilson experiments. Maybe
he can clarify this.

2) The tests in Cleveland would very likely have produced a signal far
below that of the Mt. Wilson experiments, given the effect of altitude
-- higher altitudes produce higher ether-drift velocities, as
documented by Galaev. Therefore, whatever your critique of the
Cleveland 1927 experiments were, they would not apply, or apply only
less-so to the Mt. Wilson experiments of 1925-26. You cannot presume
to assert the "signal to noise" levels were the same for both sets of
experiments. That's an unproven assumption.

3) Even if we assume, the variance within the measurements for any one
of the four seasonal epochs at Mt. Wilson was large, to rest upon that
observation and go no farther is to miss the forest for the trees.
Larger patterns in data sets often are not apparent or ammenable to
analysis via statistical methodology, but rather require dynamical
methods of analysis, or sometimes graphical or
geographical-astrocartographical methods. For example:

4) I did not mean to imply that low-altitude ether-drift experiments
would yield "no signal" at all. They do, but apparently of a reduced
intensity. Consequently, we might ask if the August 1927 data which
you analyzed yielded a variation over sidereal-clock coordinates? And
if so, is this variation along the same sidereal hour axis as what
Miller noted for the Mt. Wilson experiments, even if the velocity
determination would be at a lower level? If so, that would be in
keeping with his overall theory and findings. Miller's pre-Mt.Wilson
tests in Cleveland DID occasionally show similar vectors, as did the
Morley-Miller and even the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yes, he did a
lot of testing and control experiments, as Einstein was at the time
proclaiming (without evidence) that Miller's work was the consequence
of "thermal artifacts". So he did a lot of work to show, exactly, how
the interferometer would react to both small and large external heating
effects, and precautions were undertaken, such as shielding the
interferometer arms with insulation, and so on. NONE of those
experiments -- Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, or Miller in Cleveland
ever produced a fully "null" or "zero" result, which by itself is
significant. But the data was best at Mt. Wilson, and likewise
Michelson-Pease-Pearson also got their best result at Mt. Wilson.
Miller addressed this consideration in the 1933 paper, and
Michelson-Morley were also aware of their own slight positive result,
stating in the 1887 paper the need to perform the experiment over other
seasonal periods -- which they never did. Only Miller did so. The
fact that all four seasonal epochs of the Mt. Wilson experiments
yielded similar sidereal-hour vectors for the axis of drift, and that
this also was the same (though reduced) axis which could be extracted
from the original Michelson-Morley experiment, is THE significant
consideration, even if the velocity determinations were slightly
variable. This is what we call a highly-structured pattern in the
data. The fact that Galaev later found a similar axis of drift in his
work, and the seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" also show a
similar pattern, is "icing on the cake" so to speak.

5) High "signal to noise" ratios plague other data sets from natural
phenomena, such as climate patterns. Daily precipitation is a function
of solar heating and shifting of wind and pressure patterns. But if we
look for variations in precipitation as an indicator of solar heating,
it requires a lot of years of data before we get a climatic curve which
approximates the smooth latitudinal shifting of the sun's location, and
hence, solar heating of the lower atmosphere. Over shorter periods,
rainfall quantities may be extremely variable with large quantities one
day or week, nothing the next day or week, and so on over the years,
with some years very wet, others in drought. If we presume ignorance
of how solar heating works to stimulate rains, we would be hard pressed
to find this pattern in all the "noise" of daily precipitation
variation. We would in fact only find the pattern by recording
precipitation over the year, and then averaging the data by week or
month. Only then, you get a pattern which is valuable, and allows some
degree of confidence and prediction of when a "rainy season" or "dry
season" will occur. Likewise also, I would imagine, with the
determinations of anisotropy in 3-deg.K. in open space -- a lot of
variation, no way to make "statistical analysis" but when it is plotted
on a map -- or along a simple graphical ordination representing
sidereal hour -- it makes a pattern which is important to consider.

Unfortunately, I have no computer-readable data files for Miller. My
role was mostly historical, basically finished after the data sets were
finally obtained, and others set out on that task. I cannot speak to
what Glen Deen and others are doing with the data. My larger interest
today is in the work of Galaev, who developed an elegant and very
simple interferometer using parallel light beams, and seems
potentially easier to use, less afflicted by vibrations, and possibly
could be rendered far more sensitive given current technology. My push
has been, for more experiments to be undertaken, rather than merely to
analyze Miller over and over. I must disagree that your DSP method
will ever critically undermine Miller's findings, if only because my
points above cannot be overcome by purely statistical arguments. If
Miller's four different seasonal epochs had yielded four different
points in the heavens, four different axes of ether-drift, then surely
a rejection of his work would be fully in order and legitimate. But I
encourage you to look again at Figure 2 in my Miller paper.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
This shows Miller's data organized firstly by sidereal hour, and
secondly by civil clock time. By sidereal hour, there is a distinct
pattern in the data, one which appears to be robust enough even to
survive your argument about the need for error-bars. However, when the
same data is organized by civil clock time, the pattern vanishes. This
is the issue which you need to address, and it will not be defeated
with DSP methods.

As noted, I do have copies of all of Miller's data sheets, being the
guy who stimilated their re-discovery from dusty storage rooms. You
mention only the one data sheet of Figure 8 from his 1933 paper, which
showed the results of 19 turns of the interferometer over about a
15-minute period. This is like, extracting rainfall records for one
month of one year, exclaiming there is "no solar-related pattern" and
ignoring all the rainfall data from many other months and years. Sure,
look at only one data sheet, and clear determinations may be
insufficient. But really, your DSP analysis was not of that data
sheet, nor of the hundreds of other data sheets from Mt. Wilson.

I have no interests to second-guess Miller's methods, and your claims
really don't suggest any serious reason why one should be concerned.
Nobody including Michelson had any problem with Miller's methods or
findings at the time when he was doing his work, other than Einstein,
who was no expert in the ether-drift methods. In fact Miller was the
student of Morley, and learned the methods as handed down from
Michelson and Michelson-Morley. You presume to have us believe you
know more about it than they did, even though you haven't undertaken an
analysis of the very same published data from which Miller's
conclusions were derived. And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.

Regards,

James DeMeo

"But we must pause at this juncture to critique Miller’s thinking process, for
he, being a Copernican, is basing his interpretation of data on his belief that
the Earth is moving at least 30 km/sec through space. Interestingly enough, it
is precisely because of this presupposition that Miller runs into some
unexplained difficulty, since his observations begin to conflict with his
mathematical calculations. The one anomaly in all past interferometer
experiments that Miller discovered was the experimenters assumed they knew the
precise velocity of the Earth through the ether in combination with the solar
system’s supposed motion toward the constellation of Hercules, but did they
really know? The geocentrist, of course, would answer that they did not know.
In any case, Miller’s 1925 experiment took into account this “anomaly” and he
made his calculations accordingly. Since he assumed the Earth was moving 30
km/sec, he combined this with the four positions (February, April, August,
September) that he examined of the Earth’s orbit around the sun and then used
Pythagorean geometry to determine the speed of the Earth toward the
constellation Draco, which came to 208 km/sec.[2] In other words, 208 km/sec is
what Miller believed to be the Earth’s absolute speed through the ether. Of
course, being a heliocentrist, Miller is assuming that the ether is motionless
and that the Earth is moving through it. In any case, Miller’s 1933 paper
reveals that his Pythagorean calculations do not match what he observed in the
fringe shifts. As we will recall, his experimental fringe shifts showed a
maximum of 10 km/sec, but this figure is less than his computed value by a
factor of twenty! Miller did not have an answer for this problem, and it is
left as an open-ended question in his 1933 paper. The answer, of course, is
that Miller’s Pythagorean calculations were based on a faulty premise (i.e.,
that the Earth was moving). If that factor were eliminated, his calculations
would be in accord with his observations. The same can be said of recent
experiments performed by Stefan Marinov, in the late 1970s, using
coupled-mirror interferometry.

Miller configured the four interferometer readings in the form of a
parallelogram (February, April, August, September), which assumes the Earth is
in orbit around the sun. The diagonal of each of the four parallelogram points
represents the apex of that period, while the long side represents the motion,
which is coincident with the center of orbit; the short side of the
parallelogram represents Earth velocity of 30 km/sec. Hence, knowing the
direction of the three sides of the triangle, and the magnitude of one side,
allows one to calculate the magnitude of the other sides, which for Miller was
208 km/sec toward Dorado."


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 21, 2010, 04:05:53 AM
Mach's Principle/Geocentric Coriolis Effect

"The effect of the Coriolis force is an apparent deflection of the path of an object that moves within a rotating coordinate system. The object does not actually deviate from its path, but it appears to do so because of the motion of the coordinate system. On the Earth an object that moves along a north-south path, or longitudinal line, will undergo apparent deflection to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere."

(http://www.dyarstraights.com/msgundam/CORIOLIS.GIF)

By maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, E. Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, Mach maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.

Mach's Principle: A body experiences no inertial forces when it is at rest or in uniform motion with respect to the center of mass of the entire universe. When its motion is nonuniform (accelerated) with respect to the total mass of the universe, it experiences forces such as centrifugal force and the Coriolis effect. Hence, the "local" behavior of matter is influenced by the "global" properties of the universe, i.e., those properties that describe the universe as a whole, which are studied in cosmology.

More details, concerning the application of Mach's Principle to Foucault's Pendulum can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg944125#msg944125

The Lense-Thirring effect as a consequence of Mach's Principle:

http://www.answers.com/topic/mach-s-principle

H. Thirring observed that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein's 1915 work: "the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations." That is, Einstein's field equations are structured to supply the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. Thus, H. Thirring notes that: "...in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces."

Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs. 344 & 345 says:

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Einstein himself also says:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"


Therefore, distant rotary masses can cause local inertial forces, like the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, which perfectly mimic the inertial effects of a spinning Earth . This implies that there are two possible explanations for the inertial forces whenever objects are in relative rotational motion.

Mach's principle has been confirmed in theory by Hans Thirring and no experimental test has ever disproved this principle of relative motion.

The experiment performed by J. Barbour and B. Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. There have arisen some questions re: the Lagrangian used by Barbour and Bertotti and also about the coordinate transformations discussed in their article, but the main experiment showed, quite clearly that Mach's Principle is correct.

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Overview-Barbour-Bertotti

Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the Earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the Earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as 'proofs' of heliocentricity!



Round earth supporters, therefore, cannot use the Coriolis effect as a "proof" that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, on the contrary.

For us, for the flat earth theory, Mach's Principle is a great scientific tool to be used whenever an argument arises which might include the concept of the Coriolis force/effect; in flat earth theory variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients caused by the gates/openings in the first dome (that is why, to present flat earth theory without the concept of the dome, complicates things very much).

Heavenly Dome:
http://www.infidelguy.com/heaven_sky.htm
http://www.peterwallace.org/essays/flatearth.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20070927011927/http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

Since there is no attractive gravity, there must be a shield or screen between the orbits of the planets/sun/moon (whose motions can only be explained by a rotational kind of gravity caused by aether) and the pressure type of gravity which is caused by the cosmic rays (aether, tachyons) as they act upon the receptive vortices of the subquarks which make up the atoms.




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 24, 2010, 02:22:59 AM
In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0) ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, re: flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.

As I have mentioned before, S. Rowbotham made several mistakes when discussing the secondary (supporting) flat earth theory (earth-sun distance, solar eclipse, circumpolar constellations), that is why it is very important to present the facts from an awesome and powerful position, one which will silence immediately any and all round earth arguments.

Here is the correct map for the flat earth, which should replace immediately the map used in the official FAQ (based on Rowbotham's northern circumpolar constellations; the center of the Earth is located next to the sea of Marmara, and there are three kinds of stellar orbits: southern/northern circumpolar and regular, more details below):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910260#msg910260 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910260#msg910260)

(http://web.archive.org/web/20061224004927/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072ba965_0020000201752_00_600.jpg)

Now, the Piri Reis map is not the most complete map possible: I believe that the real shapes of North/South America (especially USA, Canada, and Brazil) and that of Africa and Australia are somewhat different from what we have been led to believe, but it answers immediately and completely any and all questions re: airplance flights (Santiago - Sydney, Santiago - Juneau, London - Sydney, Tokyo - Los Angeles, London - Tokyo, Shanghai - Los Angeles) and much more.

Why argue endlessly using the wrong map, when I have given you a much better map, which silences immediately any round earth proponents' concerns.

There are three kinds of stellar orbits, here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg)

See the following links for complete explanations:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520)

The size (diameter) of the Sun, and the Earth - Sun distance in the FAQ must be modified to read: diameter of the Sun - 600 meters (to be elegant, we use 1000/PHI ~618 meters), Earth - Sun distance 10 - 12 km. HERE ARE THE PROOFS, real time videos of the ISS/Mercury Sun transits, also the ISS Moon transit.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910271#msg910271 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910271#msg910271)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547)

These links include the photographs of the Black Sun which, as you can see, has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun.

For the best information re: the Sun, see the alternative FAQ:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183) (page 1)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15) (page 2)


The debate flat earth vs. round earth reduces, really, to one issue: is there any curvature at the surface of the Earth?


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

(http://)

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


Multiple photographs taken from Port Credit, Etobicoke, Grimsby, Hamilton over the lake Ontario, no curvature whatsoever:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32641.msg805747#msg805747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32641.msg805747#msg805747)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32641.msg806466#msg806466 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32641.msg806466#msg806466)


We do not even need to debate in terms of photographs or videos; all we really need is to show that there is no attractive gravity:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542)

Complete and immediate proofs of the fact that there is no attractive gravity; without this concept, the round earth theory falls flat on its nose.


Cosmis aether wave background:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31011#p31011 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31011#p31011)

The movement of the heliocentric solar system towards the star Vega is incompatible with the first law of Kepler:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36732.msg914126#msg914126 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36732.msg914126#msg914126)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 25, 2010, 07:48:44 AM
SEISMIC WAVES PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT

In fact, seismic waves turn out to be one of the most ingenious proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.

The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.

Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.

Seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds.

"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.

Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!

    It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed. The rigid lithosphere, comprising the crust and uppermost mantle, is said to be fractured into several 'plates' of varying sizes, which move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.

    The more we learn about the crust and uppermost mantle, the more the models presented in geological textbooks are exposed as simplistic and unrealistic. The outermost layers of the earth have a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometres across, and of varying internal structure and strength. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a global asthenosphere, means that the notion of huge rigid plates moving thousands of kilometres across the earth is simply untenable. Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!

    The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.

At the Kola hole, scientists expected to find 4.7 km of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock, then a granitic layer to a depth of 7 km (the 'Conrad discontinuity'), with a basaltic layer below it. The granite, however, appeared at 6.8 km and extends to more than 12 km; no basaltic layer was ever found! Seismic-reflection surveys, in which sound waves sent into the crust bounce back off contrasting rock types, have detected the Conrad discontinuity beneath all the continents, but the standard interpretation that it represents a change from granitic to basaltic rocks is clearly wrong. Metamorphic changes brought about by heat and pressure are now thought to be the most likely explanation.

The superdeep borehole at Oberpfälz, Germany, was expected to pass through a 3-to-5-km-thick nappe complex into a suture zone formed by a supposed continental collision. The borehole reached a final depth of 9101 m in 1994, but no evidence supporting the nappe concept was found. What the scientists did find was a series of nearly vertical folds that had failed to show up on seismic-reflection profiles.

 Rock density is generally expected to increase with depth, as pressures rise. Results from the Kola hole indicated that densities did increase with depth initially, but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density, presumably due to increased porosity. The results also showed that increases in seismic velocity do not have to be caused by an increase in rock basicity. The Soviet Minister of Geology reported that 'with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be reexamined.'

    The results of superdeep drilling show that seismic surveys of continental crust are being systematically misinterpreted. Much of the modelling of the earth's interior depends on the interpretation of seismic records. If these interpretations are wrong at depths of only a few kilometres, how much reliance can be placed on interpretations of the earth's structure at depths of hundreds or thousands of kilometres beneath the surface?!

    Contrary to expectations, signs of rock alteration and mineralization were found as deep as 7 km in the Kola well. The hole intercepted a copper-nickel ore body almost 2 km below the level at which ore bodies were thought to disappear. In addition, hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases, together with strongly mineralized waters were found circulating throughout the Kola hole. The presence of fractures open to fluid circulation at pressures of more than 3000 bars was entirely unexpected. The drillers at Oberpfälz discovered hot fluids in open fractures at 3.4 km. The brine was rich in potassium and twice as salty as ocean water, and its origin is a mystery.

Another surprise at the Kola hole was that lifeforms and fossils were discovered several kilometres down. Microscopic fossils were found at depths of 6.7 km. 24 species were identified among these microfossils, representing the envelopes or coverings of single-cell marine plants known as plankton. Unlike conventional shells of limestone or silica, these coverings were found to consist of carbon and nitrogen and had remained remarkably unaltered despite the high pressures and temperatures to which they had been subjected.

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

    Seismic velocity in different media depends not just on the substance's density but also on its elastic properties (i.e. rigidity and incompressibility). In the case of solids and liquids, for instance, there is no correlation between sound-wave velocity and density. Here are some examples involving metals:

Substance      Density (g/cm³)         Velocity of longitudinal waves (km/s)
       aluminium         2.7      6.42
       zinc      7.1      4.21
       iron      7.9      5.95
       copper      8.9      4.76
       nickel      8.9      6.04
       gold      19.7      3.24
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.

    According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:

Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.

Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.

Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.

    Scientists' conviction that density increases with depth is based on their belief that, due to the accumulating weight of the overlying rock, pressure must increase all the way to the earth's centre where it is believed to reach 3.5 million atmospheres (on the earth's surface the pressure is one atmosphere). They also believe that they know by how much rock density increases towards the earth's centre. This is because they think they have accurately determined the earth's mass (5.98 x 1024 kg) and therefore its average density (5.52 g/cm³). Since the outermost crustal rocks -- the only ones that can be sampled directly -- have a density of only 2.75 g/cm³, it follows that deeper layers of rock must be much denser. At the centre of the earth, density allegedly reaches 13.5 g/cm³.

Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:

About 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans at an average depth of 3795 m and mean density of 1.02 g cm-3. The average thickness of the crust is 19 km and the mean crustal density is 2.75 g cm-3. From studies of seismic wave travel time, geophysicists have outlined a layered structure in the interior of the earth. There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone. To come up with a mean density of 5.5, earth models assuming progressively higher density values for the inner zones of the earth have been devised. . . .
    Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available. This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, . . . the density of the other layers of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
    Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?

The seismic radiation of deep earthquakes is similar to that of shallow earthquakes. It used to be said that deep-focus earthquakes were followed by fewer aftershocks than shallow ones, but there are indications that many of the aftershocks are simply difficult to detect, and that there is much more activity at such depths than is currently believed. The fact that deep earthquakes share many characteristics with shallow earthquakes suggests that they may be caused by similar mechanisms. However, most earth scientists are incapable of entertaining the notion that the earth could be rigid at such depths. One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.

On 8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th century, with a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale, exploded 640 km beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring like a bell for months on end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and contracted by a minute amount. A significant feature of the Bolivian earthquake was that it extended horizontally across a 30- by 50-km plane within the 'subducting slab'. This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C. It also undermines the theory that gravity increases with depth; if this were true, the motion of earthquakes at such depths should be nearly vertical. There appears to be something very wrong with scientific theories about what exists and what is happening deep within the earth.

    The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² at the earth's surface and the prevailing view is that it rises to a maximum of 10.4 m/s² at the core-mantle boundary (2900 km), before falling to zero at the earth's centre. But not all earth scientists agree. Skobelin argues that the normal, downwardly-directed gravitational force may be replaced by a reversed, upwardly-directed force at depths of 2700 to 4980 km, and that the widely-accepted figure of 3500 kilobars for the pressure at the earth's centre, may be an order of magnitude too high."

David Pratt

see also: http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5


As we have seen, none of the assumptions made by geologists are true about the composition of inner earth, therefore no one at the present time has any idea how actually seismic waves propagate at very large depths.

In order to make claims about the shape of the Earth based on seismic waves, you must know exactly the composition of inner earth: I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.

Please read:

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.

There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.

NOW, IT CAN BE PROVEN THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS FLAT BASED STRICTLY ON SEISMIC WAVES.

SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING CURVATURE AND VELOCITY ARE SIMPLY WRONG.

THAT IS, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING MORE DISTANT STATIONS NO LONGER HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CURVATURE: THE VELOCITY INCREASES DUE TO THE CHANGES IN THE PROPERTIES OF THE EARTH'S MATTER, AND NOT DUE TO CURVATURE.

Since the interior structure is completely different, the assumed calculations made taking curvature into consideration are wrong.

Once we exclude the curvature, we can simply explain the velocity of the seismic wave strictly based on the newly discovered properties of earth's matter, on A FLAT SURFACE OF THE EARTH.


There was a question re: stellar parallax/stellar aberration. Here is the very best information on the geocentric theory of these subjects:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070327033252/https://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no115/par-ab-rev.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20130305124931/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

Airy's experiment (1871) in the previous link on the inexistence of attractive gravity...



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2010, 02:41:13 AM
All heavenly bodies are flat disks, here is the best proof for all of you:


Here is Nibiru/Black Sun (the planet, formerly a star - Sirius C, which actually does cause the solar eclipse), photographs taken in Antarctica by the world renowned photographer, Fred Bruenjes:

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

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

Here is the altitude of the Schirmacher Hills, the place in Antarctica mentioned by the author of the photographs:

http://www.trulyremote.com/antarctica/schirmacher-oasis.html

Just 228 meters.

distance: 4000 km (look this up on any map, and I am being v. conservative with the 4000 km, I could use about 5000 km)

So, the visual obstacle will be:

1451,33 KILOMETERS, over 1450 kilometers of a visual obstacle., which, as we can see in these photographs, does not exist at all.


The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




There is no need to debate or argue about the shape of the Moon, it is clearly a flat disk, and furthermore, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

EDIT

A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.

Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2010, 03:10:40 AM
Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon (Nile), toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk  the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon (Nile), along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."

Notice that the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version served by the conspirators in the Genesis chapters.

If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.

http://www.bostontoistanbul.com/maps/MarmaraRegionMap.jpg

THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEA OF MARMARA (sea of Propontis) (SEA OF MIOT), IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF ANATOLIA; there must a region with about 40 km in diameter which cannot be accessed by land or sea (we have the same situation at the North/South Poles, which have never been actually discovered or located precisely, see The Hollow Earth by R. Bernard, http://www.scribd.com/doc/35124/Raymond-Benard-The-Hollow-Earth ).


Now, let us make the connection between the BOOK OF ENOCH, BOOK OF JUBILEES and the BOOK OF NOAH:

Book of Enoch:
And they took  me to the living waters, and to the fire (Volcano) of the west, which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to a river of fire (river of lava) in which the fire flows like water and discharges itself into the great sea towards the west .

Book of Jubilees:  
...to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil.

Book of Noah:
And they will shut up those Angels, who showed iniquity, in that burning valley, (Eden Valley) which my great-grandfather Enoch had shown to me previously, in the west, near the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).


The conspirators changed the true name of the first son of Noah, PELASG/PELASGOS, to Shem (a name derived from sun worship).

All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg; and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia (a portion of land given to the descendants of the sons of Khem/Ham; namely, the northern part was given to Misraim and some of his sons, and the southern portion was taken over by Nimrod and his sons).

Iesous Christos, a direct descendant of Pelasg, lived right next to the Sea of Marmara (and not the sea of Galilee); the events described in the Gospels (forged later, in the period 1720-1725, see also the link given above to The Pauline Epistles by E. Johnson) took place in the western portion of Anatolia, Jerusalem was actually Troy/Constantinopole, and the Temple of Solomon (which never existed) was the Hagia Sophia (built by Nimrod).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930 (more details here)











Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 13, 2010, 02:29:31 AM
All major discoveries of the 20th Century in quantum mechanics (quark/antimatter/superstring theory), were copied from the most formidable book ever published on this subject:

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

http://www.innerpath.com.au/besant/1Occult%20Chemistry.htm


On the fundamental discoveries from Occult Chemistry:

http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm

www.iiyp.org/The_Amazing_Phenomenon.doc


http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm (one of the best analyses of the Occult Chemistry classic)


P. Tompkins, Secret Life of Nature:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13399219/P-TompkinsThe-Secret-Life-of-NatureComplete (download in pdf format)

Pages 12, 50, 54, 55; Ch. 7 * pg. 81 ? 94  (92, omegons; 93, expl. for quarks); Ch. 8 *  pg. 95 - 101 (96, koilon bubbles; 100-101, string model); Ch. 9 * pg. 102 ? 111 (106-111, electrons bubbles, lines of force), 126-127 four ethers


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (ch. 1, Historical Evidence) - the very best account of the work done in Occult Chemistry, a must read

ESP of quarks and superstrings, S. Phillips

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5Qgfx4bXkT4C&dq=esp+quarks+phillips&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=NOJP9RGRxd&sig=7Rzl03GEsazklV9395zcmkGw0Jw&hl=ro&ei=0qqBSq6QApuYnQP-9szoCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q&f=false




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 14, 2010, 03:06:56 AM
"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results" (American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51).


http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.html

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html (must read)

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htm (must read)

http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html (must read)

http://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm (must read)

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htm (must read)

http://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm (must read)

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm9.htm

Here is the dean of the faculty of mathematics/mechanics at the Moscow University, A. Fomenko, explaining to you how the radiodating CANNOT be used at all, EVEN FOR ARTIFACTS THOUGHT TO BE JUST 1000 (OR UNDER 1000 YEARS) YEARS OLD:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
CHAPTER I, SECTIONS 14, 15, 16, 17, THEY START ON PAGE 71

DINOSAURS LIVED ONLY 4500-5000 YEARS AGO, IF WE JUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OFFICAL CHRONOLOGY, COMPLETE PROOFS (FOR OUR REVISED CHRONOLOGY, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED BEFORE, THE DINOSAURS LIVED IN THE PERIOD 1520-1600, BEING THE RESULT OF GENETICS EXPERIMENTS, WHICH RESULTED ALSO IN THE CREATION OF GIANTS):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg710424#msg710424

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=716&p=31837&hilit=dinosaurs#p31276

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=789 (EPOCH OF THE GIANTS thread, the Smithsonian Institute coverup)


Thermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:

http://www.tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.html (exceptionally documented)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/false-isochrons



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934 (the artifacts found at Pompeii/Herculaneum prove IMMEDIATELY that the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed these cities, took place AT LEAST AFTER 1700 AD, AND NOT IN THE YEAR 79 AD, while the Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon Elongation prove that the astronomical records of the period 700 BC - 1200 AD were made up much later in time)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (more proofs for those who accept the official chronology)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858185#msg858185 (the classics HISTORY: SCIENCE OR FICTION VOL. 1 AND 2, and the BOOK OF CIVILIZATION)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858706#msg858706 (Christoph Pfister discovered that there was NO HUMAN SETTLEMENT IN SWITZERLAND before 1700 AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg861961#msg861961 (more proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (more precise proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg866855#msg866855 (the PAULINE EPISTLES by EDWIN JOHNSON, the extraordinary work which proves that the New Testament was forged at least after 1533 AD + C. Pfister's own site translated in English)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg939935#msg939935 (jump of the second derivative/moon elongation by R. Newton)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930 (mysteries of the egyptian zodiacs/Christ crucified at Constantinopole/Troy)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg942177#msg942177

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945204#msg945204 (stone levitation)





Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 16, 2010, 05:52:39 AM
Isotopic dating: science or fiction?

http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htm (must read)


Ice core dating: science or fiction?

http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html (must read)


More extraordinary proofs that the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii/Herculaneum took place in the 17th century AD (new chronology of A. Fomenko; in our radical new chronology, we move this event to approximately 1740-1750, given the analysis of the artifacts studied in my previous messages here):

(https://s24.postimg.org/wisg7auqd/vez1.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/oc3n7gu5p/vez2.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/zdxs2hxmh/vez3.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/9679rbpzb/vez4.jpg)
(https://s17.postimg.org/z6j0ch91b/vez5.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/ii5mvwxlz/vez6.jpg)
(https://s17.postimg.org/9zxff3jvz/vez7.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/sc3grzxq5/vez8.jpg)

Therefore, the proofs are very clear indeed that the official chronology is completely wrong, and that the radical new chronology is correct.


The Fictitious Middle Ages/Did the Early Middle Ages Exist? The work of H. Illig (the least controversial of all new chronologists, he does prove however that the "historical" period 600 - 900 AD was completely made up and invented much later in time):

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf

http://www.korthweb.de/PhZT/FAQ_E.html

http://lelarge.de/wamse.html


NEW CHRONOLOGY supersite:

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1751


A chronological revolution made by historical analytics:

http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf


EDIT

The article Features of the Domenico Fontana's Water Conduit (the Canal of Count Sarno) and the Date of Pompeii Destruction which proves that the water conduit built by D. Fontana (according to the official chronology during the period 1594-1600 AD) was constructed WHILE POMPEII EXISTED AS A "LIVING" CITY:

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456
http://books.google.ro/books?id=E1iLqLmbHVwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Features+of+the+Domenico&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (limited view of the article by A. Tschurilow)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 18, 2010, 07:17:21 AM
GRAVITY IS CAUSED BY THE NEGATIVE COMPONENT OF PRAKRITI, THE TERRESTRIAL RADIATION, ALSO KNOWN AS INERTIA, AND BY THE CONSTANT PRESSURE OF THE VAYU PARTICLES EMITTED BY NIBIRU/TIAMAT.

ANY AND ALL RADIATION TRAVELS THROUGH VAYU, WHICH MAKES UP THE FOUR KINDS/DENSITIES OF AETHER:

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image003.jpg

E1 = VAYU / memory/imagination
E2 = TEJAS/PRANA / senses
E3 = APAS / reproduction
E4 = PRAKRITI / metabolism

The positive component of Prakriti is called Assimilation, the process whereby the different nutritive elements of food are incorporated into the body of plant, animal and man.

N. Tesla used Prakriti to send his electrical currents above the flat earth, and also to cause artificial earthquakes.

The human body functions on three levels called octaves: THE OCTAVE OF IMPRESSIONS/THE DIVINE OCTAVE (we receive ojas/ABL+- , prana and generative force through the pineal gland, which IS NOT the third eye of the occultists; the third eye is actually the thalamus gland), THE OCTAVE OF BREATH, and THE OCTAVE OF FOOD.


When a person is drowning, or falling from a height, or freezing, the vital body (the four ethers) leaves the dense body, the atoms of which become temporarily inert in consequence, but at resuscitation it re-enters the dense body and the "points" are again inserted in the dense atoms. The inertia of the atoms causes them to resist the resumption of vibration and that is the cause of the intense prickly pain and the tingling sensation noted at such times, but not ordinarily, for the same reason that we become conscious of the starting or stopping of a clock, but are oblivious to its tick when it is running.

There are certain cases where the vital body partly leaves the dense body, such as when a hand "goes to sleep." Then the etheric hand of the vital body may be seen hanging below the dense arm like a glove and the points cause the peculiar pricking sensation felt when the etheric hand re-enters the dense hand. Sometimes in hypnosis the head of the vital body divides and hangs outside the dense head, one half over each shoulder, or lies around the neck like the collar of a sweater.


W. Reich, in addition to discovering the biggest secret of the nuclear industry (namely, that there is no nuclear industry to begin with, the nuclear reactors are nothing more than aether accumulators), found that the negative component of Prakriti, inertia, also causes the storms in the atmosphere and causes corrosion/decay.

All major discoveries of the 20th Century in quantum mechanics (quark/antimatter/superstring theory), were copied from the most formidable book ever published on this subject:

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

http://www.innerpath.com.au/besant/1Occult%20Chemistry.htm


On the fundamental discoveries from Occult Chemistry:

http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm

www.iiyp.org/The_Amazing_Phenomenon.doc


This is how the human aura actually looks like:

http://www.weare1.us/Babbitt-Body.jpg

GRAVITY, AGAIN, IS A RESULT OF TWO FORCES: THE NEGATIVE COMPONENT OF PRAKRITI, INERTIA AND THE CONSTANT PRESSURE OF THE VAYU/ANU PARTICLES (WHICH ALSO CAUSE THE OCEAN TIDAL WAVES).

More on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/groundradio.html

More on cosmic rays:

http://netowne.com/technology/important/


The complete demonstration of the fact there is no such thing as a gravitational pull/attractive gravity:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542








Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 18, 2010, 07:36:01 AM
Does the human aura change at all depending on whether the person in question is a female opposed to a male?

Edit: Thank you very much Levee  :D
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2010, 05:02:37 AM
The thread opened concerning A. Hitler in another part of this forum does not address the most important issues...not by a long shot...

(http://1.fwcdn.pl/p/04/90/140490/82733.1.jpg)

Rudolf Hess was NOT in the plane headed for Great Britain:

http://www.leninimports.com/rudolf_hess_and_the_royals.html (http://www.leninimports.com/rudolf_hess_and_the_royals.html)
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Theory_About_Hess.html (http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Theory_About_Hess.html)
http://web.archive.org/web/20080224123306/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2106/hess/herald02.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20080224123306/http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2106/hess/herald02.htm)
http://everything2.com/title/Rudolf+Hess (http://everything2.com/title/Rudolf+Hess)

In his book The Murder of Rudolf Hess, Hugh Thomas casts doubt on the man who was locked up in Berlin's Spandau Prison for so long and offers fairly persuasive evidence that the figure held prisoner there was not the real Hess, but an imposter. Yet if that were the case and the evidence is quite startling why was he not executed at Nuremberg, as so many of his contemporaries were, or simply released as a harmless stooge, before his death there in 1981? Other characters served long prison sentences, such as Albert Speer, a civilian figure who might arguably have had a more heinous war record than Deputy Fuhrer Hess, who, after all absconded to Britain in 1941 before the war had taken a more serious turn for the worse. So why such a long sentence? It has been suggested that Hess was in some way connected to BASE 211 did the real Hess abscond in 1941 to Base 211 itself, simultaneously using a loyal double, with instructions to fly to Scotland and thereafter take the brunt of ridicule and long incarceration? If so, Hess would have effectively disappeared to oversee the development of a fourth Reich in the southern hemisphere.

A. Hitler did not die at all in May 1945, in Germany...on the contrary...

http://tst.greyfalcon.us/Introduction.htm (http://tst.greyfalcon.us/Introduction.htm)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/antarctica/antartica22.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/antarctica/antartica22.htm)

http://tst.greyfalcon.us/ (http://tst.greyfalcon.us/)

http://myth.greyfalcon.us/hitler.htm (http://myth.greyfalcon.us/hitler.htm)

The escape to Antarctica was well prepared ahead of time...

The most unbelievable plan used by the Thule/Vril secret societies was, by far, THE KRONOS PROJEKT. You will not read anything on this subject in any book which addresses the occult part of the Nazi ideology (UFOs).

The Kronos Projekt = modification of the eighth chakra of the human body, in order to absorb DIRECTLY the positive tachyons (Anu+) into the human aura, to replace at a much faster rate the tachyons which are used up in the vital body in the normal course of everyday life.

Here is the system of nine chakras of the human vital body:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/d0df345eefb088268e49a32bc8e6658e/tumblr_mqo4ot3DYE1s1fgejo1_1280.jpg (https://40.media.tumblr.com/d0df345eefb088268e49a32bc8e6658e/tumblr_mqo4ot3DYE1s1fgejo1_1280.jpg)

https://web.archive.org/web/20041126171715/http://www.unglaublichkeiten.com/unglaublichkeiten/bilder/Avatar_Siddah.jpg (https://web.archive.org/web/20041126171715/http://www.unglaublichkeiten.com/unglaublichkeiten/bilder/Avatar_Siddah.jpg)

https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lat287jjEy1qcrew2o1_540.jpg (https://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lat287jjEy1qcrew2o1_540.jpg)





The Great Pyramid of Gizeh was used, before the Great Flood of 1600 AD (1580-1600) to modify in the same way the rate at which positive tachyons are absorbed by the human body, here is how the thalamus gland was modified:

(http://garyosborn.moonfruit.com/communities/2/004/005/471/112/images/4586752656_525x384.jpg)

The thalamus gland WAS NOT part of the original human brain architecture: we only had the pineal gland in the center, without the thalamus/hypothalamus/amygdala glands, which were implanted after Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (Desire/Imagination). The thalamus gland is the reptilian third eye of the occultists, here is the extraordinary proof:

https://ideasolar.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/the-gate-of-god-by-gary-osborn/ (https://ideasolar.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/the-gate-of-god-by-gary-osborn/)

The positive tachyons are related to the mental body (imagination);  the modification of the eighth chakra can take place, but at the EXPENSE of the emotional part of the body, which is not needed anymore (the emotional part is related to the negative tachyons, with receptive vortices); the aura is modified without taking into account morality and other such issues, just for the sake of the physical body, that is why Projekt Kronos became the most dangerous undertaking studied by those secret societies during WWII and after.

Only when the physical body is transmuted (much higher vibration) to the vital body, only then can we talk about immortality (fruit of the Tree of Life).

Brotherhood of the Bell (some details of the Kronos Projekt, but which do not address the issues raised above, the modification of the eighth chakra):
http://books.google.com/books?id=ycsmUU0DXhIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=joseph+farrell&hl=ro&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=ycsmUU0DXhIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=joseph+farrell&hl=ro&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 29, 2010, 02:16:14 AM
From Holland Michigan, across the Lake Michigan, lights of three different communities were seen (one of them Milwaukee), across a distance of 128 km.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=keyword&s_search_type=keyword&p_product=HSHH&p_theme=gatehouse (on the archive webpage, May 28, 2003, Oh Say Can You See article)

(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7972/mich1i.jpg)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9995/mich2e.jpg)
(http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7164/mich3d.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

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

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

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

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat (you can also use the above formula on atmospheric refraction to see how impossible it is to see shapes of buildings over a 128 km distance).

More details here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39108.msg979978#msg979978

In the alternative flat earth theory, both the Sun and the Moon DO RISE and SET:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p34701
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35487


History: Science or Fiction? video documentary:










New chronology of English history:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm


V. Suvorov - Icebreaker

Suvorov challenges the widely-accepted view that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany from the rear in July 1941, only a few weeks after the date on which the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union took place. According to Suvorov, the Red Army had been already redeployed from a defensive to an offensive position. As described in Suvorov's books, Stalin had made no major defensive preparations. On the contrary, the Stalin line fortifications through Belarus-Ukraine were dismantled, and the new Molotov line was all but finished by the time of Nazi invasion.

http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Started-Second-World/dp/0241126223


American Civil War hidden history:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_rulebysecrecy3.htm


Occult Finances:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist&emb=0&aq=f#

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1693084887024293324&ei=bgWLScjwNqHS2gLC-tHACw&q=zeitgeist+federal+reserve#

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist+9%2F11&emb=0#


From the famous Red Symphony document (January 1938):

http://web.archive.org/web/20071002143058/http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/red-symphony.html

Historiographers and the masses, blinded by the shouts and the pomp of the French revolution, the people, intoxicated by the fact that it had succeeded in taking all power from the King and the privileged classes, did not notice how a small group of mysterious, careful and insignificant people had taken possession of the real Royal power, the magical power, almost divine, which it obtained almost without knowing it.

Titles, figures, cheques, promissory notes, endorsements, discount, quotations, figures without end flooded States like a waterfall. What are in comparison with these the metallic and paper moneys? ... Something devoid of influence, some kind of minimum in the face of the growing flood of the all-flooding financial money. They, being the most subtle psychologists, were able to gain even more without trouble, thanks to a lack of understanding. In addition to the immensely varied different forms of financial moneys, they created credit-money with a view to making its volume close to infinite. And to give it the speed of sound ... it is an abstraction, a being of thought, a figure, number, credit, faith ...

Banks, the stock exchanges and the whole world financial system - is a gigantic machine for the purpose of bringing about unnatural scandals, according to Aristotle's expression; to force money to produce money - that is something that if it is a crime in economics, then in relations to finances it is a crime against the criminal code, since it is usury. I do not know by what arguments all this is justified: by the proposition that they receive legal interest ... Even accepting that, and even that admission is more than is necessary, we see that usury still exists, since even if the interest received is legal, then it invents and falsifies the non-existent capital. Banks have always by way of deposits or moneys in productive movement a certain quantity of money which is five or perhaps even a hundred times greater than there are physically coined moneys of metal or paper. I shall say nothing of those cases when the credit-moneys, i.e. false, fabricated ones, are greater than the quantity of moneys paid out as capital. Bearing in mind that lawful interest is fixed not on real capital but on non-existing capital, the interest is illegal by so many times as the fictional capital is greater than the real one.

Bear in mind that this system, which I am describing in detail, is one of the most innocent among those used for the fabrication of false money. Imagine to yourself, if you can, a small number of people, having unlimited power through the possession of real wealth, and you will see that they are the absolute dictators of the stock-exchange; and as a result of this also the dictators of production and distribution and also of work and consumption. If you have enough imagination then multiply this, by the global factor and you will see its anarchical, moral and social influence, i.e. a revolutionary one ... Do you now understand?

Hitler has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy ... Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his "old reserve" was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.
Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky ... For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions ... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulation of a scientific kind. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution - war.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080220085911/http://www.akasha.de/~aton/swfqw.html



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

Why everyone should read this book on new chronology

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:

The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's

The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's

 Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.

The Gospels were written in the 1500's.

 No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.


According to our radical new chronology, the Torah/New Testament were written down in the period 1715 - 1725, as we have discussed earlier here...with ample and extraordinary proofs...

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on June 06, 2010, 11:25:49 AM

 No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.


I don't know if this is where you would like it discussed, but during my trips to Cathedrals I was surprised by the stone.  Several Cathedrals had no stone wear.  If you go to even recent museums you would notice that the stones are worn on the stairs.  However, other Cathedrals or Libraries did have this wear.  I imagine this could be due to the type of stone used and the amount of traffic the area has gotten or due to repairs, but it is still something that is worth investigating.

I don't personally think that the history of the world is as incorrect as you state (though it is interesting), but this may be an avenue for you to research.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 08, 2010, 02:58:28 AM
The books by A. Fomenko, and G. Kasparov, not to mention the website of C. Pfister offer copious proofs that all the cathedrals were constructed in the 18th century, and not earlier.

If you will read carefully the material I provided here, you will discover eventually that the official chronology has been drastically altered; in my opinion the entire world history has lasted for only 500 years (radical new chronology, different than the 1000-year old new chronology of A. Fomenko).

The best proofs possible that the eruption which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum occurred actually at least after 1700 AD:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg967986#msg967986



Who wrote the Bible/Koran?

Independent but nearly simultaneous proposals by H. B. Witter, Jean Astruc, and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn separated the Pentateuch into two original documentary components, both dating from after the time of Moses. Others hypothesized the presence of two additional sources. The four documents were given working titles: J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each was discernible by its own characteristic language, and each, when read in isolation, presented a unified, coherent narrative.

The documentary hypothesis has more recently been refined by later scholars such as Martin Noth (who in 1943 provided evidence that Deuteronomy plus the following six books make a unified history from the hand of a single editor), Harold Bloom, Frank Moore Cross and Richard Elliot Friedman.

1 and 2 Samuel were written BEFORE the priestly version was invented (the priestly version was written according to the official chronology at least 600 - 800 years after the Exodus; this version which consists of, among other numerous passages, the whole book of Leviticus, Exodus chapters 25-32, 35-40, Numbers 3-10, 15-20, 27-30, 35-36, Deuteronomy 18, Joshua 22):

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/latedate.html (one of the very best)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source

http://islamworld.net/torah.html

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160971.html

In our radical new chronology, the Old/New Testaments were written in the period 1715 - 1720, after the crucifixion of Iesous Christos in 1715, at Troy/Constantinopole.


(1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper; (2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile; (3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon's Temple; (4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (Ex 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Nu 2:2,17; 5:1-4; 14:44) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) (Ex 33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.

Also the book of Judges, chapters 13 and 21 contradict directly the laws/regulations written down in the book of Leviticus.

The author of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel and the book of Judges HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the laws/regulations in the Leviticus/Numbers/Exodus, as these were created well after the (J) and (E) versions.


http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm


http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho6.htm (tremendous research, one of the very best)

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho3.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho4.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho1.htm


http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju03.htm (exceptionally documented)

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju04.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju05.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju01.htm

http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju02.htm


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop09.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret04.htm

A third model developed, much more radical in its approach.  The archaeological evidence now was interpreted to demonstrate that the Israelites did not originate outside the land, but were in origin Canaanites who had shifted gears.  Israelite pottery was indistinguishable from Canaanite pottery; Israelite architecture was indistinguishable from Canaanite architecture; Israelite water systems were indistinguishable from Canaanite water systems; and so on. All of this meant that the Israelites were Canaanites. http://arts.mcgill.ca/jewish/30yrs/rendsburg/index.html

No historical David/Solomon

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/dsmyth.htm

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

Also, the quote from Jeremiah 7:22 contradicts directly the laws/regulations of the Leviticus. There have been attempts to explain this quote (Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...) within the context of figurative language, an argument which can be contradicted immediately:

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html
http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html

Bible Unearthed (Finkelstein/Silberman)

The Bible Unearthed begins by considering what it terms the 'preamble' of the bible?the Book of Genesis?and its relationship to archaeological evidence for the context in which its narratives are set. Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th-7th centuries:

    * Aramaeans are frequently mentioned, but no ancient text mentions them until around 1100BCE, and they only begin to dominate Israel's northern borders after the 9th century BCE.
    * The text describes the early origin of the neighbouring kingdom of Edom, but Assyrian records show that Edom only came into existence after the conquest of the region by Assyria; before then it was without functioning kings, wasn't a distinct state, and archaeological evidence shows that the territory was only sparsely populated.
    * The Joseph story refers to camel-based traders carrying gum, balm, and myrrh, an unlikely event for the first millennium, but quite common in the 8th-7th centuries BCE, when Assyrian hegemony enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.
    * The land of Goshen has a name that comes from an Arabic group who only dominated the Nile Delta in the 6th and 5th centuries.
    * The Egyptian Pharaoh is portrayed as fearing invasion from the east, even though Egypt's territory stretched to the northern parts of Canaan, with its main threat consequently being from the north, until the 7th century

The book comments that this corresponds with the documentary hypothesis, in which textual scholarship argues for the majority of the first five biblical books being written between the 8th and 6th centuries.

Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlands;these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.

http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id7.html


First, the numbers in Genesis don't appear to be random. Each number in Genesis 5 (except Methuselah's 969 years) ends in either a 0, 5, 2, or 7, which can be thought of as a factor of 5 (0 or 5) and at times adding 7 (e.g. 5 + 7 = 12). The implication is that the chance of this happening without deliberate alteration is essentially impossible.

When Moses returned from his mountaintop experience, he carried with him tablets of stone. Once again there is a question of translation. Since all this occurred prior to the advent of the written Hebrew language, authors Knight and Lomas explained,

"These tablets could only have been written in Egyptian hieroglyphics as Moses would not have understood any other script [as Hebrew did not become a written language for another 1,000 years]. The idea of messages materializing out of marks on stone amazed ordinary people and the scribes who could make stone talk were considered to be holders of great magic. This is easily appreciated when one realizes that the Egyptians called hieroglyphics the Words of the God, a term that would often be repeated throughout the Bible."

In ancient Kemet, there were "42 Negative Confessions", " 42 Admonitions of Ma'at" or "42 Declarations of Innocence" under this spiritual system, a system that Moses knew as High priest. Moses just collapsed the "42 Negative Confessions" into the Ten Commandments as the bedrock of religious Christianity. What is more it makes the whole Exodus a very improbable event, since the Hebrews would not have accepted to go back to the same laws/regulations present in the Egyptian system of worship (and which were well known to them during the stay in Egypt).

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2009/1812.htm

http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55972934687&topic=6955


What were the conspirators trying to hide? The events described in the original book of Enoch:

The absence in 1 Enoch of formal parallels to the specific laws and commandment found in the Mosaic Torah and of references to issues like Shabbat observance or the rite of circumcision. The Sinaitic covenant and Torah are not of central importance in the Book of Enoch.


Heavenly Palace/Garden of Eden description:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#14
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#70


What really happened in the Garden of Eden:

http://www.piney.com/ApocMoses.html

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-2o.htm



John 13:1 contradicts directly the quotes from Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7 and Matthew 26:17.

It is very clear that the events described in John 13: 1-12 could not have taken place AT ALL given the laws and regulations in Leviticus:

Numbers 28:18

In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein

Moreover, leavened bread was used in direct violation of the laws and regulations writeen in Numbers/Exodus:

While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened Bread) in the NT none of them refer to the bread used in the Lord's Supper, but rather they are either references to the feast of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7, Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a congregation purging out sin from their midst and walking in holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8 ).
In all other places that the word bread occurs in the NT, it is the Greek word Artos meaning a loaf of common leavened bread.

Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:20

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm (the BEST book EVER written on conspirative issues, tremendous research)

Why everyone should read this book

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:

The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's

The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's

Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.

The Gospels were written in the 1500's.

No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.



http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm (occult apocalypse)


canaanite tribes of arabia/origin of koran

http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cadernos&subsecao=religiao&artigo=maome&lang=eng

The Palestinians were known as the Phalestinoi/Phalestinos tribe which originated in Greece/Thrace; after the exile of most of the Canaanite tribe to the Caucasian mountains (after the attack by Nabu/Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Horus, and ruler of northern Mesopotamia), the inhabitants around mount Seir (also Canaanites) thought up the islam religion in order to trick the Phalestinoi tribe into believing in a false religion, especially after 1750 AD.


black buddha (from the kushite tribe of sakka/isaac/sakya, which travelled from the exile in the Caucasian mtns. to India after 1730 AD)

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-68677.0.html

















Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2010, 02:35:44 AM
Stability of the heliocentric solar system

It is only at the highest level of academic circles specialized in bifurcation theory (thus, well-hidden from public view) where we find the truth about the original H. Poincare quotes, which do show that a differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

Here is Poincare describing his findings:

While Poincare did not succeed in giving a complete solution, his work was so impressive that he was awarded the prize anyway. The distinguished Weierstrass, who was one of the judges, said, 'this work cannot indeed be considered as furnishing the complete solution of the question proposed, but that it is nevertheless of such importance that its publication will inaugurate a new era in the history of celestial mechanics.' A lively account of this event is given in Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System. To show how visionary Poincare was, it is perhaps best if he described the Hallmark of Chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - in his own words:

'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.' - in a 1903 essay 'Science and Method'

That is why the conspirators had to invent a very complicated new theory, called chaos theory, with the help of G.D. Birkhoff and N. Levinson; their work was the inspiration for S. Smale's horseshoe map, a very clever way to describe Poincare's original findings as "workable" and "manageable". The formidable implications are, of course, that chaotical motion of the planets predicted by the differential equation approach of the London Royal Society is a thing that could happen ANYTIME, and not just some millions of years in the future, not to mention the sensitive dependence on initial conditions phenomenon.

Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.


http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm (exceptional analysis of the differential equation approach and the implications thereof)

http://ptrow.com/articles/ChaosandSolarSystem5.htm

(superb analyses of the long term stability of the solar system)


Smale Horseshoe concept:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~mcc/Chaos_Course/Lesson23/Predicting.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_map


KAM theory:

http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf


Stability of the Solar System:

http://chaos.if.uj.edu.pl/~karol/pdf/solar.pdf (if it cannot be accessed directly, list the link on google search and use the quick view option)


Velikovsky stability theory:

http://www.ralph-abraham.org/interviews/abraham-ebert.html


Butterfly effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

E. Lorenz did not realize that a system of three nonlinear differential equations could not approximate at all such a complicated natural phenomenon; there is no butterfly effect, the weather in Asia will not change due to the movement of a butterfly's wings in North America (sensitive dependece on initial conditions).

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-196680.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZX/is_68/ai_n9507766/pg_52/

http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~gaspard/G.Acad.00.pdf

Homoclinic orbits:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/nlin/pdf/0702/0702044v2.pdf


Poincare chaos:

http://web.archive.org/web/20061208155727/http://pims.math.ca/pi/current/page25-29.pdf

Dynamics and Bifurcations, J. Hale and H. Kocak (pages 248, 477, 486-490)
Introduction to Applied Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Chaos, S. Wiggins (pages 286, 384, 420-443, 550, 612), both edited by Springer-Verlag; the information in these pages actually show the mathematical and physical implications of chaos theory.


The Duffing oscillator (prototype for nonlinear oscillations), the driven Morse oscillator, Poincare's three body problem equations, the librational motion of a satellite equations, the Ginzburg-Landau equation (nonlinear Schrodinger eq.) which reduces to the Duffing oscillator, all will have parameter values for which the stable/unstable manifolds of a saddle point will come into contact tangentially - homoclinic tangency.

Differential equations can be used on a very limited base (classical mechanics, quality-control, electronics/electrical engr., thermodynamics, and even here with certain assumptions/simplifications) and not at all in order to describe/predict biological processes and cosmological theories, where the aether theory comes into play to explain all the details.

Moreover, the system parameters will be varying functions of time, not to mention that the coefficients of the forcing/damping functions will not be "sufficiently small" in actual practice.

The assumptions actually made in describing various phenomena in several branches of physics are very well described in the classic Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in natural sciences by C.C. Lin and L. Segel (chapters 1, 4, 6, 8 ); page 43 exemplifies the extraordinary philosophical implications of the differential equation approach in modern physics:

http://www.ec-securehost.com/SIAM/CL01.html


An analysis of the calculus approach errors:

http://milesmathis.com/are.html
http://milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html
http://milesmathis.com/flaw.html
http://milesmathis.com/lemma.html
http://milesmathis.com/avr.html


Now we know that Pythagoras never existed actually, as there were no ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt in our radical new chronology, and that the conspirators invented the irrational number concept in order to deceive the public regarding the Pythagorean comma (instead of a circle of fifths, we would have a spiral of fifths); they also invented, through J.S. Bach, the equal temperament scale in order to hide the real scale they used to produce levitation of large blocks of stone.


D. Hempel on Pythagoras' irrational numbers:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10283
http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/forum/showpost.php?s=b7d281def62a68bb3f0971352e1ed848&p=30829&postcount=5


From http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm


Scientists used to, before the chaos theory, believe in the
theory of reductionism, many still do. Reductionism imagines nature as equally
capable of being assembled and disassembled. Reductionists think that when
everything is broken down a universal theory will become evident that will
explain all things. Reductionism implied the rather simple view of chaos
evident in Laplace's dream of a universal formula: Chaos was merely complexity
so great that in practice scientists couldn't track it, but in principle they
might one day be able to. When that day came there would be no chaos,
everything in existence would be perfectly predictable, no surprises, the
world would be safely mutable. The universe would be completely controlled by
Newton's laws.

Chaos touches all things in existence, and all sciences,
mathematics, physics, biology, anthropology, entomology, astronomy, even the
Ivory Tower science of Newtonian physics. In the last years of the 19th
century French mathematician, physicist and philosopher Henri Poincare
stumbled headlong into chaos with a realization that the reductionism method
may be illusory in nature. He was studying his chosen field at the time; a
field he called the mathematics of closed systems, the epitome of Newtonian
physics. A Closed system is one made up of just a few interacting bodies
sealed off from outside contamination. According to classical physics, such
systems are perfectly orderly and predictable. A simple pendulum in a vacuum,
free of friction and air resistance will conserve its energy. The pendulum
will swing back and forth for all eternity. It will not be subject to the
dissipation of entropy, which eats its way into systems by causing them to
give up their energy to the surrounding environment. Classical scientists were
convinced that any randomness and chaos disturbing a system such as a pendulum
in a vacuum or the revolving planets could only come from outside chance
contingencies. Barring those, pendulum and planets must continue forever,
unvarying in their courses.

It was this comfortable picture of nature that
Poincare blew apart when he attempted to determine the stability of our solar
system. For a system containing only two bodies, such as the sun and earth or
earth and moon, Newton's equations can be solved exactly: The orbit of the
moon around the earth can be precisely determined. For any idealized two-body
system the orbits are stable. Thus if we neglect the dragging effects of the
tides on the moon's motion, we can assume that the moon will continue to wind
around the earth until the end of time. But we also have to ignore the effect
of the sun and other planets on this idealized two-body system. Poincare's
problem was that when an additional body was added to the situation, like the
influence of the sun, Newton's equations became unsolvable. What must be done
in this situation is use a series of approximations to close in on an answer.
In order to solve such an equation, physicists were forced to use a theory
called Perturbation. Which basically works in a third body by a series of
successive approximations. Each approximation is smaller than the one before
it, and by adding up a potentially infinite amount of these numbers,
theoretical physicists hoped to arrive a working equation. Poincare knew that
the approximation theory appeared to work well for the first couple of
approximations, but what about further down the line, what effect would the
infinity of smaller approximations have? The multi-bodied equation Poincare?
was attempting was essentially a Non-linear equation. As opposed to a
differential or linear equation. For science, a phenomenon is orderly if its
movements can be explained in the kind of cause-and-effect scheme represented
by a differential equation. Newton first introduced the differential idea
throughout his famous laws of motion, which related rates of change to various
forces. Quickly scientists came to rely on linear differential equations.
Phenomena as diverse as the flight of a cannonball, the growth of a plant, the
burning of coal, and the performance of a machine can be described by such
equations. In which small changes produce small effects and large effects are
obtained by summing up many small changes. A non-linear equation is quite
different. In a non-linear equation a small change in one variable can have a
disproportional, even catastrophic impact on other variables. Behaviors can
drastically change at any time. In linear equations the solution of one
equation allows the solver to generalize to other solutions; in non-linear
equations solutions tend to be consistently individual and unrelated to the
same equation with different variables. In Poincare's multi-bodied equation,
he added a term that added nonlinear complexity to the system (feedback) that
corresponded to the small effect produced by the movement of the third body in
the system. As he experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

Poincare's discovery was not fully understood until 1953 by Russian physicist A. N. Kolmogorov. Initially
scientists believed that in theory they could break up a complicated system
into its components before experimentation because any changes in patterns
would be small and not effect an established construct such as an orbit.
Kolmogorov was not prepared to accept that the whole universe is a fraction of
a decimal point away from self-destruction. Unfortunately his research didn't
help. Kolmgorov concluded, from his own calculations, that the solar system
won't break up under its own motion provided that the influence of an
additional gravitational source was no bigger than a fly approximately 7000
miles away, and the cycles per planetary year did not occur in a simple
ratio like 1:2 1:3 or 2:3 and so on.

But, what happens when the planet's years form a simple ratio? Well, that would mean that with each orbit, the
disturbance is amplified due to a steady input of gravitational energy. It
creates a resonance feedback effect much like a normal microphone amplifier.
Say you lie an amplifiers input mic directly in front of its output speaker.
Any sound that enters the microphone will be played back through the speaker
louder, that playback will be picked up by the mic and amplified once again,
eventually the volume will reach its critical point and the speaker will blow
out. Well, if this were so, is there proof? Does this really happen in space?
Could this occur in our solar system? The answer is yes.








Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on June 14, 2010, 11:19:22 PM
Thanks for the follow up Levee, I'll definitely give those a closer look.  I may have some follow up questions on aether, but I want to give your work another good reading first.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 21, 2010, 03:26:12 AM
Christoph Pfister archive

C. Pfister, one of the very best european historians, has discovered that there was no human settlement prior to 1700 AD in Switzerland, and that all gothic/medieval buildings and all ancients documents pertaining to the period 500 AD - 1600 AD were actually created in the 18th Century AD. He also found out that the printing press was invented around 1730 AD, and wrote the exceptional book Matrix of Ancient History: http://www.dillum.ch/html/matrix_werbeblatt.htm

albrecht kauw, actually lived in the 18th century AD
http://www.dillum.ch/html/kauw_bern_1700.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/frienisberg_namenlandschaft.htm

city of bern founded in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/gurten_burgberg_bern.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/ankh_von_bern.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/berns_goldene_zeit_kritik.htm

bern cathedral constructed in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_muenster_baugeschichte_neu.htm

radical new chronology
http://www.dillum.ch/html/geschichtskritik_chronologiekritik_09.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/plurs_campanile_legende1.htm

abbey library of st. gallen constructed in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/sankt_gallen_stiftsbibliothek_kritik.htm (exceptional analysis)

vesuvius/troy: the origin of the names of places in Switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/vesuv_ortsnamen_werbeblatt.htm

celtic history hoax
http://www.dillum.ch/html/beltaine_verein_neu.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/nebra_sangerhausen_kalenderscheibe_faelschung.htm

Main Archive:

archeology of switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/inhalt_7.html
http://www.dillum.ch/html/keltenschanzen_schweiz.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bolligen_bantiger_neapel_vesuv.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/guggershorn_guggersh%C3%B6rnli.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/wallis_valais_vesuv.htm

fake marcus aurelius sculpture
http://www.dillum.ch/html/mark_aurel_avenches.htm

city of aventicum: 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/avenches_aventicum_wiflisburg_neapolis.htm

gothic architecture of 18th century/new chronology (superb analysis)
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_mutige_zeit.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bernbiet_heilige_berge.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/lausanne_sion_bellinzona_k%C3%BCssnacht.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/harz_heiliges_land.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_troja.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bern_ausgrabung_richtstuhl.htm

wilhelm tell hoax
http://www.dillum.ch/html/wilhelm_tell.htm

radical new chronology analysis
http://www.dillum.ch/html/anti_illig.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/burg_neu_bubenberg.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/1291_fiktives_gruendungsdatum_schweiz.htm

C. Pfister on A. Fomenko's History: Science or Fiction?
http://www.dillum.ch/html/fomenko_history.htm

"The biggest fake in the history of mankind is the history of mankind"
http://www.dillum.ch/html/gabo_altertum_renaissance.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/rezension_serrade.htm

ancient olympics hoax
http://www.dillum.ch/html/olympia_vesuv_neapel.htm

gothic/medieval architecture, best analysis
http://www.dillum.ch/html/barock_kunst_chronologie_09.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/dillum_bilder_varia.htm

amazing related events in the history of the reigns of Napoleon III/I
http://www.dillum.ch/html/napoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm

(translation from German to English on ggletransl: http://translate.google.com/# )


More amazing discoveries:

signature of cleopatra forgery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/kleopatra_papyrus_berlin.htm

falsification of history: treasure of troy
http://www.dillum.ch/html/schliemann_priamos_schatz.htm

fake pergamon altar
http://www.dillum.ch/html/pergamon_altar_berlin_faelschung.htm

nebra disc forgery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/nebra_sangerhausen_kalenderscheibe_faelschung.htm

"roman" settlement in switzerland
http://www.dillum.ch/html/klein_wabern.htm

freiburg castle
http://www.dillum.ch/html/freiburg_fryburg_fribourg.htm.htm

frienisberg monastery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/frienisberg_namenlandschaft.htm

"ancient" zurich
http://www.dillum.ch/html/zuerich_uetliberg_ortsnamen.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/z%C3%BCrich_bullinger_kritik.htm

federal charter of 1291 forgery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/bundesbrief_1291_kritik.htm

white book of sarnen forgery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/weisses_buch_sarnen_kritik.htm

pantheon, constructed in the 18th century
http://www.dillum.ch/html/pantheon_rom_chronologie.htm

fake swiss history
http://www.dillum.ch/html/stettler_alte_eidgenossen_kritik.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/berns_maechtige_zeit_kritik.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/berns_goldene_zeit_kritik.htm
http://www.dillum.ch/html/schweiz_krise_identitaet.htm

alexander mosaic of pompeii
http://www.dillum.ch/html/schilling_jammertal_pompeji_alexandermosaik.htm

gold treasure of erstfeld forgery
http://www.dillum.ch/html/erstfeld_goldschatz_faelschung.htm

albrecht von haller fake history
http://www.dillum.ch/html/albrecht_von-haller_universalgenie_kritik.htm

(translation from German to English on ggletransl: http://translate.google.com/# )



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 28, 2010, 03:35:40 AM
The radical new chronology conspiracy goes far beyond the debates about the shape of the earth, or any other collection of alternative theories (nuclear industry/weapons hoax, the true shape of the atom).

The official historical chronology was altered and modified to suit the purposes of the same conspirators who also invented the round earth hoax.

Before 1720 AD, there were NO princes, kings, cathedrals, or official religion; the Torah, Koran and New Testament were created in the period 1715-1725 AD, as we have seen here, given the abundant and extraordinary proofs we have at our disposal. Iesous Christos (Christ) was crucified at the city of Constantinopole/Troy in 1715, and was not Hebrew at all.

Let us again read the ORIGINAL quote from the epistle to the Galatians:

(http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4643/jerustroia2.jpg)

More fantastic details here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930

The Galatians/Trojans were ACTUAL WITNESSES to the crucifixion of Christ, and this event took place just a few hundred years ago.

Also, it was demonstrated here that both J. Scaliger and D. Petavius lived AT LEAST 100 HUNDRED YEARS LATER than previously thought.

The eruption of the Vesuvius volcano which destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum occurred around 1740 AD, and the gothic/baroque architecture was all created in the period 1720 - 1750 AD; our history is JUST 500 years old, from Adam/Eve to present.

The first actual pope was, I believe, Innocent (with the XIII added later to his title) around 1721; please read the Pauline Epistles by the great British historian E. Johnson to see how the "ancient" documents were forged much later in order to modify the true historical chronology.

Other historians such as R. Baldauf, reached a similar conclusion (his study of numerous presumably ancient manuscripts and the exposure of the same as being, for the most part, recent forgeries). One must also mention Baldauf's study of numerous presumably ancient manuscripts and the exposure of the same as being, for the most part, recent forgeries. Baldauf discovered parallels between the "historical" books of the Old Testament and the works of the mediaeval Romance genre as well as Homer's Iliad that were blatant enough to lead the scientist to the assumption that the text of both the Iliad and the Bible date from the late Middle Ages.

Some of the mediaeval chronicles ascribed to different authors resembled each other to such an extent that Baldauf was forced to identify them as works of the same author, despite the fact that the two documents were presumed separated chronologically by an interval of two centuries at least. At any rate, some of the expressions characteristic for Romantic languages that one finds in both documents fail to correspond with either of the alleged datings (one of them being the IX and the other the XI century). Apart from that, some of the manuscripts contain distinctly more recent passages, such as frivolous stories of endeavours in public steam baths (which the Europeans only became acquainted with during the late Reconquista epoch) and even allusions to the Holy Inquisition. Baldauf's study of the "ancient" poetry in Volume 4 demonstrates that many "ancient" poets wrote rhymed verse resembling that of the mediaeval troubadours. Unlike Hardouin, Baldauf is convinced that the verse of Horace is of mediaeval origin, pointing out German and Italian influences inherent in his Latin. Furthermore, Baldauf points out such pronounced parallels between the poetry of Horace and Ovid (who were presumably unaware of each other's existence) that one becomes convinced that the works of both belong to a third party - apparently, a much later author - a fact most philologists explain by the fact that Roman literature was heavily influenced by Greek models and especially Homer's writings and the motives used in the Ilias and the Odysee have marked all occidental literature until today.

Baldauf sums up his research in the following words: "Our Romans and Greeks have been Italian humanists." All of them, Homer, Sophocles, Aristotle and many other "ancient" authors, so different in our perception, hail from the same century, the 14th and 15th of the Italian renaissance [according to the new chronology, that is, that history is only 1000 years old; we have proved here that we can advance to the radical new chronology theory in which history is just 500 years old]. Baldauf avers that the entire history of the Ancient Greeks and Romans -- likewise the Biblical "history," which correlates with the above to some extent -- was conceived and introduced by the Italian humanists, as well as their colleagues and followers from other countries. Humanism, he says, has given us a whole fantasy world of antiquity and the Bible, as well as the early Middle Ages, which Baldauf also considered an invention of the humanist writers.


Here is the C. Pfister of Germany, Wilhelm Kammeier (the counterfeiting of German history):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20070818163029%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.jesus1053.com%2Fl2-wahl%2Fl2-autoren%2Fl3-Uwe-Topper%2Fkammeier.html&sl=de&tl=en

Original work in German: http://web.archive.org/web/20070818163029/http://www.jesus1053.com/l2-wahl/l2-autoren/l3-Uwe-Topper/kammeier.html



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 03, 2010, 04:26:39 AM
According to the official theory, the inner core of Earth is solid sphere made up mainly of iron and nickel. The outer core (a liquid) is also composed of iron and nickel. The mantle is a rocky shell, predominantly solid, and it encloses the outer core. We also have the crust, composed of a great variety of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.

(http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/earth_science/earthfg2.gif)

As we have seen before, the area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A dead force like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.


If we take into account the shape and size of the supercontinent Pangea, such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth. It would have gradually stopped the Earth from rotating around its own axis, and Pangea would have faced the Sun 24 hours a day. The rotating layers of iron/nickel would have come to a dead stop in some weeks.

(http://www.scienceline.ro/_files/Image/articole/original/pangea_animation_03.gif)

And the origin of the oceans themselves is still a mystery to be solved...

http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htm


The eruption which did destroy Pompeii/Herculaneum took place at least after 1700 AD. The events described in the Gospels, actually occurred next to the sea of Marmara, and the crucifixion/resurrection happened on mount Beykoz, and not near Golgotha; the names and places were changed in the period 1715-1720, to create the biggest hoax of them all: the altered chronology of history. History is really just 500 years old.


As for the Michelson-Morley experiment, it was especially designed to find a SOLID type of ether, and this was no accident, as both A. Michelson and E. Morley knew very well the existence of a DYNAMIC ether.

Here you will find the exact description of the reasoning behind the M&M experiment of 1877, and the mistakes that were made:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.

Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist". "

The superb presentation of the errors inherent in A. Michelson's approach to his experiment:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm

One of the greatest works which does show the errors committed by both Michelson and Einstein:

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)

The errors of Michelson and Morley analyzed from a different point of view:

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html

A. Micheons and E. Morley UNMASKED:

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html


H. Lorentz was a personal employee of J.P. Morgan, the unbelievable story detailing the whole conspiracy, here:

http://www.svpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=696&sid=df49b40b0918509a3a67b10075bf83fc

Morgan was not only ruthless but extremely thorough. When the new Heaviside equations were tentatively accepted as the new Maxwell's theory to be taught in the electrical engineering just beginning to be set up in some universities etc., Morgan also directed his close scientific advisors to assure that this new electrical theory was harmless and did not contain or teach any of Tesla's energy freely from the active medium systems. In other words, not only was it essential to suppress the present Tesla, but it was essential to suppress all the future Teslas.

H. A. Lorentz was the man who was elicited to do the necessary symmetrization with ease, thereby accomplishing exactly what Morgan decreed to his own advisors that must be done: Get rid of those Tesla systems capable of taking and freely using EM energy from the active medium. H. A. Lorentz (with the t) simply lifted and used what L. V. Lorenz (without the t) had already done.

For the deliberate fixing of the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations, see H. A. Lorentz, La Theorie Electromagnetique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants, [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies], Arch. N?erl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. [Also in H. A. Lorentz, Collected Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, vol. 2, pp. 168-238, esp. p. 168.] This is the work that Lorentz cites later (in 1895) for his proof of the symmetrical regauging theorems (the two equations of symmetrical regauging).

The intentional mistakes committed by H. Lorentz in deriving his transformations:

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html

The Dayton-Miller ether drift experiments:

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect."  Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)




If we substitute this increase in mass into the term for the Bohr radius of the atom, we see that special relativity predicts a contraction of the atomic radius. Outer electrons are dominated by another effect as they have a greater angular momentum but a lower velocity as they are further from the nucleus. As a result they do not contract and end up further form the inner electrons. As both these effects are greater for Gold  as it is larger than silver the difference causes a difference in reflection spectra. If there was a aether, gold would be white.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg917925#msg917925
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg918648#msg918648
(electron tunneling microscope photographs of the atom which do show A STANDING WAVE MODEL, and not at all a cloud of orbiting electrons)

Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.

http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36931.msg919169#msg919169 (the tremendous mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)

The Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen is an effect of the aether vortex theory of atoms, and cannot be linked with an impossible hypothesis created by N. Bohr, who NEVER demonstrated the energy source for the orbiting electrons.

In point, Bohr suggested a means preventing the atom exploding when charges neutralise. Although the concept of a central positively charged nucleus surrounded by orbiting negatively charged electrons seemed to remove the acceptance problems in Thomson's model, explaining the theory of octaves by deception, it won some academic acceptance. Many found the model very difficult to use, having inherent real world animation problems. By 1912, Rutherford's education, his acceptance of the Bohr construct and his subsequent experiments on thin metal foils, led him to introduce this construct as his revolutionary atomic model; where the negative electrons orbit the positive nucleus. On paper, the static atomic model seems to satisfy the chemist's bonding requirements, placing the bonding electrons in the atom's outer orbital shell. Unfortunately, as Chemical theory promoted the fact of an indivisible atom, Rutherford's atomic model won popular appeal through default, due to the fact that the daily news carried various headlines stating in bold type, 'Rutherford splits the atom.' Because Chemistry got it so wrong, gullible people assumed that Rutherford's other claims must be right, and therefore, electrons do orbit the nucleus. Enthusiastically, the youth of the day accepted the assumption as an assertion of fact, and with these preconditioned beliefs, many knowledge viruses spread and mutated.

THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM HOAX:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005454#msg1005454





Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 04, 2010, 02:43:34 AM
Against Pangea, video documentary (presenting the same idea from the previous message):

http://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.html

See also:

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/antipangea.html

More information on the Pangea hoax:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Bible-anomaliesparst-1-2


BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX data:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal's discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth's surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

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

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


ORIGIN OF GRANITE:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35572

No such thing as an iron core for the earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 26, 2010, 02:26:53 AM
Jan. 5 2016

I was able to find the classical score most related to Blackbird:



Fernando Sor, Etude (Op. 60 No.19)


However, Adorno added elements from both the Hungarian Fantasy (Liszt) and the second movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony.


It is commonly perceived that I'm A Believer (Monkees) was written by Neil Diamond; it was not. It was another Adorno song, a modified Help. Whether that was going to be another Beatles single in second half of 1966, we will never know; obviously after the disappearance of Paul from the public scene, and after John left the band too, everyone had to wait until January-February of 1967 for Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields to be released.

Now, there is no way that Neil Diamond would have had the courage to modify Help to turn into I'm A Believer; only Adorno could modify classical scores, and was also allowed to modify Beatles songs to give to other artists/groups.

Obviously the legend behind the song was offered to the public in order not to attract attention that in the era of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones another song of the same quality would peak at no.1 in 1966, and would become the biggest selling record of 1967.

I'm A Believer is another Adorno masterpiece, perhaps intended originally for the Beatles, clearly a modified version of Help.


Feb. 14, 2016

TOP 20 THEODOR ADORNO SONGS





20. Bridge Over Troubled Waters



In 1970, without the support of more Adorno songs, Simon and Garfunkel's career as a group was over. Adorno also wrote Mrs. Robinson.





19. Lola



A modified Something, an extraodinary work signed Adorno again.



Both Something and Lola were created by reworking one of the most beautiful scores ever written, the Adagio from Spartacus, by Khachaturian:







Adorno also modified Something into the Rain Song, which was given to Led Zeppelin.





18. Tuesday Afternoon



A modified A Day In The Life (originally given to the Beatles).





17. I'm A Believer



It is commonly perceived that I'm A Believer (Monkees) was written by Neil Diamond; it was not. It was another Adorno song, a modified Help. Whether that was going to be another Beatles single in second half of 1966, we will never know; obviously after the disappearance of Paul from the public scene, and after John left the band too, everyone had to wait until January-February of 1967 for Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields to be released. Now, there is no way that Neil Diamond would have had the courage to modify Help to turn into I'm A Believer; only Adorno could modify classical scores, and was also allowed to modify Beatles songs to give to other artists/groups.



Obviously the legend behind the song was offered to the public in order not to attract attention that in the era of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones another song of the same quality would peak at no.1 in 1966, and would become the biggest selling record of 1967.



I'm A Believer is another Adorno masterpiece, perhaps intended originally for the Beatles, clearly a modified version of Help.





16. Jumping Jack Flash



One of the very best songs ever written by Adorno, a modified Satisfaction; he also transformed Satisfaction into What Is Life which was actually a Beatles song; after Adorno's death in August 6, 1969, all the remaining Beatles songs (Maybe I'm Amazed, Live And Let Die, Give Me Love, Imagine, My Love, Admiral Holsy, Dark Horse, Another Day) were given to McCartney II, Lennon II and Harrison. The Stones were able to survive for some years after 1970 with the remaining Adorno songs they had at their disposal (Angie, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Brown Sugar), but after 1976 they had to find new songwriters.





15. Light My Fire



A modified Ritual Fire Dance by De Falla (one can observe the similarities by listening to Jose Feliciano's version). Adorno also modified Light My Fire into Aqualung which was given to Jethro Tull.





14. Happy Together



A modified Penny Lane.





13. A tie: God Only Knows and Pinball Wizard



A modified Question (offered to the Moody Blues), given to The Who.



A modified Michelle given to the Beach Boys.





12. Nights In White Satin



One of the greatest songs written by Adorno, a modified Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky.





11. Kashmir



A full analysis of the song scored by Adorno, here:



www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg770568#msg770568 (includes an analysis of more Led Zeppelin songs written by Adorno, and also more Beatles songs)



Adorno also wrote Beck's Bolero (1966), a modified We Can Work It Out. He also scored See Emily Play given to Pink Floyd.





10. Live And Let Die



This song, written by Adorno in 1968, was supposed to be the Beatles' next single in 1970. A modified Magical Mystery Tour.





9. Martha My Dear



The best song on the White Album, a modified Martha by Von Flotow.





8. Blackbird



The most haunting ballad written for the Beatles, together with the masterpiece Yesterday.



A modified Fernando Sor, Etude (Op. 60 No.19)







However, Adorno added elements from both the Hungarian Fantasy (Liszt) and the second movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony.





7. Yellow Submarine



Actually the theme from Verdi's Aida combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.





6. Got To Get You Into My Life



A modified Can't Buy Me Love (actually Aine Kleine Nacht Musik by Mozart).





5. A tie: Penny Lane and Something



Penny Lane - Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 21 (Elvira Madigan)



Something - Adagio from Spartacus, Khachaturian





4. Yesterday



A modified Neapolitan song, called "Piccere' Che Vene a Dicere"





3. Sgt. Pepper



Sgt. Pepper is clever combination of the Radetzky March and the Romanian rhapsody no 1 by Enescu





2. Hey Jude



For Hey Jude, Adorno pulled out all stops, he grouped into one song, masterfully, the Ride of the Walkiries by Wagner, the theme from the Piano Concerto no. 1 by Tchaikovsky, and the theme from Symphony no 9 by Beethoven.





1. A Hard Day's Night



The biggest monster hit of the entire rock-pop era, from the best Beatles LP by the same name.



A modified Rossini's Wilhelm Tell overture.




I did not include on the list my favorite Beatles songs, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Magical Mystery Tour, Hello Goodbye, Lady Madonna, and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey (a modified L.i.t.S.w.D).


www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805137#msg805137 (full analysis of the work done by Adorno for the Beatles)


Apr. 28, 2016

The McCartney twins theory: mileswmathis.com/paul8.pdf


Jan. 22, 2018

Lennon twins theory:

pieceofmindful.com/2016/12/17/the-john-lennon-twins/

pieceofmindful.com/2016/12/04/john-lennon-family-photos/

Is Let It Be actually featuring Paul?

thebrainwashedhousewife.blogspot.ro/2016/05/phil-ackrill-hey-jude-1968-james-paul.html

More on the McCartney twins theory:

pieceofmindful.com/2016/09/27/more-mccartney-stuff/



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 27, 2010, 07:16:22 AM
Hello Goodbye is a modified Great Gate of Kiev by Mussorgsky:



Pictures at an Exhibition was used before by Adorno of course to create Day Tripper (Promenade).

Lady Madonna is a modified When I'm 64 combined with the Morning Mood from the Peer Gynt suite (Grieg).

Mother Nature's Son is a modified God Only Knows, the masterpiece given to the Beach Boys.

The greatest mystery, so far, is the source for Norwegian Wood.


To experience the full beauty of the Beatles songs listen to them on youtube in classical style (beatles go baroque, hollyridge orchestra).

No one else has ever come even close to writing and orchestrating something similar to Tomorrow Never Knows, Within You Without You, Magical Mystery Tour (a modified Good Day Sunshine) or Lady Madonna. The musical repertoire of the Beatles is unmatched and unprecedented to this day.




Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, which I believe was going to be the next Beatles single in 1970 (a modified version of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds)


Feb. 12, 2018

Norwegian Wood is a modified Aquarium (Saint Saens, Carnival of the Animals).

God Only Knows contains elements from Gymnopedie No. 1 (Satie).


The solo career of John Lennon II featured these songs written by Adorno:

Imagine - a modified Let It Be

#9Dream - a modified We Can Work It Out

Watching The Wheels - a modified Maybe I'm Amazed

Just Like Starting Over -  a modified Pretty Woman (R. Orbison)

Mind Games - a modified All You Need Is Love

Bless You - a modified Band On The Run


Unfortunately, Lennon II managed to squander away the legacy inherited from John and the Beatles in just four months: already by the end of 1969 no one could care less about Plastic Ono Band and Lennon II's career. His stage presence was not the same as that of John, and the album cover for Two Virgins did not help at all (neither did the glasses and the long hair).

By January 1969, the greatest rock band in the world was reduced to singing on the rooftop of the Apple Studios: their image having changed so much that a full concert was becoming more and more unfeasible. The Beatles before 1967 had a certain image to live up to, a fact which was neglected after Sgt. Pepper.


Feb. 17, 2018

Mrs. Robinson (given to Simon & Garfunkel) is a modified theme from Porky and Bess by Gershwin.

(0:25 to 1:25)

Pretty Woman (given to R. Orbison) is a modified Do You Want to Know a Secret (Beatles).

She Said, She Said (one of the most beautiful songs from the Revolver album) is a modified The Word (from Rubber Soul).

Beck's Bolero is a modified We Can Work It Out.

Oh My My (the biggest hit of Ringo Starr's solo career) is a modified Get Back.


Feb. 26, 2018

Rockestra (the last of the great Beatles songs to appear on an ex-Beatle album) is a modified Good Day Sunshine.

Honey Pie (one of the best songs on the White Album) is a modified theme from An American In Paris by Gershwin:

(2:40 - 5:30)

I Love You (Wings) is a modified Maxwell Silver Hammer.

Let Me Roll It (Wings) is a modified Oh Darling.


Apr. 2, 2018

Obladi Oblada is a modified Yellow Submarine.

With A Little Help From My Friends is a modified version of Eight Days a Week.

Magical Mystery Tour is a brilliantly modified Nights On a Bald Mountain by Mussorgsky:



The theme from Nights On a Bald Mountain was also used by Adorno in Good Day Sunshine.

Magical Mystery Tour was itself modified at least twice to come up with Jet and Live And Let Die (Wings).

Help is a modified version of the Air suite by Bach:



Strawberry Fields is a modified Pachelbel's Canon:



No other rock group had the stage presence of the Beatles, not The Who, not Led Zeppelin, not the Stones, not Presley (see mileswmathis.com/elvis.pdf )




May 3, 2018

Rolling Stones, Child of the Moon:



It is practically Rain sung by the Beatles. Why would the Stones, at the height of their success, accept to copy Rain so perfectly (b side of Paperback Writer, 1966) and subject themselves to various comments such as the following:

'melody sounds like Rain by the Beatles, released in 1966.

Such and the composition of the song reminds 'Rain', always by The Beatles !

That opening reminds me of The Beatles 'It's All Too Much'. I can see where George Harrison got his inspiration!

It's almost exactly like Rain, if listened to side by side.'

These listeners did not realize, or even gave it a thought, that both songs were written by a single, different songwriter who penned both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones songs.

Nor did anyone else reflect on the fact that the songs published by the Stones after 1976 differ greatly from the huge hits of the 60s and early 70s.

Yes, Start Me Up, Undercover Of The Night, Emotional Rescue, Saint Of Me are very good hits which kept the Stones very close to the top in rock music, but they cannot be compared to Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Let's Spend The Night Together, Honky Tonk Woman or their greatest hit, Jumping Jack Flash.

Why would the quality of the songs published by the Stones after 1976 decrease, when by all accounts, had they been the real songwriters of their music, these songs could have and should have become even better?

"In just 7 years as Brian Jones was present they wrote 10 albums, it could be counted even more with differences from UK and US releases until 1967. For me also this period songs are best, most creative, soulful, original, amazingly diverse and much more, and those period are only albums that can be compared with the Beatles ! It is also their far most creative + productive period and this was their climax as band on all levels !"

(comment from youtube)

It was their most creative period because they had the best theoretical musician in the world writing their songs for them, just like he did with the Beatles.

But Adorno never gave the Stones the musical equivalents of Hey Jude, Lady Madonna, A Hard Days Night, Yellow Submarine, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Hello Goodbye, or Yesterday.

He always kept the best for the Beatles.

Another very interesting fact: the intro for Jumping Jack Flash (Stones' greatest hit, a modified Satisfaction) has never been replicated in concert (instead the song starts with the main riff), which is bizarre if Richards and Jagger were the real songwriters, since the intro is the most mystical part of the song, a tremendous and extraordinary musical masterpiece, yet the Stones were unwilling to play it live to their advantage.


May 28, 2018

The legend goes like this: Ruthann Friedman wrote Windy for the Association in 1967.

However, Windy is a modified Good Morning, Good Morning by the Beatles (also 1967).

Cherish is a modified Here, There and Everywhere (Beatles, 1966).

Never My Love is a modified She Said, She Said (Beatles, 1966).

Let us remember that Happy Together was also written by Adorno and given to the Turtles (the modified trumpet solo from Penny Lane).

Since the Association were given several huge hits, they were able to stay in the limelight for several years.

By contrast, The Creation were only given one huge hit (Painter Man, a modified Light My Fire) which could been featured on either a Beatles or a Rolling Stones album: that is why they disbanded in early 1968 (Painter Man included the very first bow on an electric guitar solo, a feat repeated by Jimmy Page years later).

In order to get things started, Jethro Tull were given several major hits: Aqualung (a modified Light My Fire), Mother Goose (a modified Battle of Evermore), Bungle in the Jungle (a modified Jumping Jack Flash), and Living the Past (a modified Day Tripper; here is a very interesting cover by K. Emerson: ).

The most beautiful ballad given to Jethro Tull was Nice Little Tune, a true masterpiece by Adorno, the most underrated Tull song of all time:

(6:37 to 7:42)

It is a modified theme from the English Folk Suite by V. Williams, one of the most beautiful melodies ever:

(5:22 - 6:07

Hotel California (the Eagles) is a modified We Used to Know (Jethro Tull).

The theme from Thick as a Brick is a modified Gymnopedie 1 and 2 by Satie (the first modification became God Only Knows, given to the Beach Boys, the second modification, the most magnificient, was Mother Nature's Son given to the Beatles).


We are told that Led Zeppelin was the greatest band from 1969 to 1979; the drumming prowess of J. Bonham, as an example:



Jimmy Page was one of the best lead guitarists ever.

But they were not the Beatles, with John and Paul.


Kashmir included several modified parts to the song:

The intro is from Mars the Bringer of War by Holst.

The famous part, the most magical of all Led Zeppelin songs:

(0:53 - 1:05)

is the modified theme from Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov:

(5:05 to 5:, especially 5:30 to 5:40 and of course the majestic 40:06 to 41:03, the part from 40:43 to 41:03 is exactly the famous instrumental in Kashmir, that is where Adorno got the idea for Kashmir)

The magic of Kashmir, piano cover:



Another magical cover:



Adaggio from Spartacus was modified into the Rain Song (the first modification was Something given to the Beatles; the Rain Song itself was also modified into Lola for the Kinks).

Over the Hills and Far Away is a modified Afternoon of a Faun by Debussy, that is why the guitar intro is pure magic.


Much more on the Adorno - Beatles connection on page 1 of this thread.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 27, 2010, 10:28:00 AM
Is Sandokan (although I know it is classified as fictional) based upon any true historical events in your chronology?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 28, 2010, 02:11:11 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934 (the artifacts found at Pompeii/Herculaneum prove IMMEDIATELY that the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed these cities, took place AT LEAST AFTER 1700 AD, AND NOT IN THE YEAR 79 AD, while the Jump of the Second Derivative of the Moon Elongation prove that the astronomical records of the period 700 BC - 1200 AD were made up much later in time; I urge all of you to read this carefully)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (more proofs for those who accept the official chronology)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858185#msg858185 (the classics HISTORY: SCIENCE OR FICTION VOL. 1 AND 2, and the BOOK OF CIVILIZATION)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg858706#msg858706 (Christoph Pfister discovered that there was NO HUMAN SETTLEMENT IN SWITZERLAND before 1700 AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg861961#msg861961 (more proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (more precise proofs)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg866855#msg866855 (the PAULINE EPISTLES by EDWIN JOHNSON, the extraordinary work which proves that the New Testament was forged at least after 1533 AD + C. Pfister's own site translated in English)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg939935#msg939935 (jump of the second derivative/moon elongation by R. Newton)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930 (mysteries of the egyptian zodiacs/Christ crucified at Constantinopole/Troy)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg942177#msg942177

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945204#msg945204 (stone levitation)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg969919#msg969919 (more extraordinary proofs that the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii/Herculaneum took place in the 17th century AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg986690#msg986690 (who wrote the bible)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (C. Pfister archive, one of the very best proofs for the fact that all history prior to 1770 AD)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1003416#msg1003416 (more about the radical new chronology)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg960675#msg960675 (Garden of Eden, north of Egypt and west of the Nile)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945934#msg945934 (Pompeii destroyed at least after 1700 AD, more on the moon elongation paradox)


. Rowbotham in Earth is not a Globe:

If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.


It is unfortunate that S. Rowbotham did not include in his book (1881) the classical experiment of G.B. Airy (1871) which did prove once and for all that there are multiple layers of aether, of various densities, between the Sun/Stars and Earth.

Here are the details concerning the experiment performed by G.B. Airy:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39116.msg986695#msg986695


Therefore, statements such as:

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles.  and  If a navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter.

cannot be true given the effect of the many layers of aether (of various densities) upon the light emitted by the Sun. Also, measuring the angle of the sun from a latitude of 30 degrees or 60 degrees will give different results.

And there are further issues to be dealt with
, if we use simple triangulation to obtain possible figures for the Earth-Sun distance:

The sun crosses the celestial equator and moves southward in the northern hemisphere during the September equinox. The location on the earth where the sun is directly overhead at solar noon is known as the subsolar point. The subsolar point occurs on the equator during the September equinox and March equinox. At that time, the earth's axis of rotation is perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the earth and the sun. This is the time when many people believe that the earth experiences 12 hours of day and night. However, this is not exactly the case.

Dispelling the exactly 12 hours of daylight myth
It is important to note that day and night during the September equinox is not exactly equal length. During the time of the September and March equinoxes many regions around the equator have a daylight length of about 12 hours and six-and-a-half minutes. Moreover, the day is slightly longer in places that are further away from the equator and the sun takes longer to rise and set in these locations.

According to the US Naval Observatory the dates of equal day and night occur about February 25 and October 15 at a latitude of five degrees in the northern hemisphere. They occur around March 17 and September 26 at a latitude of 40 degrees. On the dates of the equinoxes, the day is about seven minutes longer than the night at latitudes up to about 25 degrees, increasing to 10 minutes or more at a latitude of 50 degrees.


The ONLY possible way to discern/distinguish/infer the real diameter of the Sun, not to mention the correct Earth-Sun distance, is by direct comparison with an object/space shuttle/planet which would transit in front of the Sun.

Here are the actual videos which do show the REAL measure of the diameter of the Sun and the CORRECT Earth-Sun distance:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39728.msg994892#msg994892

Also included are the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes which do confirm the figures which can be easily deduced from the transit videos.



Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).



(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)
This is what the Black Sun actually looks like; it is the source of energy for the visible Sun (tachyons) without which we would have no visible light, and no infrared radiation.

These photographs are confirmed by the transit videos:

SUN - EARTH OFFICIAL DISTANCE = 149 MILLION KM
SUN DIAMETER = 1,4 MILLION KM
MOON - EARTH DISTANCE = 384000 KM

WE SEE THE ATLANTIS/ISS RIGHT NEXT TO THE SUN, WITH NO 149 MILLION KM BETWEEN THEM, THE VIDEOS ARE VERY CLEAR:




NO 149 MILLION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUN AND ISS.



SAME THING.

SLOW MOTION, ONLY A FEW KM BETWEEN THE ISS AND THE SUN (IF THAT MUCH):



dionysios, I hope you do not need glasses, no 149 million km to the Sun.

TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ONE, ATLANTIS IN FRONT OF THE SUN:




AND NOW THE MOON - ISS TRANSITS, SAME DISTANCE, SAME DIAMETER AS IN THE SUN - ISS VIDEOS:






The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 29, 2010, 04:24:56 AM
There are further topics of discussion which will enable us to understand, even better, the nature of gravity/aether/light.

Spintronics (the four vortices of a magnet + central column, air - fire - earth - water - akasha):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson


E. Leedskalnin (Coral Temple) levitation/true diagram of a magnet (tube of Anu/tachyons/subquarks through which flow bosons in both directions):

http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg

E. Leedskalnin theory of magnetism (double helices, see the photographs in Spintronics):

http://www.leedskalnin.com/ (no such thing as an electron)

http://keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt (Magnetic Current by E. Leedskalnin)


Light DOES NOT split in a spectrum of colors, the fantastic photographs/proofs (neutral element of akasha at a different frequency, surrounded by yang/yin waves):

http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/GoetheColour.html

(http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/ColourProjection.jpeg)

N. Tesla on the nature of light: 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...


Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4045-theories-frederick-david-tombe.html


The sacred cubit (0,63566 m - http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html ) constitutes the real basis for the true musical scale; it is also related to the distances between notes in a tachyon, the chakras in the human body, and the figures used in the Great Pyramid at Gizeh.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/prezhorusin04/CAVEWALL1/pyramidbrain.jpg)

286,1 inches (1 sacred cubit = 25 inches) - missing intervals (capstone - gigantic crystal which was placed there)
286,1 sacred cubits from capstone to Underground Chamber

G. Gurdjieff's two missing intervals correspond to the white/red bindu terminonology used in vedic science; the intervals DO - SI and FA - MI.


CYMATICS (akasha fills all the space underneath the Schumann Cavity/Heavenly Dome); upon activation by sound, various geometrical shapes of this grid of energy become visible (it includes the Hartmann/Curry lines):





The best work on telluric currents:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm

Dr. Gustave Le Bon, true nature/source of radioactivity:

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


Biefeld-Brown effect (link between electricity/gravity, that is between the yang/yin currents flowing through Anu/tachyons):

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown
http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project166.htm


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on October 29, 2010, 09:10:48 AM
Is sacred cubit and amah interchangeable?  Sofer also mentions an equal measurement of 1 amah as being 24 zoll.
Of course translation of Sun would important then Levee?

Correct me if I'm wrong by the math implies that the two pillars of Solomon's Temple is 54 sc since measured individually it was shown per pillar we would 27sc which=1714.5cm but then going back we see 24 zoll=24.888 inches yet when looking at AU proof and Great Pyramid sections we see being used 1 SC=25 inches by the author yielding 63.5cm. So in my interpretation, a little variation could be expected on exact values to begin with just because of inconsistent rounding methods when doing a unit analysis conversion by the author. Agree/Disagree?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 01, 2010, 04:01:58 AM
There was no Solomon's Temple IN Jerusalem (Ur-Shulim); Hagia Sophia IS Solomon's Temple, please read the works by A. Fomenko, especially the first few chapters in volume I of History: Science or Fiction?; also read The Pauline Epistles by E. Johnson. Please read the message here, posted earlier, which shows that a few hundred years ago, Jerusalem = Troy = Constantinopole were terms which meant one and the same city, the place where Jesus Christ was crucified by the Trojans approximately in 1715 AD. Please read the proofs relating to the fact that Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by eruption from the volcano Vesuvius around 1740-1760 AD, also the C. Pfister archive, the historian who discovered that prior to 1700 AD there was NO human presence in present day Switzerland, also the Moon Elongation Parameter argument.

The best flat earth map has already been provided by me a long time ago, it does solve ALL the problems linked with the current northern circumpolar map used by the FES.


August 7, 2018

(Beatles live at Circus Krone)

Two of the best comments:

Kind of hard to imagine within a year of that Sgt. Pepper would be out.

i find it so hard to imagine this was only a year before they released sgt pepper's. such an amazing transformation in a short space of time.


Exactly.

Now, decades later, people are beginning to realize that the Beatles music was written by someone else.

Practically, after the first half of 1966, we never hear from John again; from 1963 to 1966, all of the singles, with three exceptions (Yesterday, Can't Buy Me Love and We Can Work It Out), are sung by John. After 1966, it is the other way around: Lennon II gets only three big hits (All You Need Is Love, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Revolution), while Paul II gets to sing of the other huge hits (now, we know that even before 1966, there were at least two John and Pauls switching roles in the Beatles lineup). As I explained earlier, John II was a better guitar player than John, but did not have the same charisma needed to enchant and mesmerize the audience. On the Revolver album, John only gets to sing on two great songs, Yellow Submarine and And Your Bird Can Sing, while McCartney gets all of the others for the first time; John wears those sunglasses in 1966, as if to prepare everyone for the appearance of John II in How I Won The War. There is no way that John would have accepted to wear glasses, or to appear on the Two Virgins album cover, or to sing with the Plastic Ono Band.

In August 1969, they still had some 25-30 Beatles songs left; they should have never chosen to go for the solo careers. Instead, they should have released a new album in 1972-1973 (with Maybe I'm Amazed as a single) and another one in 1975-1976 (with Live and Let Die as a single), featuring Imagine, Give Me Love, My Love, Admiral Halsey, Oh My My, Dream #9... then somehow hire classical music composers to at least partially try to follow in the steps of Adorno; however, the magical orchestrations could not have been repeated. Not even today, 50 years later, no one has been able to equal the Beatles, songs like Tommorow Never Knows, Martha My Dear, Norwegian Wood, Yellow Submarine.

Pure magic:

(You've Got To Hide Your Love Away)


September 19, 2018

For No One (one of the best songs on the Revolver album) is a modified La Donna E Mobile by Verdi:



On the same LP, Adorno used another famous song byVerdi, the theme from Aida, to create Yellow Submarine.

Sgt. Pepper is a modified theme from the Barber of Seville suite by Rossini:



Yes, it includes themes from the Radetzky March by Strauss, and from the Romanian Rapsody by Enescu, but mainly is a modified theme from the Barber of Seville.

A Hard Day's Night, of course, is a modified Wilhelm Tell overture, again by Rossini:



As I mentioned before, Kashmir (given to Led Zeppelin) was created by merging several themes from the Scheherazade suite by Rimsky-Korsakov.

Magical Mystery Tour, the most advanced Beatles song (my opinion), is a modified Night on a Bald Mountain by Mussorgsky; which was adapted again for Live and Let Die.

Let us compare Live and Let Die and Kashmir (Gregorian chant interpretation), and see how great a song Live and Let Die actually is:





Blackbird (which is a modified Fernando Sor, Etude (Op. 60 No.19)), Gregorian chant rendition:




There was a controversy regarding The Last Time (given to the Rolling Stones), the fact that it includes a few seconds from This May Be the Last Time by the Stapple Singers, that may be so; however, no one has noticed that The Last Time is actually a modified Eight Days a Week given to the Beatles (the best song on the Beatles For Sale album).

(continued from https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1079938#msg1079938 )


September 24, 2018

Sgt. Pepper vs. Barber of Seville


(Sgt. Pepper, take 9)

0:07 - 0:15 (intro to Sgt. Pepper, guitar riff)


(the Barber of Seville)

(2:09 - 2:31)





0:16 - 0:35 (Paul II)



2:14 - 2:21



 
0:36 - 0:48 orchestral transition to main theme



2:21 - 2:27




0:49 - 1:18



3:42 - 4:19




1:19 - 1: 38 (John II)



4:16 - 4:29


Now the entire theme from the Barber of Seville:



5:17 - 6:38

That is why Sgt. Pepper is one of the best Beatles songs, it was adapted from the Barber of Seville overture.


Martha My Dear is a modified Martha by von Flotow (M'appari tutt' amor):



What Adorno did, however, is to blend this song with the Humoresque by Dvorak:




October 8, 2018

Eight Days a Week is a modified Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, fourth movement Rondo Allegro:



Then, Adorno used Eight Days a Week to come up with Help, with a little aid from the Air Suite by Bach (the first movement from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik = Can't Buy Me Love ).

We Can It Work It Out, baroque style, it brings out the exquisite beauty of this song:



(a rare version of the Beatles playing the song)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ski on November 01, 2010, 04:57:00 AM
Is sacred cubit and amah interchangeable?  Sofer also mentions an equal measurement of 1 amah as being 24 zoll.

I was going to defer to Levee on this, but he seems to have abandoned the question in pursuit of the larger issue of historical revisionism. But what you have there is rabbinically correct.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 02, 2010, 04:06:14 AM
But I already did answer both messages with this link: http://fliiby.com/file/893604/7bs6zt4et4.html

More on cymatics: http://kylepounds.org/science/cymatics.html

In order to fully understand the nature of ether/aether(akasha)/subquarks/tachyons/sound/light, please see:

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

Tibetan sound levitation uses the sacred cubit distances (multiples) of the wavelength of the telluric currents to raise blocks of stone hundreds of meters in the air:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid08.htm

The atoms of the stone, normally in E5 state (solid state of matter), are subjected to a much higher form of vibration based on sound, which does take the atoms to the E4 state (prakriti, first state of ether); the descendants of Kush/Misraim, in Egypt/Syria and Europe, used ball lightning, using the staff of Ptah/Horus (tuning fork, djed - permanent magnet, and ankh), to cause the levitation of blocks of stones (most notably at Baalbek), it could also be used for the transmutation of metals...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 05, 2010, 03:38:15 AM
As I have said many times before, some serious research will solve all of your problems (including the infinite earth hypothesis, which has been disproved totally).

History: Science or Fiction? table of contents, chapters 1 and 2, volume I


Chapter 1
The problems of historical chronology
1. Roman chronology as the foundation of European chronology
2. Scaliger, Petavius, and other clerical chronologers. The creation of contemporary
chronology of the ancient times in the XVI-XVII century a.d.
3. The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the XVI century
3.1. Who criticized Scaliger's chronology and where.
3.1.1. De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer
3.1.2. Sir Isaac Newton
3.1.3. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov
3.1.4. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaliger's chronology.
3.2. The questionable veracity of the Roman chronology and history. The hypercritical school of the XIX century
4. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of "ancient" Egypt
5. The problem in dating the "ancient" sources. Tacitus and Poggio. Cicero and Barzizza. Vitruvius and Alberti
6. Timekeeping in the Middle Ages. Historians discuss the "chaos reigning in the mediaeval datings." Peculiar mediaeval anachronisms
7. The chronology and the dating of Biblical texts
8. Difficulties and contradictions arising from the reading of old texts
8.1. How does one read a text written in consonants exclusively? The vocalization problem
9. Problems in the Scaligerian geography of Biblical events
9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament
9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament
10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues
10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon.
10.2. The geography of Herodotus is at odds with the Scaligerian version
10.3. The inverted maps of the Middle Ages
11. A modern analysis of Biblical geography
12. The mysterious Renaissance epoch as a product of the Scaligerian chronology
13. The foundations of archaeological methods have been based on the Scaligerian
chronology from the very beginning
13.3. The alleged acceleration of the destruction of the "ancient" monuments
13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin?
13.5. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaliger's datings
13.6. One of the numerous problems of the Scaligerian history - the problem of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin.
14. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods
14.1. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend further back in time than the X century a.d.
14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium-uranium and radium-actinium analysis
15. Are radiocarbon datings to be trusted?
15.1. The radiocarbon datings of ancient, mediaeval, and modern specimens are scattered chaotically
15.1.1. Libby's initial idea. The first failures
15.1.2. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens
15.2. The dating of the Shroud of Turin
15.3 Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artifacts demonstrates serious contradictions
16. Critical analysis of the hypotheses on which the radiocarbon method is based. By A. S. Mishchenko
16.1. W. F. Libby's initial idea
16.2. Physical basics of the radiocarbon method
16.3. The hypotheses that the radiocarbon method is based upon
16.4. The moment of the object's departure from the exchange reservoir
16.5. Radiocarbon content variations in the exchange reservoir
16.6. Variations in radiocarbon content of living bodies
18. Numismatic datings

Chapter 2
Astronomical datings
1. The strange leap of parameter D" in the Theory of Lunar Motion
2. Are the "ancient" and mediaeval eclipses dated correctly?
2.1. Some astronomical data
2.2. The discovery of an interesting effect: an unprejudiced astronomical dating
shifts the dates of the "ancient" eclipses to the Middle Ages
2.3. Three eclipses described by the "ancient" Thucydides
2.4. The eclipses described by the "ancient" Titus Livy
3. Transferring the dates of the "ancient" eclipses forward in time into the Middle Ages eliminates the enigmatic behavior of the parameter D".
4. Astronomy moves the "ancient" horoscopes into the Middle Ages
4.1. The mediaeval astronomy
4.2. The method of unprejudiced astronomical dating
4.3. Many "ancient astronomical observations" may have been theoretically calculated by late mediaeval astronomers and then included into the "ancient" chronicles as "real observations"
4.4. Which astronomical "observations of the ancients" could have been a result of late mediaeval theoretic calculations?
5. A brief account of several examples of Egyptian Zodiacs
5.1. Some general observations
5.2. The Dendera Zodiacs
5.3. The horoscopes of Brugsch and Flinders Petrie
5.4. Finite datings of the Egyptian Zodiacs based on their complete deciphering, as obtained by A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovskiy in 2001
5.5. On the errors of E. S. Goloubtsova and Y. A. Zavenyagin
6. Astronomy in the New Testament

Learn how and why Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented and crafted during Renaissance. Discover the Old Testament as a veiled rendition of events of Middle Ages written centuries after the New Testament. Perceive the Crusaders as contemporaries of The Crucifixion punishing the tormentors of the Messiah.

Sounds unbelievable? Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, leading mathematician of our time. He follows in steps of Sir Isaac Newton, finds clear evidence of falsification of History by medieval clergy and humanists. Armed with computers, astronomy and statistics he proves the history of humankind to be both dramatically different and drastically shorter than generally presumed. Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century.

The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the XVI century from the contradictory mix of innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts (all originals have mysteriously disappeared) and the "proofs" delivered by the late mediaeval astronomers, cemented by the authority of writings of the Church Fathers.

Anyone who comes to these books with an open mind and no pre-conceived dogmas about history (and religion) will find a great deal to ponder and to further investigate on their own.


Fomenko certainly does prove that our history is at most 1000 years old, that is, in the approach of the new chronology; but he has not gone far enough, given the findings at Pompeii and Herculaneum, not to mention the facts uncovered by C. Pfister...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on November 06, 2010, 08:09:08 AM
Historical revisionism has no place in hard science and is simply laughable.

As for the infinite earth hypothesis being disproved - it is from this it is clear more so than any other statement you've made so far that you have no idea what aether is, what its properties are, and what its raison d'etra is.   

All that said, great posts. I look forward to hearing more.  You have always been one of our most valued posters.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 07, 2010, 02:04:58 AM
November 13, 2018

The Beatles' first release of 1968 was a single like no other. I always thought that Lady Madonna was one of the very best Beatles songs.

However, no direct link to any classical music could be made.

It was only after listening to the Beatles go baroque, when I realized that Lady Madonna is a modified version of A Hard Day's Night.

Lady Madonna, baroque:



A Hard Day's Night, baroque:



A rhythm similar to Bad Penny Blues (1956) was produced, but Lady Madonna is a fantastic modified version of A Hard Day's Night, that is why it sounds to great.


From the comments section of Reasons for Waiting (Jethro Tull):

One of the most beautiful rock songs ever written.

I still consider this the most beautiful song Ian Anderson ever wrote.




However, Reasons for Waiting is a modified Mother Nature's Son given to the Beatles, that is the reason for its haunting beauty.


Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody was voted the "best song ever". However, the dynamical part of the song (4:11 - 4:55) is a modified version of Revolution by the Beatles.

We Are The Champions is a modified Nights In White Satin (Moody Blues), the modified theme from the Swan Lake suite.

Seaside Rendezvous is a modified Martha My Dear.


November 30, 2018

Letting Go (Wings) is a modified I've Got A Feeling (Beatles).

Magneto and Titanium Man (Wings) is a modified Hi, Hi, Hi (Wings) which in turn is a modified Helter Skelter.

Venus and Mars is a modified Maybe I'm Amazed (a modified version of Long and Winding Road).

Junk (one of the best songs on McCartney II's first solo album) is a modified Fixing A Hole.

Without the support of the few remaining Beatles songs, McCartney II's solo career, not to mention his colaboration with Wings, wouldn't have been possible.  Let us imagine "Ram" without Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, or "Red Rose Speedway" without My Love (I am not even mentioning here "Wild Life").


December 9, 2018

Let us carefully analyze We Are The Champions, given to Queen.



In the classical style/version, it is easier to discern, to find out the original score upon which it was based.

It is obvious that We Are The Champions is a modified version of Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1:



Yes, it does have notes borrowed from Nights in White Satin, but essentially it is a beautifully modified version of the Piano Concerto No. 1.

Thus, we can reach a most interesting conclusion: both We Are The Champions and Seaside Rendezvous were originally Beatles songs; after the disappearance of Adorno in August, 1969, the Beatles project was put on hold, and the remaining best songs were shelved. From that formidable arsenal of songs, both We Are The Champions and Seaside Rendezvous were given to Queen, since the Beatles project was no longer feasible.

The major music publishing companies tried to copy Adorno's style of modifying classical scores, but the best they could achieve was this: KISS' Lick It Up is a not so subtle modified version of Free's All Right Now, while Billy Joel's Just The Way You Are is a not so subtle modified version of 10cc's I'm Not In Love.

Only Adorno could have modified Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto into We Are The Champions; he always gave the best songs to the Beatles, light years ahead of anyone else. A Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine, Hey Jude are light years ahead of anyone else, be it the Stones, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, The Who.

I regard Penny Lane as a finer/better song than We Are The Champions; let us remember that George Martin said in 1967 that Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields was the Beatles' best single to date, and in a way he was right.



Seaside Rendezvous = Martha My Dear:




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 07, 2010, 09:03:15 AM
Ether is just an organic functional group. What's so hard about that?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 08, 2010, 02:25:28 AM
Now, both ua acceleration and the infinite earth conjectures were created in order to explain terrestrial/planetary gravitation/gravity on a flat earth; and both fail miserably to address even this single issue.

I have posted countless times already the direct quotes from I. Newton specifying the fact that he believed that there are two DIFFERENT gravitational forces: one of a rotational type, responsible for planetary/stellar orbits, and the other responsible for the terrestrial gravitation phenomenon.

I have posted, also, the direct arguments relating to the perturbation of planetary orbits, impossibility of the existence of a field of gravitons which would allow a Sun - Planet - Satellite system to function, and much more; the gravitational force responsible for planetary/stellar orbits is of a ROTATIONAL TYPE, completely different than the terrestrial gravitation encoutered here, on the flat earth.

I have also demonstrated directly and very clearly that there is no attractive gravity; we have PUSHING gravity, caused by the pressure of the terrestrial/telluric currents. And there must be a shield/barrier of energy (call it the Schumann Cavity) between the two types of gravitational phenomena just described.

Both infinite earth/ua acceleration are armchair, fictitious hypotheses which do not answer the most basic questions when it comes to the gravitational anomalies known to exist over the surface of the earth/oceans (an issue I have presented here frequently).

My advice to the FES leadership is to completely erase the present official FAQ, and start over with my explanations and messages, Lord Wilmore could do that just nicely...then you would be in a position to present flat earth theory precisely, in the best possible way...the secondary, supporting theory, as it is presented right now, is a disaster, being taken advantage of each and every time a new thread is opened by the round earth supporters.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: James on November 11, 2010, 05:12:56 AM
Now, both ua acceleration and the infinite earth conjectures were created in order to explain terrestrial/planetary gravitation/gravity on a flat earth; and both fail miserably to address even this single issue.

I am not sure that either the Law of Universal Acceleration or the infinity of the Earth can be accurately explicated in terms which imply that they are some sort of post hoc conjecture. They are scientific facts, facts of two different but related sorts: the Law of Universal Acceleration, besides being plainly, trivially true to any sufficiently liberated and perceptive mind, is demonstrable by submission to direct experiment. The infinity of the Earth is an empirical induction, and, while it is technically unfalsifiable (since ex hypothesi an infinite number of explorers could spend infinitely many years traversing the snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes which populate the outer gloom and darkness, in which the material world is lost to human perception, without discovering any terminating feature), it still is to the best of our current knowledge utterly correct.

I have posted countless times already the direct quotes from I. Newton specifying the fact that he believed that there are two DIFFERENT gravitational forces: one of a rotational type, responsible for planetary/stellar orbits, and the other responsible for the terrestrial gravitation phenomenon.

I appreciate that Asag Newton claimed to believe a great many outrageous affronts against the most basic decencies of human reason, but I do not understand quite why you think the testimony of this devil-worshipping barbarian is convincing evidence in support of any theory. The beliefs and utterances of Asag Newton are permeated to their detestable core with falsehood and insanity. Inspired from a young age by the satanic heresies of Johannes Kepler, he conspired to assassinate his own mother and her pious husband by setting fire to their familial home. When his perverse patricidal fantasies were thwarted, by his forced removal to a boarding school, he went on to create that purely ficticious and malevolent web of lies known today as classical mechanics. The foundations of Newtonian gravitational theory are essentially the doctrines of Satanism.


I have posted, also, the direct arguments relating to the perturbation of planetary orbits, impossibility of the existence of a field of gravitons which would allow a Sun - Planet - Satellite system to function, and much more; the gravitational force responsible for planetary/stellar orbits is of a ROTATIONAL TYPE, completely different than the terrestrial gravitation encoutered here, on the flat earth.

It is true that the graviton is one of the most iniquitous fictions of modern life. However, you are mistaken about the motions of the planets. I must refer you to the cosmological heritage of Ptolemy, whose epicyclical system is the cornerstone of all true and accurate astronomy.


I have also demonstrated directly and very clearly that there is no attractive gravity; we have PUSHING gravity, caused by the pressure of the terrestrial/telluric currents. And there must be a shield/barrier of energy (call it the Schumann Cavity) between the two types of gravitational phenomena just described.

The only cavity here, I am afraid, is the cavity between the neo-Newtonian dual-gravity hypothesis and the actual truth. You are quite correct in your observation that attractive gravity is nonsense; for this I applaud you. However, the only PUSHING gravity which we have in actuality is the upward pushing of the Universal Accelerator, upon which all up-falling of the Earth to the objects which rest upon it is wholly reliant.



Both infinite earth/ua acceleration are armchair, fictitious hypotheses which do not answer the most basic questions when it comes to the gravitational anomalies known to exist over the surface of the earth/oceans (an issue I have presented here frequently).

These anomalies are themselves for the most part ficticious, except where they are brought about by the natural swelling and deflation of the Earth's surface under certain obvious conditions, conditions which I assure you are never accounted for in any so-called scientific test which pretends to discover "gravitational" anomalies. (That is to say, when they are not straightforwardly caused by the drunkenness of the globularist investigator).

you should stop the printing press on your book; you should let me write the chapters on gravity/ether, maybe then you will sell more than 2 copies...

I am unspeakably excited about the prospect of such a collaboration.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on November 11, 2010, 07:46:11 AM
If levee, or any other flat earther here, wishes to post an essay in the book to present their opposing view or views I'd be happy to add the necessary pages to the book.  However, it must be coherent and print worthy (to my discretion).
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 12, 2010, 02:21:30 AM
James, please read again:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38959.msg971069#msg971069

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38959.msg976795#msg976795

As for Ptolemy, I invite you to do a serious research, starting from:

THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY, BY PROFESSOR ROBERT NEWTON

In 1977, Robert R. Newton published his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy in which he accused Ptolemy of being the "most successful fraud in history". Newton charged Ptolemy with faking the observations of his predecessors to better suit his theory.

Newton realized, later, that in fact it was none other than Johannes Kepler who wrote the Almagest by Ptolemy; and we know now, that Kepler lived AT LEAST 100 YEARS LATER, than it is  acknowledged in the conventional chronology.

HISTORY, SCIENCE OR FICTION? BY PROFESSOR A. FOMENKO, VOLUME 3:

http://www.amazon.com/History-Astronomical-chronology-Almagest-Chronology/dp/2913621082/ref=pd_sim_b_2

Dr Prof Anatoly Fomenko and team dissect Almagest of ancient Ptolemy compiled allegedly in 150 a.d. and considered to be the corner stone of classical history. Their report states: Almagest was compiled in XVI-XVII centuries from astronomical data of IX-XVI centuries. As the King of astronomers Ptolemy is proven to be a medieval phantom, therefore standing aquitted of the crime he was accused by the late American astrophycist Robert Newton. Allegedly ancient Egyptian horoscopes painted in Pharaohs tombs of the Valley of Kings or cut in stone in Dendera and Esna for centuries considered impenetrable are decoded at last! All dates contained therein turn out definitely medieval and pertain to the XI centuries a.d. the earliest.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2010, 02:55:52 AM
Let us take a closer look at those gravitational anomalies which cannot be explained, either in the now accepted attractive gravity scenario, or in the UA acceleration/infinite earth models (quote: these anomalies are themselves for the most part ficticious, except where they are brought about by the natural swelling and deflation of the Earth's surface under certain obvious conditions):


Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

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

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


In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.


On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


Law of acceleration in view of the ether/aether theories:

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

http://keelynet.com/gravity/grav7.txt


J.C. Maxwell's original ether theory, the very best explanation, also torsion physics:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics1.htm#Part%20I

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperphysics2.htm#Part%20II

Double Helix theory of the Magnetic Field:

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe.pdf

http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf


How J.P. Morgan hired H. Lorentz and O. Heaviside to eliminate and hide the terms of the original equations of Maxwell which were related to aether vortex theory:

http://www.svpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=696&sid=df49b40b0918509a3a67b10075bf83fc


How H. Lorentz eliminated the terms of the Maxwell equations, which were not wanted by J.P. Morgan:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=205

Tom Bearden on the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.


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

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

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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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


http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c03.htm

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

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


Isn't it strange that our FES members do support the view of a flat earth (as they should, of course) but use as an explanation for the orbits of the planets/stars the concept of photoelectric suspension? The very notion of the photon was invented by the same conspirators who came up with the hoax concerning the shape of the earth (and much more, as they modified radically the chronology of history).

Here is someone who chose to think carefully about the concept of the photon:

www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf


More facts which do show the real nature of gravitY...

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm

ELECTRIC ROCK, GROUND ENERGY, SPACE RAYS, PHOTONUCLEAR REACTORS, SEA OF ENERGY, RADIOACTIVE IMPULSES SECTIONS


Cosmic rays are nothing but telluric currents; these telluric currents are torsion waves, consisting of dextrorotatory strings (gravity), and laevorotatory strings (electricity)...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on November 24, 2010, 09:04:20 AM
Thank you Levee. Chirality is always an interesting topic. Especially with polarized light optic activity.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 04, 2010, 03:11:46 AM
You will find an excelent introduction to torsion physics (Kozyrev/DePalma) and much more in chapter 2 (Hyperdimensional Physics) of Dark Mission by R. Hoagland:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36392975/Hoagland-amp-Bara-Dark-Mission-The-Secret-History-of-NASA-2007

And, in chapter 5, you will find the perfect reason (a point which has not been observed by any other author until now) why the Nasa Apollo missions COULD NOT have taken place at all.


http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (Kozyrev/DePalma torsion physics experiments)


What is time?

A. Kozyrev time theory:

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/RREPORTS/kozyrev_100/johansen_basic.pdf

Kozyrev - Barbour theory, Non-uniform time:

http://physicoschronos.org/pdf/poliakov.pdf


Julian Barbour - End of Time - Nows, time capsules

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html (10 pages)

http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/barbour.html


Julian Barbour - Killing Time documentary:




Absolute or Relative Motion? J. Barbour:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=ekA9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=julian+barbour+absolute&hl=ro&ei=LaN_TPurC47KswaN39H_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

End of Time/ J. Barbour:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=TpzEqWEGYoMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=julian+barbour+end+of+time&hl=ro&ei=naN_TOWhLY3CswblovTkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Space-Time continuum hoax:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39372.msg982142#msg982142


Flat Earth Universe in the vision of the shamans of the Amazon:

(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3218/incatreeoflife.jpg)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on December 04, 2010, 03:47:10 AM
You will find an excelent introduction to torsion physics (Kozyrev/DePalma) and much more in chapter 2 (Hyperdimensional Physics) of Dark Mission by R. Hoagland:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36392975/Hoagland-amp-Bara-Dark-Mission-The-Secret-History-of-NASA-2007

And, in chapter 5, you will find the perfect reason (a point which has not been observed by any other author until now) why the Nasa Apollo missions COULD NOT have taken place at all.


http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&Itemid=36 (Kozyrev/DePalma torsion physics experiments)


What is time?

A. Kozyrev time theory:

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/RREPORTS/kozyrev_100/johansen_basic.pdf

Kozyrev - Barbour theory, Non-uniform time:

http://physicoschronos.org/pdf/poliakov.pdf


Julian Barbour - End of Time - Nows, time capsules

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html (10 pages)

http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/barbour.html


Julian Barbour - Killing Time documentary:




Absolute or Relative Motion? J. Barbour:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=ekA9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=julian+barbour+absolute&hl=ro&ei=LaN_TPurC47KswaN39H_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

End of Time/ J. Barbour:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=TpzEqWEGYoMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=julian+barbour+end+of+time&hl=ro&ei=naN_TOWhLY3CswblovTkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Space-Time continuum hoax:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39372.msg982142#msg982142


Flat Earth Universe in the vision of the shamans of the Amazon:

(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3218/incatreeoflife.jpg)

I used to have a wonderful collection of essays concerning Shamans worldview and their intrinsically flat earth nature.  I'll see if I can find out the title as I think it may have some relevant information.

Specifically, it comes to mind that it does resemble, from what I know of your work, your view in many aspects.

Do you hold shamanistic worldviews to be glimpses of truth endowed upon them?  For example, one specific instance I can think of is the zetetic nature of their worldview in many areas - most notably the heavens - specifically in reference to and from simple observation of tiny holes in their tents and living areas.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 06, 2010, 01:49:54 AM
Have you ever read Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge by J. Narby? If not, you will find ALL your answers there, relating to your last post:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/cosmicserpent.htm

The problem with ayahuasca/peyotl is that it activates the thalamus gland (the third eye) and this can lead to a great deal of problems; please read:

http://www.prosveta.com/product_detail.phtml?id=285&pos=9&collection_id=3 (a great work by O. Aivanhov)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 06, 2010, 03:07:35 AM
RE: star trails/northern and southern circumpolar constellations:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32378.msg804555#msg804555
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg955618#msg955618

Rowbotham did not take this fact into consideration (three kinds of stellar orbits), that is why the official map (the one in the faq) is so wrong and distorted.

EDIT: The inquiries/questions addressed by RE supporters in the three main boards, cannot be answered by the facts listed in the main/official faq; here, in the alternative flat earth theory, we do answer ALL those questions re: sunrise/sunset (the Sun does in fact rise and set), star trails, FE maps, gravity (all the necessary details), ether vs. space-time continuum, the conspiracy (how, why, when), and much more...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 13, 2010, 06:04:13 AM
Somebody wrote at the Coriolis effect thread something to the effect, "another victory for RE..."...not by a long shot, please research the topic before offering premature conclusions:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (the very best work done on the Coriolis force, includes links to Foucault's pendulum/Cloud trajectories threads...)

On the contrary, the Coriolis force is one of the most important arguments to be used in proving that the Earth is indeed absolutely stationary...


Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London/Antwerp/Stockholm, all the details (includes the ball lightning argument):

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ski on December 15, 2010, 03:23:44 PM
I just read a bit of Narby-related material and found it interesting. I will be looking to pickup "Cosmic Serpent: ..." in the next few weeks or when I next visit the library.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 21, 2010, 01:02:16 AM
The complete demonstration that there is no such thing as attractive gravity (without attractive gravity, round earth theory amounts to nothing):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1000783#msg1000783
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1002693#msg1002693
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003411#msg1003411
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003454#msg1003454
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1003916#msg1003916
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004780#msg1004780
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004781#msg1004781
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1004830#msg1004830
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005453#msg1005453
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39823.msg1005454#msg1005454

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 25, 2010, 08:59:06 AM
Garden of Eden, north of Egypt, west to the Nile, right next to the Sea of Marmara:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg960675#msg960675 (I was able to decipher the meaning of the terms: sea of Atil, mount Riphath, river Tina)


Who wrote the Bible?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg986690#msg986690


ORIGINAL quote from Galatians 3:1:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1003416#msg1003416


CHRIST entering Constantinopole/Troy, the TROJAN Pilate:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 26, 2010, 04:05:20 AM
Although there are dozens of videos on the net showing the Strait of Gibraltar with no curvature whatsoever, I chose to present only profesionally made documentaries, so that there would no doubt as to the quality of the film itself.

Here is the new web address for the Islamic History of Europe (part I):



Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.


The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...

And a photograph shot from the same place:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 24, 2011, 04:29:43 AM
The superb demonstration that the Council of Nicaea (dated in the official chronology in the year 325 A.D.) could not have taken place BEFORE THE YEAR 875 A.D., the most precise proofs based on classical astronomy given by the Russian mathematician G. Nosovsky:

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Let us follow very closely the arguments...


Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed, and the Easter date table that had been used for centuries had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence.



THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger's dating of the Nicaean council 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar's Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today's copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar?s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar  the XIV century  Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn't happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar's text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called Lawful Easter in Christian clerical literature that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses or, alternatively, that of the 14th Moon.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon's Cycle) isn?t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled zero or more (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became equalling two or moreso that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter's advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger's dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 - (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger's dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn't see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council's dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar's age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger's time.


The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times ? in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we're to follow the consensual chronological version, we'll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.


In another article, "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era" by G. Nosovsky, it is clearly demonstrated that the Gregorian calendar reform was done incorrectly (and now we know that it was done at least after 1750 A.D., given the fact that the volcano eruption which destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum must have occurred at least after 1740 A.D.)...see also http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1109929#msg1109929

Since the Council of Nicaea MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT LEAST AFTER THE YEAR 875 A.D., the official chronology of the period 100 - 1100 A.D. is one which was made up at a much later date...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2011, 12:55:47 AM
December 24, 2018

"At the very beginning of this journey, I noted that Jim Morrison’s story was not “in any way unique.” As it turns out, however, that proclamation is not exactly true. It was a true enough statement in the context in which it appeared – which is to say that Morrison’s family background did not differ significantly from that of his musical peers – but in many other significant ways, Jim Morrison was indeed a most unique individual, and quite possibly the unlikeliest rock star to ever stumble across a stage.


Morrison essentially arrived on the scene as a fully-developed rock star, complete with a backing band, a stage persona and an impressive collection of songs – enough, in fact, to fill the Doors’ first few albums. How exactly Jim Morrison reinvented himself in such a radical manner remains something of a mystery, since before his sudden incarnation as singer/songwriter, James Douglas Morrison had never shown the slightest interest in music. None whatsoever. He certainly never studied music and could neither read nor write it. By his own account, he never had much of an interest in even listening to music. He told one interviewer that he “never went to concerts – one or two at most.” And before joining the Doors, he “never did any singing. I never even conceived of it.” Asked near the end of his life if he had ever had any desire to learn to play a musical instrument, Jim responded, “Not really.”

So here we had a guy who had never sang (apparently not even in the shower or in his car, which seems rather odd to me), who had “never even conceived” of the notion that he could open his mouth and makes sounds come out, and who couldn’t play an instrument and had no interest in learning such a skill, and who had never much listened to music or been anywhere near a band, even just to watch one perform, and yet this guy somehow emerged, virtually overnight, as a fully-formed rock star who would quickly become an icon of his generation. And even more bizarrely, legend holds that he brought with him enough original songs to fill the first few Doors’ albums. Morrison did not, you see, do as any other singer/songwriter does and pen the songs over the course of the band’s career; instead, he allegedly wrote them all at once, before the band was even formed. As Jim once acknowledged in an interview, he was “not a very prolific songwriter. Most of the songs I’ve written I wrote in the very beginning, about three years ago. I just had a period when I wrote a lot of songs.”

In fact, all of the good songs that Morrison is credited with writing were written during that period – the period during which, according to rock legend, Jim spent most of his time hanging out on the rooftop of a Venice apartment building, consuming copious amounts of LSD. This was just before he hooked up with fellow student Ray Manzarek to form the Doors. Legend also holds, strangely enough, that that chance meeting occurred on the beach, though it seems far more likely that the pair would have actually met at UCLA, where both attended the university’s rather small and close-knit film school.


In any event, the question that naturally arises (though it does not appear to have ever been asked of him) is: how exactly did Jim “The Lizard King” Morrison write that impressive batch of songs? I’m certainly no musician myself, but it is my understanding that just about every singer/songwriter across the land composes his or her songs in essentially the same manner: on an instrument – usually either a piano or a guitar. Some songwriters, I hear, can compose on paper, but that requires a skill set that Jim did not possess. The problem, of course, is that he also could not play a musical instrument of any kind. How then did he write the songs?

He would have had to have composed them, I’m guessing, in his head. So we are to believe then that a few dozen complete songs, never heard by anyone and never played by any musician, existed only in Jim Morrison’s acid-addled brain. Anything is possible, I suppose, but even if we accept that premise, we are still left with some nagging questions, including the question of how those songs got out of Jim Morrison’s head. As a general rule of thumb, if a songwriter doesn’t know how to read and write music, he can play the song for someone who does and thereby create the sheet music (which was the case, for example, with all of the songs that Brian Wilson penned for the Beach Boys). But Jim quite obviously could not play his own songs. So did he, I don’t know, maybe hum them?

And these are, it should be clarified, songs that we are talking about here, as opposed to just lyrics, which would more accurately be categorized as poems. Because Jim, as we all know, was quite a prolific poet, whereas he was a songwriter only for one brief period in his life. But why was that? Why did Morrison, with no previous interest in music, suddenly and inexplicably become a prolific songwriter, only to just as suddenly lose interest after mentally penning an impressive catalogue of what would become regarded as rock staples? And how and why did Jim achieve the accompanying physical transformation that changed him from a clean-cut, collegiate, and rather conservative looking young man into the brooding sex symbol who would take the country by storm? And why, after a few years of adopting that persona, did Jim transform once again, in the last year or so of his life, into an overweight, heavily-bearded, reclusive poet who seemed to have lost his interest in music just as suddenly and inexplicably as he had obtained it?


It wasn’t just Morrison who was, in retrospect, a bit of an oddity; the entire band differed from other Laurel Canyon bands in a number of significant ways. As Vanity Fair noted many years ago, “The Doors were always different.” All four members of the group, for example, lacked previous band experience. Morrison and Manzarek, as noted, were film students, and drummer John Densmore and guitarist Robby Kreiger were recruited by Manzarek from his Transcendental Meditation class – which is, I guess, where one goes to find musicians to fill out one’s band. That class, however, apparently lacked a bass player, so they did without – except for those times when they used session musicians and then claimed that they did without.


Anyway, the point is that none of the four members of the Doors had band credentials. Even a band as contrived as the Byrds, as we shall soon see, had members with band credentials. So too did Buffalo Springfield, with Neil Young and Bruce Palmer, for example, having played in the Mynah Birds, backing a young vocalist by the name of Rick “Superfreak” James (Goldie McJohn of Steppenwolf, oddly enough, had been a Mynah Bird as well). The Mamas and the Papas were put together from elements of the Journeymen and the Mugwumps. And so on with the rest of the Laurel Canyon bands

The Doors could cite no such band lineage. They were just four guys who happened to come together to play the songs written by the singer who had never sung but who had a sudden calling and a magical gift for songwriting. And as you would expect with four guys who had never actually played in a band before, they pretty much sucked. But don’t take my word for it; let’s let the band’s producer, Paul Rothchild, weigh in: “The Doors were not great live performers musically. They were exciting theatrically and kinetically, but as musicians they didn’t make it; there was too much inconsistency, there was too much bad music. Robby would be horrendously out of tune with Ray, John would be missing cues, there was bad mike usage too, where you couldn’t hear Jim at all.”

Another thing that was unusual about the band, however, is that, from the moment the band was conceived, the lineup never changed. No one was added, no one was replaced, no one dropped out of the band over ‘artistic differences,’ or to pursue a solo career, or to join another band, or for any of the other reasons that bands routinely change shape.

It would be difficult to identify another Laurel Canyon band of any longevity that could make the same claim. After their first two albums, the Byrds changed line-ups with virtually every album release. Frank Zappa’s Mothers of Invention were in a near-constant state of flux. Laurel Canyon’s country-rock bands were also constantly changing shape, usually by incestuously swapping members amongst themselves.

But not the Doors. Jim Morrison’s band arrived on the scene as a fully-formed entity, with a name, a stable line-up, a backlog of soon-to-be hit songs – and no previous experience writing, arranging, playing or performing music. Other than that though, they were just your run-of-the-mill, organic, grass-roots rock-and-roll band – with a curious aversion to political advocacy."


As I said from the very start, The Doors' music was composed by Adorno. Hello I Love You is a modified All Day And All Of The Night (Kinks). Light My Fire is a modified I Feel Fine (Beatles) which itself was taken from Manuel de Falla's Fire Dance.


January 15, 2019

RHCP's (Red Hot Chili Peppers) biggest hit up until 1992 was, by far, Breaking The Girl; however, for them, this came out of nowhere, since nothing they had done previously was any indication that they were capable of writing such a great song; indeed, Breaking The Girl could have been featured on the Led Zeppelin IV or Houses of the Holy albums, or even on a Beatles b-side of a single. Surprinsingly, critics were quick to point out that Breaking The Girl is a modified Norwegian Wood, however there is more to this story than meets the ear.



Iron Maiden's only ballad, Prodigal Son:



Both are modified versions of this Beatles song:




RHCP's next biggest hit was My Friends:



A beautiful modified version of Dear Prudence:




Pink Floyd's Money is a modified Moondance (Van Morrison):





Moondance is a modified Bouree (Bach's Suite in E Minor for Lute), given by Adorno to Jethro Tull:




Pink Floyd's Brain Damage is a modified Space Oddity given to David Bowie by Adorno:






Therefore, Roger Waters did not write any of the songs on the Dark Side of the Moon album.


Another Brick In The Wall Pt. 2 is a modified And Your Bird Can Sing (Beatles):




In the Flesh is a modified Shine On You Crazy Diamond. Once we figure out where Shine On You Crazy Diamond came from, we will understand that Pink Flody did not write any of their hits, but instead were given these songs to be played by them, just like The Who, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Deep Purple, Stones.


January 22, 2019

Shine On You Crazy Diamond is a modified Dig A Pony (Beatles):

(6:00 - 8:30)



S. Wonder's Living For The City is a modified Riders On The Storm (The Doors).



For those who haven't done their homework on the Coriolis effect issue, it is one of the best proofs that the Earth is stationary:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (the main/official faq does not address this issue properly at all)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 08, 2011, 04:47:30 AM
Notwithstanding Alexander the Great's inner earth journeys, here is another extraordinary argument from classical astronomy...

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus (ca. 950-994), as he observed the total eclipse of 22 December 968 from Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey). His observation is preserved in the Annales Sangallenses, and reads:

"...at the fourth hour of the day ... darkness covered the earth and all the brightest stars shone forth. And is was possible to see the disk of the Sun, dull and unlit, and a dim and feeble glow like a narrow band shining in a circle around the edge of the disk".

NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY:

"When the Emperor was waging war in Syria, at the winter solstice there was an eclipse of the Sun such as has never happened apart from that which was brought on the Earth at the Passion of our Lord on account of the folly of the Jews. . . The eclipse was such a spectacle. It occurred on the 22nd day of December, at the 4th hour of the day, the air being calm. Darkness fell upon the Earth and all the brighter stars revealed themselves. Everyone could see the disc of the Sun without brightness, deprived of light, and a certain dull and feeble glow, like a narrow headband, shining round the extreme parts of the edge of the disc. However, the Sun gradually going past the Moon (for this appeared covering it directly) sent out its original rays, and light filled the Earth again."

Refers to a total solar eclipse in Constantinople of 22 December AD 968.
From: Leo the Deacon, Historiae, Byzantine.

http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/quotes2.html


The winter solstice in the year 968 MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, given the 10 day correction instituted by Gregory XIII, as we are told (a very simple calculation - 11 minutes in the length of a solar year amount to a full day for each 134 years).

THEREFORE, the dating of the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 AD could not possibly be true, the true date must be much closer to the year 968 BC; as we have seen already, see http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1124740#msg1124740  the precise astronomical proof does indicate very clearly that the correct date for the Council of Nicaea was in fact the year 876-877 AD, and INDEED, some 90 years later from that date, the winter solstice DID FALL on December 22 (in the year 968 BC; 876 + 134 = 1010). More on the error instituted (the error of the ten days introduced in the calendar), we are told, in the year 1582, the so-called calendar reformation by Gregory XIII, in "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era" by G. Nosovsky.


The magnificent article by Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn, Restoration of Ancient History, an extraordinary account of the archaeologically-missing ancient history:

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

G. Heinsohn discovered that the period of history between 2100 - 600 BC NEVER EXISTED, and was invented much later in time, his archaeological findings are very well documented also in the books Ghost empires of the past: did the Sumerians really ever exist? and When did the Pharaohs live?



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 14, 2011, 06:39:43 AM
There have been several interesting topics of discussion lately, including this one:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48831.0

As I have mentioned before, so many times, chapters III - XII in Earth is not a Globe are the weakest part of that book; some, if not most, of the information posted in the main faq is false, especially that relating to the movement of the sun (sun - earth distance, sun diameter, sun orbit).

The Sun does actually rise and set, and based on the strictest zetetic methods, the ones I always employ, we can figure out the right numbers for the movement of the sun, based on the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes, and the Sun/Moon ISS/Atlantis transit videos, which are included here in my thread.


There have been several new developments, including these ones:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48357.msg1191815#msg1191815

We can safely say, now, that based on the proofs offered by the new radical chronology theory, that there are NO HISTORICAL RECORDS/DATA/PROOFS relating to any axial precession of the Earth, for the past 2000 years.

The Council of Nicaea could have taken place only after the year 876-877 e.n., as we have demonstrated in several previous messages here; therefore, the reformation of the calendar by Gregory XIII is completely false.

Given the fact that the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN ON DECEMBER 22 at the Council of Nicaea, means that the dates given in the reformation of the calendar in 1582 are wrong.

Moreover, Matthew Vlastar (writing in 1330 e.n.) tells us that the Council of Nicaea could not have happened before the year 722 e.n.

A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

            3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD.


From volume 3 of History: Fiction of Science? we can also see that J. Kepler, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus are one and the same person, writing at a time much later (at least after 1750 a.d.) than it is accepted in the conventional chronology.


We have already seen that the eruption of Vesuvius which destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum must have occurred at least after the year 1700 a.d.

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica:

CHAPTER V.
The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months, Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there. Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.

But E. Johnson was able to prove that the Pauline Epistles were copied and developed from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, see:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48357.msg1191856#msg1191856

Historia Ecclesiastica could not have been written before 1720 a.d., since it mentions both Vespasian and Titus:

Perhaps most important thing about the reign of Titus was his handling of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Though the Jews claimed that the disaster that struck was God's vengeance against Rome, Titus' speedy and exhaustive efforts at relief likely went a long way towards winning him a permanent place in the hearts of the people.



 
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on August 21, 2011, 04:08:16 AM
To fully understand the significance of one of the most important scientific experiment ever performed (G.B. Airy, 1871):

Geocentric stellar parallax/stellar aberration:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070808224504/https://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/van_der_Togt_stellarab-final.pdf
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax
http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no115/par-ab-rev.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington 'proved' Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax 'proves' the Kopernikan philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements.


G.B. Airy (one of the most eminent physicists of the 19th century, Airy differential equation, Airy function) and his experiment prove once and for all two things:

1. THE EXISTENCE of an energy layer (of various densities) which fills up the space between the earth and the sun/moon/stars (aether)

2. THE FACT THAT the Earth is completely stationary and does not revolve around its own axis (we only take into account here the geocentric theory, without the details about the shape of the earth, round or flat)


The body of evidence
Truth has a way of being indestructible. It may or may not be popular at any given time, it may even be barely noticeable, but it is always there. And it turns out that the truth actually gets in the way of "science"! Modern theoretical (non-applied a.k.a 'pure') physics is not really science-driven but agenda-driven. It is populated with heavily politicized academia. It has become nothing much more than a sham propaganda-exercise of empty eloquence with false authority. The inventor of the electric world we live in, Nikola Tesla was spot-on when he remarked that modern non-applied science has become nothing more than manipulative indulgence in fancy "thought experiments" and abstract, fuzzy math which have no relation to reality. Instead of the theories being made to fit reality, what we have is the opposite: reality being adjusted or in fact completely overthrown, in order to fit agenda-driven theories and models.

Then sometime later one George Biddle Airy decided to try out Boscovich's idea of a water filled telescope in order to test Bradleys heliocentric aberration theory a about a century after it was first proposed. He discovered that there was no change in the aberration through the refracting water in a supposedly "moving" earth. Airy didn't observe a larger eclipse and subsequently the experiment was declared a "failure". So that's why it is now commonly called Airy's Failure. Funny that - it was of course a failure in terms of failing to prove heliocentrism. So what did it show then? It showed that only one side was moving and since that was the star side, it means the earth was stationary all along!


Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World.

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by François Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

The experiment subsequently performed by Airy was first proposed by
Ruggiero Boscovich for testing James Bradley's heliocentric aberration.
This, in turn, was thought up to explain the elliptical
motion of the star Gamma D., as observed by James Bradley and
Samuel Molyneux.



What was the result of Airy's experiment? Exactly the opposite outcome
to that predicted in the rotating-World scenario. (Note that the
experiment is usually referred to as "Airy's failure" for this reason.)



Just like Arago before him, George Airy proved that the World was
stationary and the stars are moving. It does not matter whether there
exists a luminiferous aether or not, because the dragging of starlight,
as demonstrated initially by Arago, is real, irrespective of how we try
to explain it. Both Arago and Airy showed that it is the stars, and not
the World, which move (although Airy did not actually go so far as to
admit this). In addition, we can say that Michelson-Morley,
Trouton-Noble and many, many others have consistently demonstrated no
motion of the World.


Airy's experiment thus does not confirm the World to be just a piece of rock that hurtles through infinite space in who knows how many contorted motions, as Mikolaj Kopernik (aka 'Copernicus'), Johannes Kepler, Carl Sagan, et al., so zealously maintained.


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

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


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

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


Rotating Earth: Theory or Fiction?

http://web.archive.org/web/20090209060811/http://sites.google.com/site/abafte/geo



NOW, we take into account the shape of the earth...

(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)

We need to find the segment BD; first, by using the law of cosines, we get:

ED^2 = OE^2 + OD^2 - 2(OE)(OD)(cos s/R)

Then, immediately, we obtain:

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth


NO CURVATURE ACROSS THE ENGLISH CHANNEL:

The original webpages as they appeared on flickr.com about four years ago:

(http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9423/cap1rp.jpg)
(http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2548/cap2q.jpg)

The photographers are located right on the Cap Gris Nez beach, at an altitude of about 2-3 meters...the small rectangle in the photo is Cap Blanc Nez:

(http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/8526/doverbest2.jpg)

SHIPSPOTTING ON CAP GRIZ NEZ, ZERO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO ENGLAND, WHITE CLIFFS, DOVER:

(http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6801/doverbest.jpg)

No curvature whatsoever, a completely flat surface of the English Channel

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1051/4726849923_389dba2176.jpg)
white cliffs dover


Another photograph taken from Cap Gris Nez:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/

(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)

To meet the requirements of the RE, here are the numbers for different altitudes (we will go all the way to 20 meters, that is, the height of a five-story building):


h = 3 m BD = 60.6
h = 5 m BD = 53
h = 10m BD = 40.4
h = 20m BD = 25.5

That is, from an altitude of 20 meters, we would not see anything below 25.5 from the other side; the White Cliffs are in full view...





Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2011, 01:57:38 AM
ORIGINAL MAP REGNUM NEAPOLITANUM (THEATRUM ORBIS) SIGNED ABRAHAM ORTELIUS, OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY 1570 AD:

http://www.bergbook.com/images/22775-01.jpg (using zoom-in we can clearly see Pompeia right next to mount Vesuvius)

(http://www.bergbook.com/images/22775-01.jpg)

All the maps created by Ortelius:

http://www.bergbook.com/cgi-bin/demo10.cgi/Search

REGNUM NEAPOLITANUM WITH IMAGE NAVIGATOR:

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Catalogue_c.asp?page=4&area=115&subarea=27

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Details_c.asp?ID=8669 (with image navigator, we can zoom-in on any portion of the map, including Pompeii/Pompeia, right next to mount Vesuvius)


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mVSVlQXoXaQ/S3vPdnkdpPI/AAAAAAAAAmY/dlKMqtcNFlo/s320/Immagine2.jpg) (Campania region, mount Vesuvius)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mVSVlQXoXaQ/S3vPMSZ8QQI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/xYuaLXK5ry4/s320/Immagine1.jpg)

POMPEII, CITY IN FULL ACTIVITY IN THE YEAR 1570 AD, OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mVSVlQXoXaQ/S3vPojv0RaI/AAAAAAAAAmg/kuovyl4UdLA/s320/Immagine3.jpg)

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-features-of-domenico-fontanas.html


Abraham Ortelius' biography, the most famous cartographer of the Renaissance:

http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-ortelius


MEDIEVAL ARMOURS (HELMETS WITH MOBILE VISORS) FOUND IN POMPEII GRAFITTI (HELMETS WITH MOBILE VISORS WERE INVENTED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY, IN THE XVth CENTURY):

(http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3043/vez3.jpg)
(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/4948/vez4.jpg)
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2386/vez5.jpg)
(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7121/vez6.jpg)
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9718/vez7.jpg)
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7686/vez8.jpg)

ALL THE ARTIFACTS FOUND AT POMPEII BELONG TO THE RENAISSANCE:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm


As we saw earlier, the flat glass technology used at Herculaneum was first used in history at St. Gobain, in 1688 ad.


In view of these proofs, to talk about Alexander the Great and other Latin cosmographers is both silly and a sign of ignoring the clear evidence presented here.

Please read the first two volumes of History: Fiction or Science? that can be found on www.books.google.com (includes the fact that the Parthenon was built during the Renaissance)

Earlier I presented volume 3 of the same work, in which the most precise proofs were presented which do show that Almagest by Ptolemy was created in fact at least after the year 1350 ad...

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 15, 2011, 12:59:14 AM
Let us examine now some of the consequences of the fact that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius at least after 1700 AD:


Eusebius is an admirer of Josephus...

According to my mind Eusebius, who first cites this passage, was its author. Eusebius himself was a historian who admired Josephus very much and made a thorough study of him...
Eusebius mentions Plinius the Elder:

Eusebius tells us in the name of Tertullian that when Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote to Trajan asking for instructions about the Christian race...

But according to the official chronology, Pliny the Elder (uncle of Pliny the Younger) died in the year 79 AD, at Misenum, right next to mount Vesuvius...

http://www.christianorigins.com/zeitlin.html


Josephus mentions clearly the fact that the eruption which destroyed Pompeii occurred in the year 79 AD:

According to Josephus, the temple was destroyed in August of 70 CE and Vesuvius destroyed Pompeii in August of 79 CE.

 
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71712928/DrusilladaughterofHerodAgrippaI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drusilla_(daughter_of_Herod_Agrippa_I)

Their son perished together with his mother Drusilla, along with noted Roman historian Pliny the Elder plus most of the populations of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the AD 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

Drusilla, eruption of Vesuvius mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities, xx 7.2

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm#aoj (Jewish Antiquities by Josephus)

Chapter XX, section 7:

http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-20.htm (Agrippa, Drusilla, eruption of Vesuvius)


Josephus was a fictional character invented at least after the year 1750 AD (see also http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm )


Plutarch mentions the destruction of both Pompeii and Herculaneum in the year 79 a.d.:

http://www.lacma.org/eduprograms/EvesforEds/PompeiiandtheRomanVillaEssay.pdf

In the aftermath of the eruption, Greek historian and biographer Plutarch wrote: “Those who went there by daylight felt ignorance and uncertainty as to where Pompeii and Herculaneum had been situated.”

Isaac Newton mentions Plutarch:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/inewton.htm (A SHORT
CHRONICLE From the First Memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the great, paragraf 3)


Georgius Syncellus based his Extract of Chronography on Historia Ecclesiastica and Chronicles written by "Eusebius"..
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06463a.htm

http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-10-27.html


The work of Eusebius written and invented at least after the year 1500 AD:

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


J. Kepler in the work De Vero Anno (chronology of antiquity), is following the works of Josephus:

http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Dating%20the%20Birth%20of%20Jesus%20of%20Nazareth.htm

http://books.google.ro/books?id=0r68pggBSbgC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=kepler+de+vero+anno+chronology&source=bl&ots=UvGKnxjzKK&sig=eNKCwN2jvlP19kP8-zNo50nbr5g&hl=ro&ei=JIwqTvq0BcbDtAa2x8yGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kepler%20de%20vero%20anno%20chronology&f=false (pg. 228)


Letters between Galilei and Kepler:

http://www.catholicintl.com/noncatholicissues/personal_lives.htm


Letters between Galilei and F. Bacon (disciple of John Dee):

http://www.sirbacon.org/mcompeer2.htm


Galilei, Kepler, and Newton were fictional characters invented at least after 1750 AD...


And here you can find the rest of the proofs that Handel, Monteverdi, Telemann, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Munster were invented in the period 1750 - 1800 AD:

The first mathematicians we can believe in are Cauchy, Gauss and Weierstrass, with some minor modifications of their dates of birth, and first musicians who really lived in the XIXth century are Schumann, Wagner and Brahms)

The music attributed to Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven was actually created using special formulas requiring Fibonacci numbers and number sequences...

Bach, Mozart and the Golden Section:

http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/

http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.com/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html


Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart’s sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart’s sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening “motto” appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartók, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.


Exploding the Myth of Mozart:
http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

http://www.shoshone.k12.id.us/greek/fibo1.htm#mozart


Biography of Claudio Monteverdi:

http://www.answers.com/topic/claudio-monteverdi


Relationship between Galileo Galilei and Monteverdi:

Monteverdi and Galileo were exact contemporaries and near the end of their lives Galileo arranged for Monteverdi to procure a beautiful Cremonese violin (probably built by Nicolo Amati) for his nephew Alberto Galilei, the son of Galileo’s brother Michelangelo who composed the lute solo in the first half of our program.
http://www.ljms.org/Performances-and-Tickets/Program-Notes/Tafelmusik.html


The same people who falsified the official history and chronology are actually the very ones who invented the round earth concept and heliocentrical planetary system...

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2011, 01:24:16 AM
(http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/june302008/asteroidx.jpg)

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The authors of the very well documented work on Tunguska mention:

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/ (http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/)

The inhabitants of Central Siberia saw the fall and explosion of the meteorite over an area with a radius of 600-1000 km.


Another eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle


http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

In Berlin, the New York Times of July 3rd reported unusual colors in the evening skies thought to be Northern Lights:
"Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens ... bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappears at dawn."

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm)

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html (http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html)


The visual obstacle from Tunguska measures 7463 km; we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

That is why this is the very best proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2011, 02:41:26 AM
TELLURIC CURRENTS - GYROSCOPES ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS (HARNESSING TORSIONAL ETHER WAVES BY ROTATION)

Aether = universal, cosmic fluid pervading all space (Cymatics - activating the latent line forces of the aether through the application of sound / Airy's experiment of 1871)

Ether = dextrorotatory and laevorotatory waves which travel through the aether

Existence of ether waves proven by the Dayton-Miller ether drift experiments:


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.

"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


A closely related subject is gps time deformation frame dragging; the real cause, is, of course, called aether frame dragging, here are best works:


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

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

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

http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf


Ether waves proven by the existence of telluric batteries:

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stublefield1.html


Hans Coler's device, confiscated by the British Secret Service after 1945, which runs on ether waves:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/HansColer/HansColer.htm

http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb~1.htm


Telluric currents discovered by two of the greatest scientists of the 20th century: Gustave Le Bon and T. Henry Moray:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm (one of the best works ever written on the subject of telluric currents)

T. Henry Moray:

"I started my experiments with the taking of electricity from the ground, as I termed it, during the summer of 1909. By fall of 1910 I had sufficient power to operate a small electrical device, and I made a demonstration of my idea to two friends... This demonstration in the early stages consisted of operating a miniature arc light... It soon became evident that the energy was not static and that the static of the universe would be of no assistance to me in obtaining the power I was seeking...

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

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

The idea of obtaining and using "ground energy" is covered in secrecy. What would happen to fossil fuel companies were it even suspected that vast electrical energy could be simply pulled from the ground at specific points? These energies began "making their appearance" during the years of telegraphy. Well placed telegraphic ground plates were able to operate with energy simply taken from the ground. Several early telegraph lines historically continued signaling among stations, though their batteries had been "dry and dead" for several years! I spoke to an engineer who saw this kind of system operation when yet a teenager. Seeing this strange system in full working order so impressed him that, developing that rare taste, he forever sought such anomalies as a lifelong passion. Numerous articles from the last century retell exact details concerning these phenomena.

Tesla defined true cosmic rays as an entrant light-like effluve having incredible penetrating power. These were in no way similar to the conventional cosmic rays detected by Gockel (1910), Hess (1912), Kohlhorster (1913) or Robert Millikan (1925). Tesla viewed his discovery of these light-like effluves as holding the only promise for energy application. According to Tesla, the energy of these effluves greatly exceeded those of cosmic ray "particles".



Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.

In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

Dr. Le Bon was utterly dumbfounded when; forcing theory into fact, other colleagues announced the "immutability of radioactive decay". He also perceived where their erroneous logic would ultimately lead when they cited "internal instability" as the source of radioactivity. Separating themselves once more from the external world of energy, they would lose more than they imagined themselves gaining.

Le Bon disagreed when physicists began isolating the heavy metals as "the only radioactive elements. He had already distinctly demonstrated for them that "all matter was to a degree radioactive". He was first to write books on the conversion of ordinary matter into rays, an activity he claimed was constant. He showed that this flux from ordinary matter could be measured. Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


TORSION ETHER PHYSICS

NIKOLAI KOZYREV'S GYROSCOPE EXPERIMENTS

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion1.htm

Theoretical results were obtained that let spin-spin interactions be considered as the manifestation of an independent fundumental characteristic of matter. These investigations showed that numerous phenomena which were hard or impossible to explain, had a rigorous theoretical interpretation in the framework of torsion field theory. The convincing theoretical results which allowed understanding of the mechanism of Tam-Happer effect were first obtained by P.C.Naik and T.Pradhan in the USA [43] and then by P.I.Pronin, Yu.N.Obukhov and I.V.Yakushin in the USSR. Later De Sabbata and C.Sivaram in Italy [44] and then E.A.Gubarev, A.N.Sidorov and G.I.Shipov in Russia [45] with the use of torsion theories, gave a theoretical interpretation of experimental results obtained by A.D.Krish [32,33] and others [42].

Probably the first researcher to establish that the behaviour of gyroscopic systems cannot be explained in the frame work of Newton's mechanics was russian astrophysicist N.A.Kozyrev. In the 50s, N.A.Kozyrev cunducted a large series of experiments with gyroscopes and found that variations of the gyroscope's weight exists depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [1,2]. Later, Kozyrev's results were completely confirmed by a member of the Belarus Academy of Sciences A.I.Veinik, who in the 60s - 80s conducted a major research of the anomalies demonstrated by gyroscopic systems [8]. In 1989 H.Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi published results of their experiments in which the fall-time of freely falling spinning gyroscope was measured. These experiments showed that the fall-time varies depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation [48]. The unusual behaviour of spinning gyroscopes was observed by S.M.Polyakov in the USSR [24] and many others, and basically was interpreted as a manifestation of antigravitation. In 1991, G.I.Shipov showed that the violation of Newton's mechanics demonstrated by gyroscopic systems was caused by the appearance of torsion fields generated by spinning masses [49].


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

Torsion fields are generated by spin (considering classical spin [22,23]) or by angular momentum. There exist both right and left torsion fields (depending on the spin orientation). Since all substances (except amorphous materials) have their own stereochemistry which determines not only the location of atoms in molecules but also determines their mutual spin orientation, then the superposition of torsion fields generated by the atomic and nuclear spins of each molecule determines the intensity of torsion field in the space surrounding each molecule. The superposition of all these torsion fields determines the intensity and spatial configuration of the characteristic torsion field of that substance. Thus each substance possesses its own characteristic torsion field.


The structure of the torsion field of every object can be changed by the influence of an external torsion field. As a result of such an influence, the new configuration of the torsion field will be fixed as a metastable state (as a polarized state) and will remain intact even after the source of the external torsion field is moved to another area of space. Thus torsion fields of certain spatial configuration can be "recorded" on any physical or biological object.


KOZYREV TORSION BALANCE EXPERIMENTS:

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/levich_substan_inter/levich_substan_inter.htm


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

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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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

Ether waves of the dextrorotatory kind cause decay/decomposition/inertia; the laevorotatory waves provide antigravitational effects.


BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

(http://www.evert.de/eft907a.jpg)


ASPDEN GYROSCOPE EFFECT

http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_8_1.html

The aether was detected some years earlier by Sagnac in France and is detected in modern navigation technology by the ring laser gyro. How can the speed of a laser beam traveling around a closed path inside an optical instrument detect rotation of that instrument if the beam is not keeping a fixed speed relative to something inside that instrument that does not share its rotation? That something is the aether! No amount of book learning or mathematics can avoid that simple truth, and even though the word aether is seen as something magical, it is that something that delivers free energy once we have decoded the combination of the magnetic lock which restrains its release. Note also, that the aether reveals its existence when we have rotation and we have rotation in the Adams motor.



(http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7857/africabrazil.gif)

Northern/Southern circumpolar and Regular constellation orbits FLAT EARTH MAP

In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, re: flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.

As I have mentioned before, S. Rowbotham made several mistakes when discussing the secondary (supporting) flat earth theory (earth-sun distance, solar eclipse, circumpolar constellations)...

There are three kinds of stellar orbits: southern/northern circumpolar and regular.

Here is the photograph to prove it:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg

See the following links for complete explanations:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 01, 2011, 02:23:23 AM
Regarding the Cavendish experiment...

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

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

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

Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines exactly 4,250 feet long were suspended in each mine. At the end of these lines a sixty pound bob was hung. In order to prevent movement through a horizontal direction, each bob was suspended in a tank of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.
In this way, it was reasoned, magnetic forces could not effect them. The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed to hang, so that there would be no possibility of movement from putting them in place still remaining in the lines.
The measurements were begun.

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

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



http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (about the errors in the Cavendish experiment)


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm (the extraordinary experiments of Dr. Francis Nipher; how to modify gravity by applying electrical tension)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 02, 2011, 01:40:50 AM
HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3 - A. FOMENKO/G. NOSOVSKY



http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/ (http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/)

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3, DATING PTOLEMY'S ALMAGEST

mediafire.com 2ljuudrjdnt

Pg. 209 - 214

Tycho Brahe = N. Copernicus


Pg. 248 - 259

Who actually wrote the works attributed to Hipparchus, T. Brahe and C. Ptolemy


Pg. 302 - 327

J. Kepler = N. Copernic = T. Brahe = C. Ptolemy the most extraordinary analysis

The other pages include one of the best ever discussion on the new chronology of the times of J. Kepler, C. Ptolemy, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus, who were actually one and the same person.


Dating Ptolemy's Almagest (a more technical work):

mediafire.com qnmmdljvxkm

The coverings of the stars, and the lunar eclipses described in Almagest, could have occurred ONLY during the period 800 - 1350 a.d. and not one thousand years earlier. Archimedes' Palimpsest was also forged after 1750 AD.

HIPPARCHUS = TYCHO BRAHE




THE WORKS OF COPERNICUS WRITTEN AT LEAST AFTER 1600 E.N.; HISTORICAL FIGURE J. KEPLER AUTHOR OF DE REVOLUTIONIBUS ORBIUM COELESTIUM


ANCIENT GREEK ASTRONOMERS: INVENTED DURING THE RENAISSANCE



SEE - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860)



New address for the alternative faq:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100418162809/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20100418162809/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/)



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on December 04, 2011, 09:30:59 PM
I'll put back up the forums in the next few weeks levee so your posts are preserved outside of the archive.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 07, 2011, 03:36:17 AM
Your forum, the .net website, includes many other valuable discussions, in addition to some of my messages...many topics which actually were discussed in more details than it was done here.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on December 08, 2011, 01:19:36 PM
Your forum, the .net website, includes many other valuable discussions, in addition to some of my messages...many topics which actually were discussed in more details than it was done here.
It was never my intention to remove the site completely and will have the forums up for archive purposes.  I humbly apologize.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 14, 2011, 04:48:35 AM
Confirmation of the vortex/tachyon model of the atom:

Preons = quarkels

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

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

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


https://web.archive.org/web/20110116175908/https://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44784


http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.html (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/press.html)

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Laughlin.html (https://www.llnl.gov/str/Laughlin.html) (fractional quantum effect)


Preon-quarkel structure of the electronS:

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


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

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


http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v55/i5/pR2521_1 (http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v55/i5/pR2521_1)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9608279.pdf

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

It can be taken as an exciting and already intriguing historical
discovery of the substructure of quarks (and leptons), which has been long predicted, or as the first evidence for the composite model of quarks (and leptons), which has been long proposed since the middle of 1970’s [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It may dramatically change not only the so-called “common sense” in physics or science but also that in philosophy, which often states that quarks (and leptons) are the smallest and most fundamental forms (or particles) of matter in the “mother nature”.



All these results confirm the information presented over a century ago in the Occult Chemistry:


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)

See also:
http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm (http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm)

Occult Chemistry, first chapter:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 15, 2011, 02:39:35 AM
PARTHENON = TEMPLE DEDICATED TO THE  VIRGIN MARY, CONSTRUCTED DURING THE RENAISSANCE

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=AD2lU_WyLrDa0QWLrYEo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=parthenon&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=AD2lU_WyLrDa0QWLrYEo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=parthenon&f=false)

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 1, ANATOLY FOMENKO

PAGES 415-421 * 425-434


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2012, 06:18:25 AM
Hiroshima: Before and After

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516104/Liberty-Forum

During the period 2004-2006, on libertyforum.org (deleted from the internet), cactus/no name presented the most extraordinary facts pertaining to the fact that the "nuclear" explosion at Hiroshima was faked; I was able to save some of the pages.

An outline of the main points:

It seems hard to believe that less than 60 years ago we were naive enough to believe everything our government told us without question. It is even harder to imagine that today forces still exist in Washington who will stop at nothing to prevent the dissemination of pure, unadulterated Truth. It is time for the outrageous lies propagated for the past half century to be put to rest, and time for the real story behind one of the United States' greatest cover-ups to be told.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050303172300/www.temple.edu/history/hiroshima.html

Here is a model of the general disposition of the blast area. Observe the water access (if someone wanted to import thousands of tons of TNT quietly) and the structures standing. The second model shows you a representation (I hope they were doing this to exact scale-down) of the damage after the blast. Compare the epicentre of the blast as shown with a red flag in the second model with the blast effects as depicted in the first black and white after photo at the top of this thread. The center is way off and it would be interesting to understand why each model seems to make a point of not showing the structures BEHIND the blast. Take the circle of smoke on the black and white photo on top and transpose it where the blast flag is located on the after model in this set and ask yourself where 40% of the destruction went and why are the blast depicted with such contradiction from one official model to the next?

Also recall that this Allied genocide masquerading as liberation firebombed Desden in February of 1945, firebombed Tokyo in March (100,000) 1945 and wrapped things up with the massive FIREBOMBING masquerading as atomic bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did you know that Nagasaki was one of the biggest Catholic stronghold in Japan at the time?

Keep an eye on the epicenter of the blast and the radius of damage. Both those models are missing about 40% of the overall blast area. Take another look at the devastation photos, the original black and white I mean, look at the roads.
Do you see what I mean, THEY ARE ALL HIGHLY VISIBLE, how is this possible when debris has been catapulted all over the place? The roads should have been covered in debris. The hoaxsters became negligent and thought they would control the flow of information forever.

Look at the photos depicting the blast. You see a nice column of smoke rising into the sky with a pretty musroom photoshop on top. How do you get such a cloud from an airburst 2000 (1850 to be precise) feet above the ground? Where is the big crater, so characteristic of the hype used to open the cah funnel, in the center of Hiroshima. According to the models you would think they were burning autumn grass or something. I am not prepared to say that the hoax was fabricated entirely, I think those poor people really got the rabbinical lessons GOOD. And I will bet it smarted too. Funny how most of the burn victims photos I have seen never have burnt hair. I someone has a picture something like that award winning picture of that small girl running from US napalm carrying her brother or sister in her arms. You could tell THAT was real because the hair was burned in a way one might think is consistent with intense heat. The Hiroshima survivors have such an astonishing array of burn marks and burn patterns that one could be forgiven for wondering what it was that exploded there. Did the rig the city like a synchronized demolition with conventional fuel bombs spread throughout the buildings.

I invite the curious to examine the buildings in the BEFORE model and see what size buildings would have been suitable storage places to set the charges of such large amounts of fuel explosive.

Also note with regards to the mushroom cloud. Most people were blinded and in shock. Most survivors would agree with whatever the skunk had photoshopped to portray the configuration of the blast and agreed with it. Making people believe the bomb was real was most important, the skunks thought that the world would never believe a test shot with experts. The first choice for the use of the atomic bomb was determined to be Kyoto by the Target Committee. It was believed that the highly literate and intellectual residents there would convey the sophisticated terror and people would believe them MORE, It is my contention that they DID NOT BOMB Kyoto for THAT very REASON. They feared the intellectuals would be believed if they detected clues that it was a hoax. People (did not need to be too smart to display terror) were ritually sacrificed by fire as described in the definition of the word holocaust. The Allies were great at killing holocaust-style, especially if there are zillions of dollars at stake..think about it.

The damage is severely inconsitent with linear shock waves. The damage inspires me to believe the fuels were spread by explosive dispersion and ignited much like the moderbn DAISEYCUTTER incendiary cluster the Army has now. Hiroshima may have been a testing ground for the Daiseycutter, like a scaled down version of the vapour/fuel nightmare they mounted in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Desden, Tokyo and later in Vietnam. Fire is a big preoccupation with these superstitous skunks. Their has to be a big fire componant in the ritual killing. Like 9/11, the Ford Pinto.

The Nuclear Weaponeer narrating parts of the Trinity movie said that the most devastation comes from the low altitude blasts because the pre-cursor wave effect lifts everything off the ground. The simulation offered in T2 judgement day whereby the bomb is going off, you can see the precursor wave lift everything up into the air, cars, busses. You can see in this simulation, a great deal of care in accurately portraying the forces at work. Unlike the Hiroshima model, I find the T2 model more believable. You may have see some of the airbursts tested in the US proving grounds. They don't have much of a mushroom cloud. The mushroom cloud becomes more distinct as the charge gets low to the ground. In Hiroshima the smoke was everywhere. Smoke without wind. Look at the photos of the city after the explosion and ask why the roads are so clear. They never said anything about the bomb they used on Hiroshima as NOT having a wind componant. Look at the depicted damage and ask if this appears more consistant with firebombing then with atomic armaggeddon.

What is the same about Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were ALL firebombed (incendiary/holocaust-style).

TriNitroToluene and liquid gas incendiary devices radiate like hell too. The evidence supporting actual radiation sickness in Hiroshima looks more like evidence of cancers and burns consistent with conventional explosions.

I have examined before and after aerial reconnaissance photographs of the damage inflicted on Dresden and Tokyo. I have examined mushroom clouds from napalm bombs.

You see concrete extremely damaged in Dresden and Tokyo and Grozny, Chechnya but you don't see as much concrete in Hiroshima. Which brings me to include building configurations and volatility amongst the Target Committee's priorities. Most of the theatre for the Hiroshima bombing was to be razed to the ground to simulate A-bomb design parameters.They did a very crappy job but the public bought it anyways. For a while that is. Kyoto may have had too many hard targets and hard targets mean high survival rates and more chances for noisy and embarassing leaks. These, I would think, are critical considerations when pulling a hoax of this magnitude.



Neutrons WERE NOT the magic bullet, near-absolute synchronicity in the discharge of the shape charge plastiques HAD to be the cornerstone of that game of numbers.

And guess what happens after that? The chain reaction, if successful at all, consumes the fissionable mass before it can become critical and contribute to the exponential and very rapid expansion of the release of thermonuclear energy. Recall the experts explaining that BARELY ONE GRAM of the so-called weapon's grade uranium in Little Boy was converted to useful energy. In the VERY HEAVY load of 'lead' in Little Boy bomb ONLY ONE GRAM DID ALL THAT DAMAGE. One gram of fissionable uranium converts to 10 million degrees and million pound winds and the equivalent of 20KT of TriNitroToluene. They really wanted to play the Greek Gods.

Here are my reasons for believing the atom bomb and the rest of those clusters are bogus lies and illusions.

Item 1)

The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle moved at all. How is that possible I ask?

Item 3)

The so-called nuclear industry, be it weapons or so-called commercially viable nuclear reactors is the hoaxster's paradise. The whole ripoff scheme is shrouded in national security protocols and security bonding which means you can't discuss your work outside the plant if you don't want to incur the wrath of the NSA and risk jailtime for attempted so-called nuclear terrorism. The whole scam is compartmentalized so Sam doesn't know what George is up to.

Item 5)

The mushroom cloud thermodynamics of the atom bomb hoax have also been examined. The first problem the competant examiner notices with the mushroom cloud photographed on the day Hiroshima was attacked is that the sun is shining brightly overhead at the noon position. The bombing was said to have been at 8:15 am. I have heard it argued that this was the Nagasaki cloud but it has been used by the hoaxsters themselves for Hiroshima and Justin Raimondo had this exact cloud for his essay, Hiroshima, Mon Amour. Why would the jews want to say it is Nagasaki if they have nothing to hide? I went to the public library in downtown Montreal as a youth and I looked at microfilm of newspapers for that day in 1945 and the picture I enlarged taken from the microfilm was the cloud at noon and it was Hiroshima indeed. So, more evidence of a hoax?

Item 6)

The firebombing of Tokyo March 9-10, 1945-100,000 dead. M-69 aimable cluster firebombs reduced 26 square kilometers of that city to ash using a few hundred U.S. Air Force B-29 bombers. Aside the cost of the aircraft when initially built the cost of destroying all that section of Tokyo was a little more than a million dollars. So, why build anything that costs billions to destroy a fraction of the land those B-29 bombers could have destroyed in under less than a million dollars? Because the atom bomb was a lie and those cities reduced to ash by M-69 firebombs and that also explains the mysterious vanishing of the historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are they hiding the fact that there was no shock wave? Is that why the trees were still standing charred and many building facades still standing?

Item 7)

Hiroshima was not evacuated and life came back to normal very quickly. This is inconsistent with the models presented by the experts that said nothing would grow for 70 years and nobody could live there for a very long time. One week after the so-called atom bomb, oleanders were growing everywhere. The hoaxsters started stories of a miracle. More contradiction and nonsense from the jewish hoaxsters.

Item 8-

The pilot of the B-29 they said dropped the so-called atom bomb on Hiroshima is a known Hollywood insider and his B-29 crew was totally segregated on an island with the pilot Commander Tibbits fully in charge of security and everything. He had full autonomy and discretion. I believe his crew of talmudic cowards was near 200 aircraft when they sortie'd on Hiroshima then later on Nagasaki. Another brilliant example of the secrecy and security shroud of compartmentalization over the whole hoax. Why would this dumbass put his mother's name on an instrument of utter genocide if it were not that his mother gloats without end at the hoax accomplishments and mass murder that she would be pleased to figure prominently on the nose of that beast of destruction and mass murder. How can anyone believe such a mess of contradictions when it is obvious they would have been nuts not to exploit the means they had at their disposal under those circumstances. They pulled it off while everyone on earth was in a state of shock and would have believed anything these conspirators said just to stop the ignited gasoline showers?

Item 9)

Items said to be radioactive have in fact been doped with x-ray radiation for periods of time corresponding to the hoax expectations. At the Pantex assembly plant in Amarillo Texas they have a very powerful x-ray machine they say they use to look inside decomissioned so-called atom bombs before they open them up. That is totally rediculous because why would anything be wrong inside a bomb watched by the military night and day. I say the x-ray machine is there to dope the materials they assemble so that the x-ray detectors they call rad meters can read something expected from the mathematical models. When a rad meter is picking up x-ray radiation it is seemlessly and logarithmically converting this sampled energy and reporting the results as rads instead of x-ray energy that it is. When a student examines a sample said to be radioactive it is a sample irradiated prior using a high intensity x-ray machine. Again compartmentalization plays a key role here at the Pantex plant. Coincidentally they are the only plant in the US authorized to make the final assemblies of so-called nuclear bombs. What else could they be using that huge x-ray machine at Pantex if it is not to create illusions of atomic radioactivity?

Item 19)

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial airbrust explosions. The mushroom cloud needs to be seeded from the ground. The thermodynamic conditions caused by a circumferential airburst explosion would superheat the air all around and send radial shock waves emanating from the center outwards like the popular festivity fireworks and that would negate the conditions required for a mushroom cloud to grow normally. A mushroom cloud grows from the ground up in a predictable circular pattern that develops and flows through a relatively cool and stable upper air mass because the explosion was at the ground level. Who can deny that mushroom clouds can't grow out of radial airburst explosions?


The people who projected the ILLUSION THEY HAD THIS AWFUL WEAPON hoped they had imagined a weapon that would SELECTIVELY put an end to HUMANITY'S HOPES FOR THE FUTURE. This HOAX, it was hoped, would reap untold treasures for it's authors.

Just ponder the MINDBOGGLING ARRAY of possibilities if one accepts that the ABOMB IS A HOAX. When you accept the idea that it was a HOAX you can fully understand how it changed the world and our lives. Seeing it for the hoax it is gives one a feeling of freedom and understanding. One thing SEEING THE HOAX will not do is MAKE CONVENTIONAL WARFARE GO AWAY.

This confusion on the part of the Japanese was NO CONFUSION AT ALL.

They had been firebombed thousands of times by B-29s raids before, during, and after the HIRO/NAGA combination blasts. The reason the Japanese did not understand the difference IS THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had both likely wreaked the odor of spent gasoline and napalm fumes. I think the Japanese people WERE CONFUSED BY THE A BOMB STORIES, they could not distinguish the damage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with that of the thousands of other cities bombed to saturation with flammable ordinance. The confusion WAS NOT WITH THE FIREBOMBING, people could SEE THAT, it was the weird ATOM BOMB twist to these stories they could not understand.

Israel is PLAYING DUMB to cover the fact that THE ISRAELI ATOMIC PROGRAM IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXPANSION OF THE HOAX ALREADY WELL ROOTED IN THE PUBLIC PSYCH WORLDWIDE. Just opening the HOAX CASH FUNNEL valve a little more and to ACCESS MORE PUBLIC FUNDS AND LUCRATIVE INSECURITY. People NEED TO BE REALLY AFRAID before you can expect them to BUY TONS OF PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS. You can't swell the coffers of drug company predators without creating SOME KIND OF INSECURITY.



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2012, 06:22:29 AM
Hiroshima: Before and After (continued part 2)

It's nearly 8:15 a.m. American B-29 bombers appear overhead. The sirens wail, but Mitsuo and his coworkers ignore them, as usual. The planes are headed in the direction of Tokyo. Then, for the first time ever, Mitsuo sees the planes reappear over Hiroshima. They're in position now. Looking in the sky, Mitsuo sees an object. In the instant it takes for the bomb to drop, he feels no fear, only curiosity about this thing that glistens in the sun.

Mitsuo watches the object fall behind a mountain, Mount Hiji. The exact spot where the bomb explodes is called 'ground zero.' Mitsuo is about two miles away, with the mountain in between. At the moment of explosion, he sees a blinding flash of light. Then the shock wave hits. Mitsuo is blown several feet into the air and knocked briefly unconscious. He awakens to see a giant mushroom cloud rising into the air. Mitsuo is a witness to the first atomic bombing in history. And Mount Hiji, which shields him from the radiation, will help him live to tell about it.

How is this testimonial possible? Mitsuo is 2 miles away from the so-called blast with Mount Hiji in between and Mount Hiji is part of the 1000 meter ranges. 1000 meters is 3280 feet. The so-called atom bomb is reported to have detonated at around 1800 feet. How could Mitsuo feel or see such a blast if the mountain range was blocking the view? How could he feel so-called blast waves if the mountain was shielding him from radiation? One contradiction after the other is what makes up the story that serves as evidence of the existance of atomic bombs. The hallmark of a hoax.

(some of you may recall the first US nuclear tests, which were recreated/forged (because of security fears) using conventional explosives for the media - the classic nuclear mushroom cloud that many websites show is just a conventional TNT explosion.)


The Hiroshima mushroom cloud was actually fabricated in the New Mexico desert by using TNT/liquid gas explosives.

In 1944 the Allies captured a very remarkable weapon from the Germans called Wirbelringkanone, which accounts for the air blasts observed in nuclear tests explosions...


By late 1944 the quantum electron, proton neutron theorist quacks had not
figured out how to build it. Fermi dropped hints to Edward Teller about
Einstien's impact device for disks and spheres. Teller relayed the advice to
Oppenhiemer.

After the war, in a public announcement, the government gave the credit for the
succesful testing of the atomic bomb to Quantum physists and made up a quack
theory containg electrons, protons and neutrons, chain reaction and phony
critical mass information to satisfy the public's curiosity and to convince
them they know about atomic power and so would look no further into fission or
fusion.

Fermi got together with a German scientist and together they fabricated false
cloud chamber drawings showing that they were working on splitting the atom.

Chadwick's Neu(t)rons:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61446.msg1604716#msg1604716


The Oranur experiment of W. Reich showed what the source of the radiation is: the aether.

Reich moved from New York to an area just outside the town of Rangeley in rural southern Maine in the early nineteen fifties. Here he built a new home and laboratory personally designed to integrate home and laboratory into a single, brilliantly practical building, now the home of the Wilhelm Reich Museum. Another laboratory was added soon after for students. This structure was the setting for the so-called Oranur Experiment, a chilling example of the accumulator’s undeniable ability to concentrate energy. The experiment called for the placing of a very small amount of radium in an accumulator, the unexpected result of which was to toxify a surprisingly large area of southern Maine surrounding his home and laboratory, one that took several months to dissipate.

A nuclear reactor is nothing more than a gigantic Reich/Tesla aether box; see the message posted here about telluric currents: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899 (the actual cause of "global warming"; the intensity of the dextrorotatory currents has increased greatly, the ice sheets are NOT melting faster, they are disintegrating more swiftly).


R. Khomeini, secret biography:

http://www.venusproject.net/ecs/mullahs_legitimacy.html

Both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei know very well that there are no nuclear weapons, as both are MI6 spies, while the Iranian people have no idea what is going on.


Abiotic Origin of Oil

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”
Fred Hoyle 1982

http://www.rense.com/general63/staline.htm (best description and facts presented in this article)

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=63&contentid=2819&page=2

http://ranprieur.com/crash/abiotic.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20100103095143/http://the7thfire.com/peak_oil/peak_oil_is_a_known_fraud.htm

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

http://www.oilempire.us/peakoil.html
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm










Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2012, 03:13:15 AM
Faint Young Sun Paradox

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.

There is no way a round/spherical earth could have formed within this timespan of some ten million years (best case scenario); without attractive gravity, a spherical earth cannot be explained at all.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf

http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

Electrical Sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 31, 2012, 02:46:08 AM
BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.


Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

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



Video of the Biefeld-Brown effect:

(at least 27KV used in the experiment)


High voltage Biefeld-Brown experiments (very well documented):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm


Dr. Townsend Brown and his Gravitor:

(http://danielkingma.com/sites/danielkingma.com/files/Brown%20Disc.jpg)



http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html



Dr. Francis Nipher experiments of 1917: electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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


Dr. Charles Brush experiments of 1922: weight depends on the atomic structure of the substance -

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

Dr. Charles Brush, in a series of reports in the PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY around 1922 found, in some well-thought-out experiments, that weight was not only proportional to mass, but was affected by the atomic structure of the substances. For example, he found that for a given unit of mass and shape, BISMUTH falls faster than zinc or aluminum.


Furthermore, the Biefeld-Brown effect shows immediately that the Earth is absolutely stationary, that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. The antigravitational effect means that gravity is annulled for the duration of the experiments: we are told that the Earth orbits through space, around the Sun, at a speed of approximately 29 km/s, since an experiment lasts for at least 5 seconds, the metal object subjected to the Biefeld-Brown effect should smash itself against one of the four walls of the laboratory in no time at all (29 x 5 = 145 km).


Another experiment which could be used to prove the Earth is stationary involves a vertically fired projectile (for the Biefeld-Brown effect, the Coriolis force formula does not apply of course; gravity is annulled completely, as can be seen from the videos above and the description of the effect itself):

(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7656/formula3a.jpg)


T = period of rotation, 24h x 3600x/h = 86,400 s

g = 32 ft/s^2

t = time spent in the air (the projectile)

cos@ (cosine of latitude of experiment)


To understand the physics behind the Biefeld-Brown effect:

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

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm

And especially:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 10, 2012, 01:52:55 AM
I feel it is of some relevance to the principles of Zeteticism and the ideals of our Society.

Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason:

I have, writes Kant, therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.


I. Kant (official chronology - or the writers who created the works attributed to him at the end of the 18th century, radical new chronology) is the father of anti-Zeteticism, anti-science, anti-reason, nihilism, and much more, please read the Ominous Parallels, chapters: The Totalitarian Universe, Ethics of Evil, Kant versus America, The Culture of Hatred, America Reverses Direction, Convulsion and Paralysis.


The following excerpts are from chapter 2, The Totalitarian Universe:

Kant places his primary emphasis on epistemological issues. His method of attack is to wage a campaign against the human mind. Man's mind, he holds, is unable to acquire any knowledge of reality.

In any process of cognition, according to Kant, whether it be sense experience or abstract thought, the mind automatically alters and distorts the evidence confronting it.

The world that men perceive, therefore--the world of orderly, spatiotemporal, material entities--is essentially a creation of man's consciousness. Reason cannot discover anything about reality; if it tries, it can only bog down in impenetrable contradictions. Logic is merely a subjective human device, devoid of reference to or basis in reality.



Christoph Pfister archive:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (other works signed C. Pfister, including Matrix of Ancient History: http://www.dillum.ch/html/dillum_buecher_von_christoph_pfister.htm )
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 23, 2012, 09:51:15 AM
It is very easy to prove that the Earth is absolutely stationary; that is, it does not rotate around its own axis. Perhaps then the RE will be asking themselves the question: if the Earth is indeed stationary, what is its real shape?

Of course it would really help if the official faq would be replaced completely with the data I have amassed here; ISS/Atlantis do really orbit, as do the satellites, the sun rises and sets, the real sun-earth distance, the heavenly body which actually causes the solar eclipses, the northern/southern stellar circumpolar constellations/regular stellar paths and the REAL FE map, and much more.


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143#p34382

The most complete, up-to-date demonstration of the fact that the trajectories of the clouds are absolutely incompatible with an Earth that would rotate around its own axis; it includes the data from the freelists archive on the angular momentum, boundary layer and much more.


http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.


From Cosmos without Gravitation:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”

This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

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

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

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


The atmospheric pressure does not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

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

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374


Geocentric Coriolis force:

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


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

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

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


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



Ring Laser Gyroscopes and the Telluric Currents/Ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899





Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 09, 2012, 05:31:39 AM
Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby (best work on genetics, molecular biology and the fact that life could not have appeared by chance in a "prebiotic soup").

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/04/17/cosmicserp.pdf (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/04/17/cosmicserp.pdf)

Robert Wesson (Beyond Natural Selection): "By Mayr's calculation, in a rapidly evolving line an organ may enlarge about 1 to 10 percent per million years, but organs of the whale-in-becoming must have grown ten times more rapidly over 10 million years. Perhaps 300 generations are required for a gene substitution. Moreover, mutations need to occur many times, even with considerable advantage, in order to have a good chance of becoming fixed.
Considering the length of whale generations, the rarity with which the needed mutations are likely to appear, and the multitude of mutations needed to convert a land mammal into a whale, it is easy to conclude that gradualist natural selection of random variations cannot account for this animal" (p. 52). Wesson’s book is a catalogue of biological improbabilities—-from bats' hypersophisticated echolocation system to the electric organs of fish—and of the gaping holes in the fossil record.

"By what devices the genes direct the formation of patterns of neurons that constitute innate behavioral patterns is entirely enigmatic. Yet not only do animals respond appropriately to manifold needs; they often do so in ways that would seem to require something like forethought" (p. 68). R. Wesson adds: "An instinct of any complexity, linking a sequence of perceptions and actions, must involve a very large number of connections within the brain or principal ganglia of the animal. If it is comparable to a computer program, it must have the equivalent of thousands of lines. In such a program, not merely would chance of improvement by accidental change be tiny at best. It is problematic how the program can be maintained without degradation over a long period despite the occurrence from time to time of errors by replication" (p. 81).


Antoine Tremolilre (La vie plus tetue que les etoiles): "We know that more than 90% of the changes affecting a letter in a word of the genetic message lead to disastrous results; proteins are no longer synthesized correctly, the message loses its entire meaning and this leads purely and simply to the cell’s death. Given that mutations are so frequently highly unfavourable, and even deadly, how can beneficial evolution be attained?" (p. 43).


M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it" (p. 76).

In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that certain RNA molecules, called "ribozymes,"
could cut themselves up and stick themselves back together again, acting as their own
catalysts. This led to the following speculation: If RNA is also an enzyme, it could perhaps
replicate itself without the help of proteins. Scientists went on to formulate the theory of the "RNA world," according to which the first organisms were RNA molecules that learned to synthesize proteins, facilitating their replication, and that surrounded themselves with lipids to form a cellular membrane; these RNA-based organisms then evolved into organisms with a genetic memory made of DNA, which is more stable chemically. However, this theory is not only irrefutable, it leaves many questions unsolved. Thus, to make RNA, one must have nucleotides, and for the moment, no one has ever seen nucleotides take shape by chance and line up to form RNA. As microbiologist JamesShapiro writes, the "experiments conducted up until now have shown no tendency for a plausible prebiotic soup to build bricks of RNA. One would have liked to discover ribozymes capable of doing so, but this has not been the case. And even if one were to discover any, this would still not resolve the fundamental question: where did the first RNA molecule come from?". He adds: "After ten years of relentless research, the most common and remarkable property of ribozymes has been found to be the capacity to demolish other molecules of nucleic acid. It is difficult to imagine a less adapted activity than that in a prebiotic soup where the first colony of RNA would have had to struggle to make their home".


The contents of this famous soup are problematic. In 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey
did an experiment that was to become famous; they bombarded a test tube containing water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane with electricity, supposedly imitating the atmosphere of the primitive earth with its permanent lightning storms; after a week, they had produced 2 of the 20 amino acids that nature uses in the construction of proteins. This experiment was long cited as proof that life could emerge from an inorganic soup. However, in the 1980s, geologists realized that an atmosphere of methane and ammoniac would rapidly have been destroyed by sunlight and that our planet’s primitive atmosphere most probably contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and traces of hydrogen. When one bombards the latter with electricity, one does not obtain biomolecules. So the prebiotic soup is increasingly considered to be a "myth".

Microbiologist James Shapiro writes: "In fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

During the 1980s, it became possible to determine the exact sequence of amino acids in given proteins. This revealed a new level of complexity in living beings. A single nicotinic receptor, forming a highly specific lock coupled to an equally selective channel, is made of five
juxtaposed protein chains that contain a total of 2,500 amino acids lined up in the right order. Despite the improbability of the chance emergence of such a structure, even nematodes, which are among the most simple multicellular invertebrates, have nicotinic receptors.
Confronted by this kind of complexity, some researchers no longer content themselves with the usual explanation. Robert Wesson writes in his book Beyond natural selection: "No simple theory can cope with the enormous complexity revealed by modern genetics."
Other researchers have pointed out the improbability of the mechanism that is supposed to be the source of variation — namely, the accumulation of errors in the genetic text. It seems
obvious that "a message would quickly lose all meaning if its contents changed continuously in an anarchic fashion." How, then, could such a process lead to the prodigies of the natural
world, of which we are a part?


Another fundamental problem contradicts the theory of chance-driven natural selection.
According to the theory, species should evolve slowly and gradually, since evolution is caused by the accumulation and selection of random errors in the genetic text. However, the fossil record reveals a completely different scenario. J. Madeleine Nash writes in her review of recent research in paleontology: "Until about 600 million years ago, there were no organisms more complex than bacteria, multicelled algae and single-celled plankton.... Then, 543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian, within the span of no more than 10 million years, creatures with teeth and tentacles and claws and jaws materialized with the suddenness of apparitions. In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom.
Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geological time all around the world.
Throughout the fossil record, species seem to appear suddenly, fully formed and equipped with all sorts of specialized organs, then remain stable for millions of years. For instance, there is no intermediate form between the terrestrial ancestor of the whale and the first fossils of this marine mammal. Like their current descendants, the latter have nostrils situated atop their heads, a modified respiratory system, new organs like a dorsal fin, and nipples surrounded by a cap to keep out seawater and equipped with a pump for underwater suckling. The whale represents the rule, rather than the exception. According to biologist Ernst Mayr, an authority on the matter of evolution, there is "no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty."


In the middle of the 1990s, biologists sequenced the first complete genomes of free-living
organisms. So far, the smallest known bacterial genome contains 580,000 DNA letters. This
is an enormous amount of information, comparable to the contents of a small telephone
directory. When one considers that bacteria are the smallest units of life as we know it, it
becomes even more difficult to understand how the first bacterium could have taken form
spontaneously in a lifeless, chemical soup. How can a small telephone directory of information
emerge from random processes?
The genomes of more complex organisms are even more daunting in size. Baker’s yeast is a
unicellular organism that contains 12 million DNA letters; the genome of nematodes, which are rather simple multicellular organisms, contains 100 million DNA letters. Mouse genomes, like human genomes, contain approximately 3 billion DNA letters.


The book also includes several flat earth maps, such as this one:

(http://www.oneism.org/images/createzoom.jpg)

(http://www.oneism.org/images/INCA_TREE_OF_LIFE.jpg)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 25, 2012, 01:46:37 AM
GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT - inexistence of attractive gravity, UA acceleration

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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


Aether, time, Kozyrev torsion fields:

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


More information on the existence of telluric currents (ether), here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899) (includes Dr. Bruce DePalma spinning ball experiment)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 11, 2012, 02:28:34 AM
One of the very best proofs that the surface of the Earth is actually flat:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42v7ip

Between 38:28 and 38:35, no curvature whatsoever across the strait of Gibraltar (on a round earth, the curvature would measure some 3.35 meters, with a visual obstacle of some 5 meters on the other side of the strait), no ascending slope, just a perfectly flat surface of the water.


From the same spot, we even have a photograph to go along with the video, zero curvature across a distance of 13 km:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)


And of course there is the explosion of Tunguska, which was seen all the way from London...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: 17 November on July 12, 2012, 11:22:50 AM
Hiroshima: Before and After

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516104/Liberty-Forum (http://www.scribd.com/doc/78516104/Liberty-Forum)

During the period 2004-2006, on libertyforum.org (deleted from the internet), cactus/no name presented the most extraordinary facts pertaining to the fact that the "nuclear" explosion at Hiroshima was faked; I was able to save some of the pages.

This is good stuff.  Thanks for preserving it.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 12, 2012, 07:26:30 PM
Sandokhan, I am doing some research at the moment, and I was wondering if you would give me some of your time. What are your views of the Templars, and what role (if any) do you assign them within your revised historiography?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 13, 2012, 02:09:08 AM
There are three secret societies at the present time which control all governments: the Jesuits, the worshippers of Akhenaton, and the descendants of Canaan.

The legend of the Templars has been invented to somehow demonstrate that there was some historical basis to these secret societies.

Read the Dating of the Nicaea Council and how we have been led to believe that this Council took place in the year 325 AD, when it could not have taken place at all before the year 876-877 AD.  The dating of the Council is crucial in D. Brown's The Da Vinci Code...

There was no Inquisition, no Galilei, no Copernicus, or Kepler; a falsified history has been constructed in order to make us believe in heliocentrism.

Is there something specific re: the Templars' history you wanted to know?
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Lord Wilmore on July 13, 2012, 10:08:16 AM
Not really, though I am doing a bit of reading on the subject. I was mostly just curious to know what you thought of them. My own views are very much in the formative stage; at this point I am just collecting information.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ski on July 13, 2012, 05:11:38 PM
It is an interesting aside that the Templars received a large portion Supplinburg at the bequest of Lothair III of the Holy Roman Empire.

Lothair acquired the throne only after Henry "the Black", Duke of Bavaria switched sides in the dispute between Fredrik/Conrad  and Lothair III after the death of (heirless) Henry V of the Holy Roman Empire. Henry the Black received the betrothal of the daughter of Lothair III to a son as his price. Later, Henry's grandson through another child (Judith) became the Emperor -- Fredrick I, Barbarossa. Henry the Black and his progeny, of course, trace through the house of Welf-Este.

Lothair was instrumental in maintaining the papacy of Innocent II against Roger II of Sicily. Innocent was hand picked by his predecessor Honorius II who as pope had firtst officially recognized the Templar. Innocent entrenched the Templar movement with his Omne Datum Optimum, a papal bull giving the Knights an unusual array of powers and essentially making them an instrument of- and answer able only to-  the church.

So we again see the hand of Welf-Este through the history of both the Templar movement and the later Illuminati movement. And of course, the trenchhold of Bavaria is also the hot bed of early european globe making.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 14, 2012, 12:36:41 AM
There are authors, such as C. Knight and R. Lomas (The Hiram Key) who would have us believe that Christ and the apostles themselves were Templars. And they do not stop there: Akhenaton  was the first Templar.

Here is an unofficial biography of the Templars:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret07.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret07.htm)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret08.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret08.htm)

In the section, Science of Manipulation, you will find that all major globuralists, in the official chronology, were Templars.



But, none of these things ever happened, this is what I am trying to demonstrate.

History: Fiction or Science? volume I: history is at most 1200 years old; each and every detail in the official chronology has been forged/falsified prior to 1500 AD.

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phwBUIL6LsHNhAeJzqD7Bw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=phwBUIL6LsHNhAeJzqD7Bw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=false)



History: Fiction or Science? volume III: Almagest was written during the Renaissance, N. Copernic and his works invented at least 100 years later in time.

http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/2125.html (http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/2125.html)


The greatest of all British historians, Edwin Johnson, demonstrates how the official history of England has been falsified at least after 1530 AD; how the four Gospels and the Pauline epistles were written during the Renaissance:

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


Christoph Pfister demonstrates that before 1700 AD there was no human presence in Switzerland, how the official history of that country has been falsified, how all the cathedrals and castles were actually built during the 18TH century:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg998158.html#msg998158 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg998158.html#msg998158)



The complete demonstration that Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the volcano Vesuvius at least after 1700 AD:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243234.html#msg1243234 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243234.html#msg1243234)

And the follow-up:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243598.html#msg1243598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243598.html#msg1243598)


And, of course, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed, and the Easter date table that had been used for centuries had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence.



THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger's dating of the Nicaean council 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar's Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today's copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar?s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar  the XIV century  Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn't happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar's text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called Lawful Easter in Christian clerical literature that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses or, alternatively, that of the 14th Moon.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon's Cycle) isn?t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value about 24 hours in 300 years.

This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled zero or more (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became equalling two or moreso that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter's advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger's dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 - (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger's dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn't see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council's dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar's age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger's time.


The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times ? in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we're to follow the consensual chronological version, we'll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.


The entire file here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52083.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52083.0.html)

That is why the impressive historical facts posted by ski are just fabrications invented during the last 250 years.


The so-called fortresses attributed to the Templars, Tartos, Ruad, Knights Hall in Acre, were actually built at the end of the 18TH century...

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/SiegeOfAcre1291.jpg/431px-SiegeOfAcre1291.jpg)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on July 16, 2012, 01:38:43 AM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52077.msg1277205#msg1277205 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52077.msg1277205#msg1277205)

The axial precession thread can be addressed only by using the results from the new radical chronology.


A summary of the best work done for the new chronology of history:

http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83:chronological-revolution-part-1&catid=2:2008-11-13-21-58-51&Itemid=90

http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:chronological-revolution-part-3&catid=2:2008-11-13-21-58-51&Itemid=90


Pantheon, constructed during the Rennaisance:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fpantheon_rom_chronologie.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fpantheon_rom_chronologie.htm)


(https://s24.postimg.org/5prv059ud/tizian2.jpg)

(https://s10.postimg.org/womppuddl/tizian.jpg)

Abbildung 11: Italienische oder pompejanische Renaissance:
Tizian: Liegende Kurtisane (oben) und liegende Mänade aus
Pompeji (unten)
Abbildung der Mänade aus: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabiae, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

Figure 11: Italian Renaissance and Pompeian:
Titian: Horizontal courtesan (top) and from lying maenad
Pompeii (below)
Figure out the maenad: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

The well-known painting by Titian copied perfectly at Pompeii...



You might never believe again in the legend of Napoleon Bonaparte...

Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte de R. Whately

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte)


http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fnapoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fnapoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm) (the biography of Napoleon Bonaparte copied after the biography of Napoleon III)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 07, 2012, 01:09:39 AM
1939 - Tibetan Acoustic Levitation - Stationary Earth


(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/images/antigravitywg106.gif)


Tibetan Monks levitate stones by using an acoustic levitation technique with the aid of drums in this 1939 sketch by Swedish aircraft designer Henry Kjellson.




The following extracts are translations taken from the German article: 'We know from the priests of the far east that they were able to lift heavy boulders up high mountains with the help of groups of various sounds... the knowledge of the various vibrations in the audio range demonstrates to a scientist of physics that a vibrating and condensed sound field can nullify the power of gravitation. Swedish engineer Olaf Alexanderson wrote about this phenomenon in the publication.


The following report is based on observations which were made only 20 years ago in Tibet. I have this report from civil engineer and flight manager, Henry Kjelson, a friend of mine. He later on included this report in his book, The Lost Techniques. This is his report:


A Swedish doctor, Dr Jarl, a friend of Kjelsons, studied at Oxford. During those times he became friends with a young Tibetan student. A couple of years later, it was 1939, Dr Jarl made a journey to Egypt for the English Scientific Society. There he was seen by a messenger of his Tibetan friend, and urgently requested to come to Tibet to treat a high Lama.


After Dr Jarl got the leave he followed the messenger and arrived after a long journey by plane and Yak caravans, at the monastery, where the old Lama and his friend who was now holding a high position were now living.


Dr Jarl stayed there for some time, and because of his friendship with the Tibetans he learned a lot of things that other foreigners had no chance to hear about, or observe.


One day his friend took him to a place in the neighborhood of the monastery and showed him a sloping meadow which was surrounded in the north west by high cliffs. In one of the rock walls, at a height of about 250 meters was a big hole which looked like the entrance to a cave. In front of this hole there was a platform on which the monks were building a rock wall. The only access to this platform was from the top of the cliff and the monks lowered themselves down with the help of ropes.


In the middle of the meadow, about 250 meters from the cliff, was a polished slab of rock with a bowl like cavity in the centre. The bowl had a diameter of one meter and a depth of 15 centimeters. A block of stone was maneuvered into this cavity by Yak oxen. The block was one meter wide and one and one-half meters long. Then 19 musical instruments were set in an arc of 90 degrees at a distance of 63 meters from the stone slab. The radius of 63 meters was measured out accurately. The musical instruments consisted of 13 drums and six trumpets.


Eight drums had a cross-section of one meter, and a length of one and one-half meters. Four drums were medium size with a cross-section of 0.7 meter and a length of one meter. The only small drum had a cross-section of 0.2 meters and a length of 0.3 meters. All the trumpets were the same size. They had a length of 3.12 meters and an opening of 0.3 meters. The big drums and all the trumpets were fixed on mounts which could be adjusted with staffs in the direction of the slab of stone.
 
The big drums were made of 3mm thick sheet iron, and had a weight of 150 kg. They were built in five sections. All the drums were open at one end, while the other end had a bottom of metal, on which the monks beat with big leather clubs. Behind each instrument was a row of monks. The situation is demonstrated in the following diagram:


(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/images/antigravitywg108.gif)




When the stone was in position the monk behind the small drum gave a signal to start the concert. The small drum had a very sharp sound, and could be heard even with the other instruments making a terrible din. All the monks were singing and chanting a prayer, slowly increasing the tempo of this unbelievable noise. During the first four minutes nothing happened, then as the speed of the drumming, and the noise, increased, the big stone block started to rock and sway, and suddenly it took off into the air with an increasing speed in the direction of the platform in front of the cave hole 250 meters high. After three minutes of ascent it landed on the platform.


Continuously they brought new blocks to the meadow, and the monks using this method, transported 5 to 6 blocks per hour on a parabolic flight track approximately 500 meters long and 250 meters high. From time to time a stone split, and the monks moved the split stones away. Quite an unbelievable task.


Dr Jarl knew about the hurling of the stones. Tibetan experts like Linaver, Spalding and Hue had spoken about it, but they had never seen it. So Dr Jarl was the first foreigner who had the opportunity to see this remarkable spectacle. Because he had the opinion in the beginning that he was the victim of mass-psychosis he made two films of the incident. The films showed exactly the same things that he had witnessed.


The English Society for which Dr Jarl was working confiscated the two films and declared them classified.




http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid08.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/antigravityworldgrid/ciencia_antigravityworldgrid08.htm)






Until now, no one has even attempted to explain this carefully documented levitation of the block of stone (the author the article, B. Cathie, does not seem to understand the fact, that during the levitation itself, the block was not subject to any gravitational force, and therefore had the Earth been orbiting the Sun at a speed of 107,000 km/hr or some 29 km/s, it would have disappared instantly from the sight of the monks and the witnesses, not to mention the speed of the rotating Earth).




63.5 meters distance = 100 sacred cubits (1 sc = 0.6356 meters)


1 sacred inch = 0.02542 m = 2,542 cm




The sacred cubit is designated in the form of a horseshoe projection, known as the "Boss" on the face of the Granite Leaf in the Ante-Chamber of the Pyramid. By application of this unit of measurement it was discovered to be subdivided into 25 equal parts known now as: Pyramid inches.




180 monks - OM chanting - OM frequency = 136.1 Hz


6 trumpets = 53,4 Hz (length of each trumpet = 3.178 m = 6 sc)


8 drums = 106.6 Hz


4 drums = 160 Hz


1 drum = 534,3 Hz




Speed of sound = OM frequency x 2.5


Speed of sound/distance = frequency of the 6 trumpets


534.3 x 1 sc = speed of sound


Dimensions of the cavity resonator: 6 sacred inches height , 40 sacred inches diameter




Gizeh Pyramid


Distance from Campbell's chamber apex to top = 63.5 meters




It is obvious that the monks did not have at their disposal a trumpet with a length of 6.36 meters, that is why their doubled the first three frequencies, which should have measured 26.66 ,  53,4 ,  80 Hz respectively, to match the measurements of the heights of the chambers of the Gizeh Pyramid.






Matter has a sound aspect, and when a vibration is caused it generates an acoustical wave which travels through the air working with it concurrently and resulting in oscillations of particles in the air and this causes the intermolecular space of the air to rise in vibrations and causes the atoms to eventually work into the first state of the ether.




https://web.archive.org/web/20141027125332/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (for a complete description of the atom - and how the concepts of quarks, antimatter, higgs boson/field were simply copied from the pages of the Occult Chemistry)


http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm (http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm) (diagrams of the etheric atom)




http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.pdf (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.pdf) (first chapter from Occult Chemistry, The Nature of Matter)




The design of the tibetan levitation is similar to that of the Ptah/Osiris/Horus staff:


(http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/9573/ankhwas.jpg)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Relief_of_Ptah.jpg/397px-Relief_of_Ptah.jpg)




Tibetan levitation video:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/01/scitech/main20076209.shtml)

Denis Terwagne of the University of Liège in Belgium and John Bush, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have come up with quite an interesting finding concerning a ceremonial instrument used by generations of Tibetans.




Sonic levitation - cymatics




# (http://#)]


#ws (http://#ws)]


# (http://#)]








Now, we can understand exactly how the blocks of granite from Baalbek were moved from one place to another.


(http://c21553.r53.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ballom.jpg)


Weight: 2000 tons




(http://ancientmystery.info/Baalbek-old-photo.jpg)


(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_3.jpg)


(http://c21553.r53.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/batrilit.jpg)


(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_4.gif)


Three blocks, weight 1000 tons each


Seven blocks, each weighing 400 tons


Fourteen blocks, each weighing 300 tons




http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek6/baalbek6.html (http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek6/baalbek6.html)

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek7/baalbek7.html (http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek7/baalbek7.html)

Here is a fascinating question. Why did the builders of the Trilithon struggle with 800-ton weights when it would have been far easier to split the giant monoliths into smaller blocks? Why not use 4 x 200-ton stones rather than a cumbersome 800-tonner?


According to my engineer-friends, it was very risky to use 800-ton blocks in the way seen at Baalbek. This is because any vertical defects running lengthwise through the stone might have led to a critical structural weakness. In contrast, a similar fault in a smaller block would not have affected the overall construction. Either the builder was incompetent and just plain lucky or he was competent and supremely confident in his materials.


 
 
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 07:15:01 AM

Consider what a prism does:
http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/light-XV.htm (http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/light-XV.htm)
Quote
(http://www.educationalelectronicsusa.com/p/images/light-XVa.gif)
The splitting of a ray into its component colours is known as dispersion of light and the band of colours is known as a spectrum.



A ray of light DOES NOT split into any component colours.


This is another subject of science where the official dogma is trying to hide the truth.


http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/GoetheColour.html (http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/GoetheColour.html)


Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism, it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.


What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism. If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.


(http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/ColourProjection.jpeg)


The physicists explain it thus - the colourless light already contains the seven colours within itself - and when we make the light go through the prism, the prism really does no more than to fan out and separate what is already there in the light, - the seven colours, into which it is thus analyzed.

A look through the prism shows that we do not see the light in seven colours. The only place you can see any colour is at some edge or border-line.

If we let light pass through the space of the room, we get a white circle on a screen. Put a prism in the way, and the cylinder of light is diverted, (Figure IIc), but what appears is not the series of seven colours at all, only a reddish colour at the lower edge, passing over into
yellow, and at the upper edge a blue passing over into greenish shades. In the middle it stays white.

(http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/prisma-lightSpectrum-goethe.gif)




Also, we have been taught the wrong information about magnets, and the magnetic field.


The most thorough investigation of magnets belongs to H. Johnson, in the classic Spintronics:

Spintronics -The Secret World of Magnets (2006 by Howard Johnson) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson#)


Here are the images obtained: each magnet has FOUR vortices of particles streaming in/out of it:

(https://s14.postimg.org/mr9pyuxjl/ma1.jpg)

(https://s23.postimg.org/vgqj6s13f/ma2.jpg)

(https://s13.postimg.org/ui6a29lgn/ma3.jpg)

(https://s16.postimg.org/f0mmdfznp/ma4.jpg)


The graphic drawn by E. Leedskalnin: two currents of particles (each current is actually made up of two vortices) make up a magnet's field, both running N - S and S - N:

http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg (http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg)



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

A subquark (tachyon, anu, omegan) is made up of vortices which consist of bosons and antibosons (strings of bosons).

Ether (telluric currents) consists of double vortices of subquarks also; in a conductor, the atoms made up of subquarks will align themselves to let bosons pass from a subquark to another, that is, electricity.

An electric current brought to bear upon the Anu checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the Anu exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The Anu always set themselves to the current. Fig. 4. In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single Anu.

Here is how a subquark looks like (emissive and receptive vortex):

(http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image007.jpg)

http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm (http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter.htm) (string, subquark, quark, meson, proton vortex theory)


A boson consists of the smallest vortices of matter: they are called aparabindu and parabindu in vedic physics.

The Great Pyramid of Gizeh is nothing else than a huge scale representation of an emissive aparabindu; its missing apex is the parabindu.


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).



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

That is, living tissue receives the antigravitational supply of laevorotatory strings of subquarks.

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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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

Ether waves of the dextrorotatory kind cause decay/decomposition/inertia/gravity; the laevorotatory waves provide antigravitational effects.

N. Kozyrev realized that gravity = time = dextrorotatory strings.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 02:22:41 AM
There is a 100% accurate proof of the existence of ether; this in turn means that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of the telluric currents, thus providing another FET proof.


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


A century-old claim by  two early leaders of  the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations  are  found  to be consistent with  facts  of  nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected.  Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of  matter is shown to agree with the
string model.  Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory.  The implication  of  this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal  observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists  currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.


Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit.
It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.



The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model.
The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have  compositions and  UPA  populations indicating  that  they consist of  the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of  an element.  This
makes  them more  akin  to what  nuclear physicists  call  "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion  of  two  very  fast-moving  nuclei. Moreover, precognition would  not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry.  If they had used
merely  precognition, they  would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.


The following sections of the article by Dr. Stephen Phillips provide a complete and correct model of the atom, up to boson/antiboson level:


Micro-psi Atoms
Quark Model
A Statistical Test
Quantum Chromodynamics
The String Model
Micro-psi Confirmation of the String Model
Structure of the UPA (Subquark)
Superstrings
UPA as Subquark State of Superstring


Detection of subquarks/preons:

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


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.



In the Occult Chemistry (copied by Murray Gell-Mann, P. Dirac, and P. Higgs), A. Besant described correctly EACH AND EVERY element of the periodic table (including isotopes); moreover, the atom is shown to be made up of vortices (ether/subquarks/tachyons).

A 100% statistical proof of the correctness of the ether model (see also the graphs in the article of Dr. Phillips).



OCCULT CHEMISTRY TABLE OF CONTENTS:

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

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


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)

Laevorotatory and dextrorotatory subquarks (tachyons/preons/omegans) - first state of ether E1


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif)

Second state of ether: E2 - QUARKS and other types of combinations



(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif)

Third state of ether: E3 - MESONS and other types of combinations


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif)

Fourth state of ether: E4 - BARYONS and other types of combinations


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif)

Seven fundamental forms of the elements (subquark vortices)


(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif)

HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

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.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 12, 2012, 12:15:36 AM
Egyptian Pteranodon

http://s8int.com/WordPress/tag/was-scepter-was-sceptre/ (http://s8int.com/WordPress/tag/was-scepter-was-sceptre/)

(http://s8int.com/images7/pteranodon-0.jpg)

(http://s8int.com/images7/pteranodon-1-small.jpg)

(http://s8int.com/images7/pteranodon-1-compare-small.jpg)

(http://s8int.com/images7/pteranodon-4-small.jpg)

(http://s8int.com/images7/pteranodon-4-compare-small.jpg)


A. Fomenko proved that the pharaohs did live during the Renaissance:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/Zodiacs.html (http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/freebooks/history/Zodiacs.html)

Table of contents of the Mysteries of Egyptian Zodiacs:

(https://s3.postimg.org/u3ldppt9f/fom11.jpg)
(https://s21.postimg.org/ak6e76ccn/fom22.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/5o85l1rzj/fom33.jpg)
(https://s4.postimg.org/ouhoj5ir1/fom44.jpg)

And as we saw earlier both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius at least after 1700 AD.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 14, 2012, 02:02:03 AM
Pompeii, House of the Physician mosaic, Lexovisaurus depicted

http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit56.html (http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit56.html)

(http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-2.jpg)(http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-3.jpg)

Both of the images above are from the "Hunt" mosaic discovered in the House of the physician in Pompeii, Rome. When the images are discussed, it is within academia, not with the general public. The apology given for the oversized reptiles is that they are simply nile crocodiles. This is not the case.  The crocodiles on these Nile works were rendered realistically and accurately as shown in this rendering from the Nile Mosaic below:

(http://s8int.com/images4/nile-croc.jpg)

Note that in the first two images, and in the complete mural below a man is battling a reptile taller than himself with a shield and a spear. Compare the man, the dinosaur and the building at the center of the image.

(http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-4.jpg)

(http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-8.jpg)

The creature on the right has a dermal ridge, unlike a crocodile but exactly like certain dinosaur types.

(http://s8int.com/images4/pompeii-5-large.jpg)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 25, 2012, 08:57:27 AM
Two of the very best papers published by Dr. Anatoly Fomenko and Dr. G. Nosovsky on the new chronology subject, both appeared in the Acta Applicandae Mathematicae (17 - 1989 and 29 - 1992):


When was Ptolemy's star catalogue in Almagest compiled in reality?

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf)



The dating of Ptolemy's Almagest based on the coverings of the stars and on lunar eclipses

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf)



A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that the works attributed to Ptolemy (90 - 168 AD) were actually written at least 1000 years later, in fact at least after 1350 AD.


In an earlier message, the link to the best work published by Fomenko and Nosovsky: volume III of History: Fiction or Science?: Dating the Almagest.




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 31, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
(http://www.seasky.org/solar-system/assets/images/comet07_sk12.jpg)

When the Earth sees the fingers of Spearfinger strike Jupiter, when the ages of the Rings and wheels tell it is the ending of the ages of cycles of 5, this will be the sign for the whole earth, for all the earth will see this thing, to wake up from sleep.

Spearfinger = one of the former satellites of Saturn (currently named the Shoemaker-Levy comet)

Origin of long period comets (from Velikovsky’s unpublished Saturn and the Flood):

http://www.varchive.org/itb/satcom.htm (http://www.varchive.org/itb/satcom.htm)



Saturn and the Flood – Jupiter of the Thunderbolt by I. Velikovsky:

http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm (http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm)   


More on the mysterious origins of short and long period comets: Worlds in Collision by Velikovsky:

http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf (http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf)

Velikovsky Worlds in Collision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Velikovsky-Worlds-in-Collision#)



Earth in Upheaval by I. Velikovsky:

Velikovsky Earth in Upheaval (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval#)


Velikovsky did not realize, unfortunately, that the “ancient” Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian bibliographical sources were all forgeries of the 18th Century, as demonstrated with ample proofs in the new radical chronology subject.

Moreover, the sudden extermination of the mammoths was caused by enormous tides that swept over continents. The leaves and twigs found in their stomachs did not grow in the area where the animals died, but far to the south, a thousand or more miles away. In the RE theory presented by Velikovsky, a hemisphere travelled southward (the immediate subsequent movement of the Siberian continent into the polar region): that is, a tilting of Earth’s axis due to the slowing down/stoppage of the Earth in its diurnal “rotation”.

The only sources we can trust for a description of  past planetary collisions (FE theory) in Worlds in Collision are as follows: Polynesia, Maoris of New Zealand, Samoan tribes, Tahiti, Hawaii, Loanga, Kanga, Wanyoro tribes in Africa, Oraibi, Kaska, Choctaw and Pawnee tribes in North America, Lapland tribes (all described in Worlds in Collision – use the index/search functions), and, of course, the greatest of all works on cosmology, the Bundahis.

http://azargoshnasp.net/Din/astrologybundahishn.pdf (http://azargoshnasp.net/Din/astrologybundahishn.pdf)

http://zoroastrianastrology.blogspot.ro/p/world-horoscope.html (http://zoroastrianastrology.blogspot.ro/p/world-horoscope.html)


An in-depth knowledge and understanding of past planetary cataclysms allows us to find out when future collisions between planets and future extended solar eclipses will take place with precision.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 31, 2012, 12:29:30 PM
German antigravitational secret weapons, best documentation by Nick Cook ( Aviation Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly), Hunt For The Zero Point:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf)



A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110812193422/http://www.tiono.com/model/FlyingSaucers.pdf



SS Brotherhood of the Bell (Joseph Farrell):

http://books.google.ro/books?id=ycsmUU0DXhIC&redir_esc=y (http://books.google.ro/books?id=ycsmUU0DXhIC&redir_esc=y)


Reich of the Black Sun (Joseph Farrell):

google search with: whale reich of the black sun pdf


Thule Tachyonator Mercury Gyro (double torsion applied to mercury, described in The Hunt for the Zero Point):

(https://s9.postimg.org/e1dn5s3nz/Bellgramreduced.jpg)


Haunebu flying disk:

http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm (http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/HAUNEBU.htm)


German UFOs - superb documentation:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110501121137/www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/HTMLdosya1/NaziUFO3.htm


Die Gloke - Torsion Aether Field Physics:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130319201844/http://iqxs.posterous.com/the-secret-history-of-the-most-secret-nazi-sc

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 01, 2013, 12:34:56 AM


Vril society Antarctica expeditions, UFO technology, R. Byrd's Operation High-Jump, Piri Reis map: best documentation
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: John Davis on January 24, 2013, 06:39:11 AM
Good work!
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2013, 02:42:54 AM
The FE wiki should be based totally on this "good work".

John, if you have read my messages carefully, you should be able to predict when the next total solar eclipse which will last for more than 30 minutes (the disk of Sun is fully obscured) will occur. It has happened three times in the past, the geological consequences being described in Earth in Upheaval by Velikovsky.

(http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-akhenaton-sun-symbol.jpg)

You will also find the reason why Venus (Aten/Aton/Athene) was worshipped by Akhenaton, more details in the chapter Venus in Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. The new radical chronology helps us understand who really built the monuments at Tenochtitlan, Monte Alban, Tiahuanaco, Chichen Itza and much more...and how the "mayan" stelae were falsified.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 29, 2013, 01:57:09 AM
Like most official ‘thinking’ the historical and archaeological establishment makes up its own stories, calls them proven facts, and simply ignores the overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. The idea is not to educate, but to indoctrinate. Anyone who doesn’t conform to the official line of history is isolated by their fellow historians and archaeologists who either know their jobs, reputations and funding are safer when they stick to the official version, or, frankly, they cannot see beyond the end of their noses. The same can be said of most people in the teaching and ‘intellectual’ professions.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 01, 2013, 06:54:26 AM
In addition to the faint young paradox, the inexistence of attractive gravity (experiments performed by Dr. B. DePalma and Dr. N. Kozyrev), the galactic orbit paradox, the cloud trajectories paradox (stationary earth), the Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London, we have, for the most skeptical RE supporter, the most precise proof of them all: the fact that prior to 1800 AD, there are no astronomical/historical records/data whatsoever which would prove the precessional movement of the Earth.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52083.0.html#.UQvTp2FK5Qg (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52083.0.html#.UQvTp2FK5Qg)

It is assumed that the First Ecumenical Nicaean Council (Nicaea is a town in Bythinia, Asia Minor) had compiled and sanctioned a church calendar in the year 325 AD. The Christian church has deemed this Easter Book (in the West), also known as Paschalia (in the East), to be of the greatest importance ever since.


The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.



The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.



Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.


A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.



This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.



Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.


Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


According to the official chronology and astronomy, the direction of Earth's rotation axis executes a slow precession with a period of approximately 26,000 years.

Therefore, in the year 325 e.n., official date for the Council of Nicaea, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 21 or December 22; in the year 968 e.n., on December 16; and in the year 1582, on December 11.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the superb work The Easter Issue, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the winter solstice in the year 968 e.n., for example must have fallen on December 21.

And, of course, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.


Let us imagine the protests which would have followed if the Vatican would have dared to say that the winter solstice in 1581-1582 occurred on December 11, given the precise fact that IT MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE ON DECEMBER 16. This means, of course, that the Papal Bull, dated 1582, was created much later in time, in fact at least after 1700 e.n., to give the impression of a "historical proof" of the axial precession hypothesis.

There is no other way around it: the most precise proofs that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that the entire medieval and even ancient chronology was invented by both "Scaliger" and "Petavius" some centuries later (that is, the conspirators who faked/forged the official chronology during the second half of the XVIII century).


No European countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar#Adoption_in_Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar#Adoption_in_Europe) ) could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology) - a difference of a full five days would have destroyed the credibility of Vatican's astronomers.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 07, 2013, 07:31:46 AM
Dating the Council of Nicaea, more details

Dionysius Exiguus could not possibly have lived in the 6th century AD

(Dr. G. Nosovsky, 1994)



(https://s15.postimg.org/fp895wfvf/sky19.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.org/fmg8h0dsl/sky20o.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.org/ci71hmqmz/sky21v.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/4nhwrkzen/sky22.jpg)
(https://s3.postimg.org/dy3rh17oj/sky23.jpg)
(https://s1.postimg.org/z30wy31pr/sky24.jpg)
(https://s12.postimg.org/5qg47u5m5/sky25.jpg)
(https://s8.postimg.org/6jaau9ij9/sky26.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/3vg7icdaf/sky27.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.org/lntryjvzv/sky28.jpg)



The Council of Nicaea, therefore, could not have possibly taken place before the year 876-877 AD.



The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.


However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


Neither was this issue presented during the Councils of Antioch (341AD), OR during the Councils of Carthage (397AD, 411AD, 418AD) - a fact which is impossible given the extraordinary proofs discovered by Dr. Nosovsky.



Amazingly, both Galileo and Kepler AGREE with the changes in the calendar proposed by pontiff Gregory XIII.


In 1613, the Emperor Matthias asked Kepler to attend the Reichstag at Regensburg to counsel on the issue of adopting the Gregorian calendar reform in Germany. In Germany, the Protestant princes had refused to accept the calendar on confessional grounds. Kepler believed that the new calendar was sufficiently exact to satisfy all needs for many centuries. Thus, he proposed that the Emperor issue a general imperial decree to implement the calendar.

Clavius was the senior mathematician on the commission for the reform of the calendar that led, in 1582, to the institution of the Gregorian calendar.
 
From his university days, Galileo was familiar with Clavius's books, and he visited the famous man during his first trip to Rome in 1587. After that they corresponded from time to time about mathematical problems, and Clavius sent Galileo copies of his books as they appeared.


But, as we have seen, in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, a clear fact which could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.


Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 10, 2013, 01:06:17 AM
The author of Revelation 11:8 tells us that Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.


King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )


Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )



Great city on seven hills - either Rome or Constantinopole (also built in seven hills - http://www.istanbulguide.net/insolite/english/seven_hills.htm (http://www.istanbulguide.net/insolite/english/seven_hills.htm) )


"Furthermore, the crucifixion did not even take place in Jerusalem! According to the book of Revelations, Jesus was crucified in Rome:

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Revelations 11:8, KJV)

The Christians would probably argue that the “great city” refers to Jerusalem, yet the renowned Bible scholar John Gill disagrees:

And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city,.... Not Jerusalem, which was destroyed when John had this vision, and which will not be rebuilt at the time it refers to; nor is it ever called the great city, though the city of the great King; however, not in this book, though the new Jerusalem is so called, Revelation 21:10; but that can never be designed here; but the city of Rome, or the Roman jurisdiction, the whole empire of the Romish antichrist, which is often called the great city in this book; see Revelation 16:19."


Jerusalem = Constantinopole - original quote from the epistle to the Galatians - Christ in Constantinopole:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,45731.msg1131078.html#msg1131078 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,45731.msg1131078.html#msg1131078)


----
The best book about  Kant's philosophy (epistemology and ethics) is, by far, The Ominous Parallels by L. Peikoff (http://www.peikoff.com/lr/excerpts.htm (http://www.peikoff.com/lr/excerpts.htm) )

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 14, 2013, 08:19:12 AM
http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm (http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm)

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:
·         The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's
·         The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's
·         Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.
·         The Gospels were written in the 1500's.


For those who follow the list of "St. Malachy" (list of pontiffs)...

Benedict - Olivetans - Gloria Olivae

Francis of Assisi - Franciscan Order - Peter


http://www.catholicpreaching.com/peter-francis-october-4-1999/ (http://www.catholicpreaching.com/peter-francis-october-4-1999/) (St. Peter and St. Francis, things in common)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 17, 2013, 03:20:11 AM
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think this subject is not off-context. Then it should "fit" in Flat Earth General.

Ok, you all know that it is uncomfortable to express your opinions about earth's shape in our current society, where round earth is considered an absolute and unquestionable truth. I have did it in school, and that didn't went so well.

I'm in the first year of the High School, and here we are taught obviously that the world is round, this is a recurrent theme in Geography and Physics. But I will speak specifically about my discussions with my Physics teacher on earth's shape.

You know, we have to frequently "swallow" the idea that the earth is round and orbits the sun, as well that the sun is a star, space travel is possible, NASA doesn't lie etc. Some weeks ago, I was listening to these things told by my teacher and then I raised my hand and said: "Teacher, I know a group, a kind of organization, which believes that the earth is flat, and NASA fakes its images.". He answered: "Really? They're ignorant. It was proved that the earth is round. I can think about the possibility of geocentric models, maybe. But a flat earth is impossible."

Bring to the attention of your physics teacher the following undeniable facts:


The greatest champion of the flat earth theory is Newton himself (official chronology, or, in the new radical chronology theory, the group of persons who wrote the books which make up Newton's work, from alchemy to the private letters he sent to Oldenburg, Bentley and Halley...):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,53879.msg1325217.html#msg1325217 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,53879.msg1325217.html#msg1325217)

His pressure terrestrial gravity can happen only on a flat surface of the Earth.


Show your teacher the entire Tunguska file, for example:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1401098.html#msg1401098 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1401098.html#msg1401098) (page 24 and also the next page from the thread gravity as it relates to the speed of light)


The classic experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma and Dr. N. Kozyrev:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1393588.html#msg1393588)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.msg1394647.html#msg1394647)


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


Then, we move to the Faint Young Sun Paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1312927.html#msg1312927)


No elements could have formed in the big bang explosion (or in the failed/fake space time continuum):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.0.html#.UUWYVjd5ciI (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.0.html#.UUWYVjd5ciI)


You might also bring up the barometric pressure paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UUWYcDd5ciI (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html#.UUWYcDd5ciI)


Using the search function (both here and in the .net website) your teacher can find out how ALL american/soviet/russian space missions were completely faked...


And last, but not least, show your teacher the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Brunjes, and also the Solar ISS/Atlantis transit videos...
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 21, 2013, 07:08:31 AM
That there was a darkness lasting three hours during the crucifixion is recorded in three of the Gospels. They read as follows:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.


The moon eclipse of April 3, 33 AD lasted for only a few minutes, and not for three hours (the eclipse must have been lunar, since we need a full Moon for the Passover).

The only lengthy eclipse which matches the biblical description occurred in the year 368 AD, March 21.


For obvious reasons, apologists are fond of claiming ancient pagan witnesses for the "darkness." Two names are banded about: Thallus and Phlegon. But the truth is we know next to nothing about either and our sources are all Christian scribes.

Apologists like to push Thallus into the 1st century to make him a "better witness" but all we can be sure of is that he wrote before Theophilus, a bishop in Antioch who mentions his name, at the end of the 2nd century. The probability is that Thallus is actually a 2nd century writer.

In any event, we have NO text written by Thallus himself. What we do have is a reference to Thallus in a 9th century work by Georgius Syncellus, a Byzantine churchman. Yet Syncellus doesn't quote the words of Thallus directly – he relies on a 2nd - 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus (thought to be a Libyan). But Africanus himself has paraphrased Thallus, thus making the testimony of Syncellus no better than third-hand and unreliable.

Even allowing such dubious provenance for the "testimony of Thallus," just what does our pagan witness say? Africanus tells us that Thallus recorded a solar eclipse – and there is nothing at all unusual in an ancient observer recording such natural phenomena.

The twist is that Africanus says Thallus was mistaken, that he was really recording the darkness spoken of in the gospels! It is Africanus who makes the link to Jesus – not Thallus!

There is no doubt that Phlegon was a 2nd century writer, around the time of Hadrian. Phlegon merely recorded a great earthquake in Bithynia, which is on the coast of the Black Sea. Again, not Phlegon but the Christians who quote him make the link to Judaea and the crucifixion.

The Christian fraudsters concatenated Thallus' eclipse with Phlegon's earthquake (both "signs" planted in the gospels) to witness their fabulous nonsense, disregarding what was written, when it was written and which part of the world it referred to!




And yet no writer of that age or country, or any other age or country, mentions the circumstance but Matthew. A phenomenon so terrible and so serious in its effects as literally to unhinge the planets and partially disorganize the universe must have excited the alarm and amazement of the whole world, and caused a serious disturbance in the affairs of nations. And yet strange, superlatively strange, not one of the numerous historians of that age makes the slightest allusion to such an astounding event.

Even Seneca and the elder Pliny, who so particularly and minutely chronicle the events of those times, are as silent as the grave relative to this greatest event in the history of the world.



Therefore, the description concerning the lunar eclipse at crucifixion, accompanied by a darkness which lasted for a full three hours, is just fiction.


The New Testament: religion of Osiris, sun-worship, disguised in christianity:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110726031754/http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparison_of_sungods_with_life_of_jc_concerned.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20110726031754/http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/comparison_of_sungods_with_life_of_jc_concerned.htm)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090604182324/http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/raise_lazarus_truth_sun_myth.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090604182324/http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/raise_lazarus_truth_sun_myth.htm)


They changed every word Christ originally said, in order to start a new religion, in which they would be at the very top.


In the new radical chronology, Christ was crucified at Constantinopole, approximately in the year 1770 AD.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 24, 2013, 01:45:25 AM
J. Scaliger (De Emendatione Temporum - 1583, Thesaurus Temporum - 1606), D. Petavius (De Doctrina Temporum, 1627), P. Crusius (Liber de Epochis - 1578) mention Pompeii and Herculaneum as having been destroyed in the year 79 AD (Vesuvius eruption).

And yet, in the SAME DECADE,  in the official chronology, the famed cartographer Abraham Ortelius depicts Pompeii as a city in full activity in his Regno de Napoli maps (published in several editions from 1570 to 1578):

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Catalogue_c.asp?page=4&area=115&subarea=27 (http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Catalogue_c.asp?page=4&area=115&subarea=27)

http://www.bergbook.com/images/22775-01.jpg (http://www.bergbook.com/images/22775-01.jpg)



http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Details_c.asp?ID=8669 (http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/Details_c.asp?ID=8669)


http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-ortelius (http://www.answers.com/topic/abraham-ortelius) (biography of A. Ortelius)


(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mVSVlQXoXaQ/S3vPMSZ8QQI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/xYuaLXK5ry4/s320/Immagine1.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mVSVlQXoXaQ/S3vPojv0RaI/AAAAAAAAAmg/kuovyl4UdLA/s320/Immagine3.jpg)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243234.html#msg1243234 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243234.html#msg1243234) (more details here, including the Pompeii Grafitti, gladiators with helmets which feature mobile visors, a XVth century invention)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243598.html#msg1243598 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1243598.html#msg1243598) (Plutarch, Josephus, Dio Cassius, Pliny the Elder, Eusebius - fictional characters invented at least after 1700 AD)




http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp (http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp)

The first historical records of the glass rolling process in Saint Gobain date back to 1688.

This process involves pouring molten glass onto the rolling table, spreading it out and rolling it. It produces flat glass of an even thickness. Another advantage is that this process enables the production of glass sheets with the dimensions of 40 x 60 inches, which is ideal for mirror making.

And yet, perfectly flat glass at Herculaneum:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg (http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom15.jpg)
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg (http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/gallery/pom16.jpg)

"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007.


Here is an article which takes a very close look at the correct historical dating of the Vesuvius eruption which destroyed the city of Pompeii (translation from German):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 02, 2013, 06:32:00 AM
In the Book of Jubilees, the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version in the Genesis chapters.


Let us follow the actual text very closely.

Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon, toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk  the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon, along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."


If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.

(http://holylandarchive.com/section_images/202_MarmaraMap031105.jpg)


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31)

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).



All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg (and certainly not Shem); and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia (a portion of land given to the descendants of the sons of Khem/Ham; namely, the northern part was given to Misraim and some of his sons, and the southern portion was taken over by Nimrod and his sons).

Christ, a direct descendant of Pelasg, lived right next to the Sea of Marmara (and not the sea of Galilee).


Christ entering Constantinopole:

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7923/jerustroia3.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7923/jerustroia3.jpg)


Pilate wearing a turban:

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3246/jerustroia4t.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3246/jerustroia4t.jpg)


Original quote from Galatians 3.1 :

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4643/jerustroia2.jpg (http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/4643/jerustroia2.jpg)
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/669/jerustroia5.jpg (http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/669/jerustroia5.jpg)
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2841/jerustroia6.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2841/jerustroia6.jpg)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 03, 2013, 07:10:34 AM
(http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1092/lunars.jpg)

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/v/vegalu/eschatology_files/Lunars.pdf (http://www.sonoma.edu/users/v/vegalu/eschatology_files/Lunars.pdf) (ignore the biblical fundamentalism and heliocentricity)


Shabuwa - masculine form = period of seven, heptad (Daniel 9:24,25,26)

Feminine form (normal) - 70 x (single weeks)
Masculine form (unusual) - 70 x (multiple weeks)

Shabuwa - plural form = feasts of weeks (Seventy Shabuwas or Shavuots are determined...)

Therefore the 70 x 7 years explanation is completely wrong.


The requirement of the 70 feasts of weeks is met by the following periods:

70 periods of 50 days (3500 days) - 7 sets of 7 days + 1 day

70 periods of 50 years (3500 years) - 7 sets of 7 years + 1 year

70 years
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 04, 2013, 03:27:49 AM
If you are an FET believer, reply with your best arguments and I will attempt to refute them. If I cannot refute them, I will be forced to accept FET.

The best proof (and the same time the simplest) that the surface of the Earth is actually flat is the explosion which occurred at Tunguska, 1908, June 30, 7:00 - 7:15 (London time, 0:00 - 0:15): the complete details for everyone -

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404164.html#msg1404164 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404164.html#msg1404164)]

(http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south - this constituted, most probably, the spherical earth measurement thought initially to be correct - but Tesla realized that something is definitely wrong in relation to the actual readings given by the true location of lake Baikal (telluric currents/ether influence on the trajectory of the ball lightning)

Therefore the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


Furthermore, the explosion was seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Stockholm, a distance which reaches across seven time zones (the first link includes the eyewitness accounts, a very good graphic, and many other details).



No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar (video + photograph):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1370519.html#msg1370519 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1370519.html#msg1370519)


You can also read about the Galactic orbit paradox, the Faint Young Sun paradox, the fact that terrestrial gravity is a force caused by the pressure of the telluric currents, and not at all an attractive force.


There were no Copernicus, Galilei, or Kepler - the most precise proof available: the fact that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876 AD and the fact that the Gregorian calendar reformation is just a myth (see pages 7 and 8 on this thread).

Conclusion: there is no such thing as round earth theory...not now, not ever.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: bullhorn on April 04, 2013, 05:36:41 PM
I have reviewed your work, with independent analysis and it lines up with known science and mathamatics.

Very well done.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 05, 2013, 05:29:03 AM
Here is an example of known science vs. existence of ether (telluric currents) true science:

http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/tesla/common/radiant/TRE1.htm (http://nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/tesla/common/radiant/TRE1.htm) (Maxwell's equations section)




http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm) (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm) (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html) (about the errors in the Cavendish experiment)


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm) (the extraordinary experiments of Dr. Francis Nipher; how to modify gravity by applying electrical tension)




A closely related subject is gps time deformation frame dragging; the real cause, is, of course, called aether frame dragging, here are best works:


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

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf (http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1130.pdf)

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

http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf (http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/agathan5.pdf)


Ether waves proven by the existence of telluric batteries:

http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stublefield1.html (http://www.icehouse.net/john1/stublefield1.html)



Dayton Miller ether drift results:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)


Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007)

Please read further:


http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm)

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html) (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm (http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.



Using the correct theory (ether + aether) we understand immediately the nature of light, magnetism, terrestrial and planetary/stellar gravity, how to produce levitation/ball lightning and much more.

Furthermore, we now have at our disposal the most precise and correct quantum model: baryons, mesons, quarks, subquarks, the structure of a subquark, the structure of a boson/antiboson.


The official attractive gravity theory cannot explain at all how the monoliths at Baalbek were moved and lifted into position:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Baalbek-stoneofpregnantwoman.jpg/800px-Baalbek-stoneofpregnantwoman.jpg)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 08, 2013, 05:44:26 AM
The Ominous Parallels, Kant Versus America chapter


The process of spreading a philosophy by means of free discussion among thinking adults is long and complex. From Plato to the present, it has been the dream of social planers to circumvent this process and, instead, to inject a controversial ideology directly into the plastic, unformed minds of children - by means of seizing a country's educational system and turning it into a vehicle for indoctrination.  In this way one may capture an entire generation without intellectual resistance, in a single coup d'ecole.



Here is how, for example, the concept of space-time was introduced to universities and colleges, forcing every student of physics to learn this fallacious concept by heart as scientific truth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#msg1399626 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#msg1399626)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399854.html#msg1399854 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399854.html#msg1399854)



E. Johnson, The Pauline Epistles:

 It seems to be indirectly proved, from this machination, that these artists in fiction must have had a task of great difficulty before them in attempting to force these Letters upon the world. There must have been a sufficient number of men of true learning and taste during the Age of Publication, who were aware that these Letters were not genuine, and that the Church system was of recent origin. They were probably strong enough to make their tacit resistance felt. But the monks had organisation of a kind which honest men cannot have; and organisation triumphed
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 12, 2013, 06:45:35 AM
Well it certainly contradicts most FErs model of the solar system.

"The first successful measurement of c was made by Olaus Roemer in 1676.  He noticed that, depending on the Earth–Sun–Jupiter geometry, there could be a difference of up to 1000 seconds between the predicted times of the eclipses of Jupiter's moons, and the actual times that these eclipses were observed.  He correctly surmised that this is due to the varying length of time it takes for light to travel from Jupiter to Earth as the distance between these two planets varies.  He obtained a value of c equivalent to 214,000 km/s, which was very approximate because planetary distances were not accurately known at that time."

In the 1690s, Ole Rømer used his influence to bring about a uniform adoption of the Gregorian calendar in Protestant countries, though that could not be achieved in practice.



No European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025)

The writings attributed to O. Romer MUST have been fabricated during the second half of the 18th century (official chronology calendar).



Jupiter paradoxes:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55860.0.html#.UWgP3qJrMjA (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55860.0.html#.UWgP3qJrMjA)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54119.msg1333450.html#msg1333450 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54119.msg1333450.html#msg1333450) (speed of light is a variable - see also pg. 1-4 from this thread)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 17, 2013, 06:12:39 AM
Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

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


See also:

http://www.rastko.rs/rastko/delo/10868 (http://www.rastko.rs/rastko/delo/10868)



Tesla Colorado Springs experiment (existence of telluric currents):

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html (http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_colspr.html)

http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml (http://educate-yourself.org/fe/radiantenergystory.shtml)



(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

Nikola Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor-coated light bulb which was illuminated without wires by an electromagnetic field from the "Tesla Coil" (the energy was transmitted through the telluric currents).


Let us remember that, initially, E. Goldstein (1876, 1886) thought that cathode and canal rays were caused by aether vibrations.


An interview with Nikola Tesla, New Theories of Radio Waves:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm)

"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel.  He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory.  But in reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance.  On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion.  He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air."


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 19, 2013, 07:05:42 AM
It's the 306th anniversary of Leonhard Euler's birthday today. Not only my hero also my avatar. For those of a mathematical disposition who haven't heard of him google some of his work and boggle at his command of the subject. For those who think they have the ability to reinvent mathematics stay away from him: you're not fit to wipe his arse.


How the works/biography of Albrecht Haller were fabricated at the end of the 18th century/19th century:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Falbrecht_von-haller_universalgenie_kritik.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Falbrecht_von-haller_universalgenie_kritik.htm) (translation from German to English)

(the painting allegedly made at Gottingen: http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/54589.html (http://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/54589.html) )

Haller's monumental manuscripts are even more voluminous than those attributed to Euler (in the official chronology Euler and Haller even exchanged letters).


The first mathematicians we can believe in are Cauchy, Gauss and Weierstrass, with some minor modifications of their dates of birth, and the first musicians who really lived in the XIXth century are Schumann, Wagner and Brahms.


The music attributed to Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven was actually created using special formulas requiring Fibonacci numbers and number sequences...

Bach, Mozart and the Golden Section:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110805132716/http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110805132716/http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/)

http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.ro/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html (http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://whosemusicisit.blogspot.ro/2009/07/fibonacci-sequence-in-music-is-music.html)


Evidence suggests that classical music composed by Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach embraces phi.


In a 1996 article in the American Scientist, for example, Mike Kay reported that Mozart’s sonatas were divided into two parts exactly at the Golden Mean point in almost all cases. Inasmuch as Mozart’s sister had said that Amadeus was always playing with numbers and fascinated by mathematics, it appears that this was either a conscious choice or an intuitive one. Meanwhile, Derek Haylock noted that in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (possibly his most famous one), the famous opening “motto” appears in the first and last bars, but also at the Golden Mean point (0.618) of the way through the symphony, as well as 0.382 of the way (i.e., the Golden Mean squared). Again, was it by design or accident? Keep in mind that Bartók, Debussy, Schubert, Bach and Satie may have also deliberately used the Golden Mean in their music.


Exploding the Myth of Mozart:
http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm (http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm)




Biography of Claudio Monteverdi:

http://www.answers.com/topic/claudio-monteverdi (http://www.answers.com/topic/claudio-monteverdi)


Relationship between Galileo Galilei and Monteverdi:

Monteverdi and Galileo were exact contemporaries and near the end of their lives Galileo arranged for Monteverdi to procure a beautiful Cremonese violin (probably built by Nicolo Amati) for his nephew Alberto Galilei, the son of Galileo’s brother Michelangelo who composed the lute solo in the first half of our program.
http://www.ljms.org/Performances-and-Tickets/Program-Notes/Tafelmusik.html (http://www.ljms.org/Performances-and-Tickets/Program-Notes/Tafelmusik.html)



The correct dating of the Council of Nicaea, the fact that both Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1700 AD by the volcano Vesuvius, and that even in the official chronology there was no Vulgata as late as 1546 AD (Council of Trent) - see for example the extraordinary work The Pauline Epistles by E. Johnson), prove that the biographies of Martin Luther and J.S. Bach were falsified after 1750 AD.

M. Luther and J.S. Bach in the official chronology:

J.S. Bach and Martin Luther:

http://www.baroquemusic.org/bqxjsbach.html (http://www.baroquemusic.org/bqxjsbach.html)

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissboo5.htm (http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissboo5.htm)


G.F. Handel  and S. Calvisius:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3366025 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3366025)


Calvisius, Seth (1650): Opus Chronologicum; Frankfurt und Emden, pg. 459:

Doch Calvisius zum Beispiel setzt die Eruption nicht auf das heute
gängige Datum „24. August“, sondern auf die Kalenden des Novembers,
also den 15. November. Und danach habe Rom drei Tage lang
gebrannt (Calvisius, 459 f.).

But such is the eruption dated by Calvisius not on the day
common date "24 August", "but on the Kalends of November",
So the 15th November. (Calvisius, 459 f.).

S. Calvisius dates the eruption of the volcano Vesuvius which destroyed Pompeii in the year 79 AD, thus his work was falsified at least after 1750 AD, as were the works attributed to Handel.


J.S. Bach about Handel:

Bach eventually complimented Handel and his music saying that Handel was "the only person I would wish to be, were I not Bach."

http://www.personadigitalstudio.com/Bach/ (http://www.personadigitalstudio.com/Bach/)

J. Haydn about Handel:

Upon hearing the 'Hallelujah Chorus' from Messiah, Joseph Haydn is said to have "wept like a child" and exclaimed:

"He is the master of us all."

W.A. Mozart about Handel:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is said to have remarked,

"Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt... though he often saunters, in the manner of his time, this is always something there."
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 20, 2013, 01:04:01 AM
Now the most precise proof that the works attributed to Euler were created well after 1750 AD.


In Euler's time, Russia still used the Julian calendar. His correspondents in the rest of Europe mostly used the newer Gregorian calendar, so when it was November 12, 1739, it was already November 23 in Berlin. Eighteenth century mail services were much better than most people would expect, so occasionally it was possible for a letter to seem to be answered before it had been written! We make note of these calendar problems whenever they arise.


However, when Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day after October 4, 1582 would be October 15, 1582, the Catholic countries of France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy complied. Various Catholic German countries (Germany was not yet unified), Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland followed suit within a year or two, and Hungary followed in 1587.



How could Leonhard Euler's calculations(1748) have been so disastrously wrong?



It is clear, then, that the conspirators who fabricated the works attributed to Euler, Newton, Lagrange, Fermat... offerred to the public false Easter rules, not having at their disposal Gauss' Easter formula.


No European country or astronomer (Euler included) could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025)


Archimedes' Palimpsest was also forged after 1750 AD.

Martin Luther states that Pompeii was destroyed in the year 79 (Supputation Annorum Mundi, 1541, official chronology), therefore his works were also falsified well after 1700 AD.

When J.S. Bach was eight years old he went to the old Latin Grammar School, where Martin Luther had once been a pupil; he was taught reading and writing, Latin grammar, and a great deal of scripture, both in Latin and German.

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissboo5.htm (http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissboo5.htm)

This is how precise astronomical dating allows us to discover and point out how the official chronology was forged.


Douglas Webster boldly stated over fifty year ago: “Mozart’s piano sonatas have all been analyzed; and almost all show that they have golden mean form, certainly in sonata form movements”

http://web.archive.org/web/20110805132716/http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20110805132716/http://www.artofrecordproduction.com/content/view/195/22/)

But in fact, even in the official chronology, Mozart's early work (not to mention many other works attributed to him) was in fact not composed by him:

http://rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm (http://rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm)

For instance, it has now been acknowledged that "Mozart as a spontaneous artist who composed music in his head and wrote it down without a second thought is a romantic fiction"




C. Pfister, one of the very best european historians, has discovered that there was no human settlement prior to 1700 AD in Switzerland, and that all gothic/medieval buildings and all ancients documents pertaining to the period 500 AD - 1600 AD were actually created in the 18th Century AD.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg998158.html#msg998158 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg998158.html#msg998158)


Here is a formula which the conspirators missed while inventing Euler's work (I discovered this formula back in 1998; it makes any and all logarithm tables obsolete; LN v = natural logarithm of v):

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

n+1 parantheses to evaluate - in the last parenthesis we substract 2 and take the square root one last time (n+1), before we multiply the result by 2^n

For v very large, we can omit the term 1/v

Example LN 9999999999 = 23.02585093 (8 significant digits)

For our formula we will use n=12

The first parenthesis 2 + v (where v, of course, is equal to 9999999999), and we calculate the square root, (2 + v/2)^1/2 (n=1)

We add 2 to the result, and calculate the next square root (n=2), and so on, for n=12 we will obtain: 2.000031602

So for n=13 (12 + 1, n+1), we substract 2 in the last parenthesis, and calculate the last square root, obtaining:

5.62154783 x 10^-3

We multiply by 2^12, that is 4096 and get the final excellent approximation:

23.02585991


As corollaries, we have:

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

COS^-1 @ = ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2@)^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 x 2^n (n+1 evaluations)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 22, 2013, 06:39:31 AM
Benjamin Franklin told his readers of the Poor Richard's Almanac to enjoy the extra 11 days in bed and that losing 11 days did not worry him--after all, Europe had managed since 1582.

http://books.google.ro/books?id=aRFzVkk4Ig0C&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=benjamin+franklin+gregorian+calendar+reform&source=bl&ots=9rpK44QmHA&sig=41sZgLSIImrRUQLLnz2JW6cidnI&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=UC91UZjgNofOtQahkYB4&ved=0CGkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20franklin%20gregorian%20calendar%20reform&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=aRFzVkk4Ig0C&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=benjamin+franklin+gregorian+calendar+reform&source=bl&ots=9rpK44QmHA&sig=41sZgLSIImrRUQLLnz2JW6cidnI&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=UC91UZjgNofOtQahkYB4&ved=0CGkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=benjamin%20franklin%20gregorian%20calendar%20reform&f=false)


How the London Royal Society agreed FULLY to the 11 days change in calendar in the period 1750-1751 AD:

http://www.flamsteed.org/greg.pdf (http://www.flamsteed.org/greg.pdf)


Chapter 9 from Biggest Secret, the unauthorized biography (official chronology) of the Founding Fathers (B. Franklin included):

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/bigsec/biggestsecret09.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/bigsec/biggestsecret09.htm)



In 1806, Napoleon, we are told, ordered a return to the Gregorian calendar.


Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte de R. Whately

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte)


http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fnapoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Fnapoleon_maystre_uebersetzung_09.htm) (the biography of Napoleon Bonaparte copied after the biography of Napoleon III)


As we have seen from the axial precession/Gregorian calendar reform hoax, the entire official chronology has been forged up to at least 1825-1830 AD; in 1582, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16 and not on December 11.


In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0903/5hOHPsanterne900.jpg)


In the official chronology there are NO astronomical or historical records/proofs of ANY axial precession of the Earth itself, not to mention how the Gregorian calendar reform was forged/falsified:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 25, 2013, 05:51:51 AM
Tides and Radio Waves


Walter gives credit for the initial impetus to investigate the PUSH GRAVITY concept to his son TOM. Tom was only 6 years old when he told his father that he did not believe that the Moon created the tides. When Walter asked him why, Tom launched into his idea of a pushing force which created pressure waves to move the water.

This pushing force is exerted by the telluric currents (pressure gravity).


How Dr. T. Henry Moray, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, discovered these telluric currents:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

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


Dr. Gustav Le Bon and his work on telluric currents:

Another researcher, a contemporary of Tesla, succeeded in advancing the "external bombardment" theory of radioactivity with new experimental proofs. Dr. Gustav Le Bon, a Belgian physicist, examined and compared ultraviolet rays and radioactive energies with great fascination. Concluding from experiments that energetic bombardments were directly responsible for radioactivity, he was able to perform manipulations of the same. He succeeded in diminishing the radioactive output of certain materials by simple physical treatments. Heating measurably slowed the radioactive decay of radium chloride, a thing considered implausible by physicists.


In each case, Le Bon raised the radium temperature until it glowed red-hot. The same retardation of emanations were observed. He found it possible to isolate the agent, which was actually radioactive in the radium lattice, a glowing gaseous "emanation" which could be condensed in liquid air. Radium was thereafter itself de-natured. Being exposed to the external influence of bombarding rays, the radium again became active. The apparent reactivation of radium after heating required twenty days before reaching its maximum value.

 Le Bon stated that the reason why all matter was spontaneously emanating rays was not because they were contaminated with heavy radioactive elements. Ordinary matter was disintegrating into rays because it was being bombarded by external rays of a peculiar variety.


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


The work done by Dr. Dayton Miller on detecting ether (telluric currents):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg751624#msg751624

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.


 As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.


TRUE WIRELESS by Nikola Tesla:

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/srpski/tesla/tesla3.html (http://milan.milanovic.org/math/srpski/tesla/tesla3.html)

"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel.  He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory.  But in reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance.  On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion.  He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air."


Black Holes do not exist:


http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=688 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=688)


http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20090729082308/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/index.html) (one of the best archives on black holes hoax)

http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20090318144723/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm) (black holes, fact or fiction?)


Radio waves cannot be used to determine distances on an astronomical scale because of the aether layer which lies between out atmosphere and the orbits of the sun/moon/planets/stars.


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580)


An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure. A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist starting at about 12 km in altitude and going to about 15 km, and which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance actually travelled by the radar waves.

Nasa managed to keep the true facts away from public view regarding its missions: that is, the crafts ran into a belt of resistance much quicker  and at a much lower altitude (12-14 km) than previously thought. For example, in 1958, the Explorer, after sending back some data, not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 25, 2013, 06:04:22 AM
And now, for the second part of the message (Tides and Radio Waves), one of the most extraordinary accounts on how the TRUE radio waves theory was hidden from public view by J.P. Morgan:

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm)

http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Deliberate%20Discard.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Deliberate%20Discard.htm)


The ruthless suppression of Nikola Tesla also set the stage for the major cartels continuing to suppress subsequent overunity inventors from the 1890s to the present day.

Introduction:

Maxwell died in 1879, and at the time his own theory had not been accepted very much at all. Immediately the vectorists – notably Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz – began emasculating Maxwell’s 20 quaternion-like equations in 20 unknowns, into the present highly simplified vector algebra of much lower group symmetry. (Quaternions also have a much higher group symmetry than tensors, for those who believe tensors are the answer). This occurred in the 1880s and 1890s. Heaviside’s equations were tentatively selected as the basis for the new electrical engineering, just being created and being slowly placed into our universities.

To see a glimpse of what can be done in quaternion EM, see T. W. Barrett, “Tesla’s Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Theory,” Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 16(1), 1991, p. 23-41. Barrett – one of the cofounders of ultrawideband radar – shows that EM expressed in quaternions allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis cannot reveal. He shows that Tesla’s patented circuits did exactly this sort of deliberate “shuttling” and control of the potential energy, quite contrary to what is thought possible in our present regular circuits and theory.

Barrett was so impressed by the novelty of Tesla’s discoveries in this respect, that he extended Tesla’s methods and obtained two patents of his own – on processes still used in various special communications systems. [See Terence W. Barrett, “Active Signalling Systems,” U.S. Patent No. 5,486,833, Jan. 23, 1996. A signaling system in time-frequency space for detecting targets in the presence of clutter and for penetrating media. 14 U.S. patents cited. 22 claims, 37 drawing sheets. See also Terence W. Barrett, “Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC) Networks for Conditioning Energy in Higher-Order Symmetry Algebraic Topological Forms and RF Phase Conjugation,” U.S. Patent No. 5,493,691. Feb. 20, 1996.]. About nine years or so after Maxwell’s death, Hertz performed some experiments which proved the speed of light in vacuum was essentially as predicted by Maxwell. That started the gradual acceptance of Maxwell’s theory (i.e., particularly of the new highly truncated version of it).

Meanwhile, Nikola Tesla – the most important electrical scientist at the time – had discovered that the “medium” was active and that EM energy could be freely extracted directly from the active medium itself. He was hell-bent on doing just that and freely giving it to humanity. J. P. Morgan and Thomas Edison were associates, and Morgan was backing Edison. The two later took Edison’s electric company component and formed General Electric Company from it.

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the iron suppression of Tesla and his dream of giving the world free electrical energy extracted directly from the active medium (the active vacuum/spacetime itself). The electrical engineering model taught and studied in all our universities, beginning in the 1890s, was also ruthlessly curtailed to cast out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems and to also discard Heaviside’s odd and nearly incredible giant curled EM energy flow component actually accompanying every far more feeble Poynting energy flow in every EM system or circuit. Following the decimation of Tesla around the turn of the century, similar tactics have continued against follow-on inventors who discovered overunity systems and attempted to complete them and bring them to market. The suppression continues to this day, as can be attested by several living overunity inventors and inventor groups. For more than a century there has indeed been a giant, unwritten conspiracy of some of the most powerful cartels on earth, to continue the curtailment of the electrical engineering model and practice, and to continue to suppress overunity inventions and inventors.

J.P. Morgan Recognizes Tesla As a Mortal Enemy

Backed by Westinghouse, in the “electricity wars” Tesla had essentially annihilated J. P. Morgan and Edison on Edison’s intended DC electrical power cartel (a DC power plant every 20 miles!) by winning the contract for electrification of Niagara Falls and by installing the much more practical and much cheaper Tesla AC power system. Morgan, who was determinedly building up a giant financial empire, was also a very ruthless man who brooked no opposition. Morgan was funding Edison, and – after the destruction of their intended DC power empire by Tesla – Morgan recognized Tesla as a dangerous arch foe, and he was determined to destroy Tesla completely and remove him as a threat. He also realized that, if Tesla were permitted to give the world free EM energy extracted from the active medium and needing no fuel consumption, then much of Morgan’s own ambitions (which included future forays into the emerging giant fuel industry) would be totally thwarted. So Tesla had to go, and he had to go completely.

Economic Paralysis of Westinghouse

Westinghouse – a decent man who had liked Tesla and backed him (when Tesla, at the time) was using a pick and shovel to dig ditches to pay for his daily food – then fell on bad times, and was headed for bankruptcy. He had signed a contract with Tesla to pay Tesla very nice royalties on the AC power systems, and this represented several hundred millions of dollars. Westinghouse affirmed to Tesla that, even though he went bankrupt, he would pay Tesla as long as he, Westinghouse, had a dollar in his pocket.

Tesla deeply appreciated Westinghouse’s warm friendship and Westinghouse backing him when no one else would. In a remarkable gesture of profound gratitude, Tesla simply tore up the contract, freeing Westinghouse and saving him from total financial ruin. But financially Westinghouse was unable to further fund large projects. This put Tesla right where Morgan wanted him.

How Morgan Trapped Tesla and Destroyed Him

Accordingly, to finance his dream of capturing free electrical energy from the active medium (from the vacuum/spacetime), Tesla had to turn to Morgan for financing. Morgan cynically agreed to finance Tesla (and the free energy project), but only after Tesla agreed to sign over 51% controlling interest in all his (Tesla’s) inventions. Tesla signed the agreement, and Morgan gave him about half of the money needed for the project at Long Island.

But Morgan had put Tesla in an iron trap from which there was no escape. He now controlled all Tesla’s inventions and their use, so he had Tesla paralyzed in that respect. And then later he simply refused to give Tesla the rest of the money needed to finish the project. Consequently Tesla was halted. He declined financially and went totally bankrupt. He became totally destitute, reduced to living in a hotel room on the good graces of the hotel and a small patron or two. He never recovered from this absolute destitution until his death in 1943.

Thus Morgan totally crushed Tesla with an iron hand, thereby permanently removing Tesla as an unacceptable threat to Morgan’s empire and removing Tesla’s threat of producing and giving away free energy from the active medium. All the above is well-known. But there is another part of the story that has escaped recognition. And that strange part of Morgan’s actions has profoundly affected all humanity and this entire planet and biosphere for more than a century.

The Rest of the Story

Morgan was not only ruthless but extremely thorough. When the “new” Heaviside equations were tentatively accepted as the new “Maxwell’s theory” to be taught in the electrical engineering just beginning to be set up in some universities etc., Morgan also directed his close scientific advisors to assure that this new “electrical theory” was harmless and did not contain or teach any of Tesla’s “energy freely from the active medium” systems. In other words, not only was it essential to suppress the present Tesla, but it was essential to suppress all the future “Teslas”.

At the time, scientists did not have scientific jobs waiting all over, as they do today. A scientist at the university was not really too well paid, and a really good scientist would often seek and obtain a job as a consultant to one of the rising industrialists such as Morgan. Indeed, Edison’s UK group already had an electrical scientist consultant of the highest caliber – Dr. John Ambrose Fleming in England. Fleming became consultant to the Edison group in 1881 and continued as such for 10 years. Fleming was an honorable and ethical man, and of course would not personally engage in skullduggery.

But all Morgan/Edison had to do was assign a sufficiently good scientist of their own to have a personal conversation with Fleming, since Fleming had studied directly and extensively under Maxwell himself. Fleming was thoroughly familiar with the characteristics of Maxwell’s theory, and he was also thoroughly familiar with Heaviside’s emasculated vector algebra subset. The conversation would just be a group theory conversation, pleasant but adroit, and it would draw out from Fleming (who was of highest character and ethics) the exact technical characteristics of the Heaviside model – particularly with respect to any potential EM system taking excess free energy from a hypothetical active medium.

Modern group theory was founded by the brilliant teenager Évariste Galois, whose work was later published and developed after Galois’ unfortunate quick death on May 31, 1832 from being fatally wounded in a duel the previous day. The brilliant but erratic Galois was only 20 years old when he perished. But later his work was to profoundly affect mathematics, electrodynamics, physics, and all other sciences.

In April of 1830, Galois (1811-1832), a student at the École Normale, had published “An Analysis of a Memoir on the Algebraic Resolution of Equations” in the Bulletin de Ferussac. In June, he published “Notes on the Resolution of Numerical Equations” and “On the Theory of Numbers.” These and a later memoir make up what is now called Galois theory. Galois’s manuscripts written just before his death in a duel, with added annotations by Joseph Liouville, were published in 1846 in the Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. In 1870, with the publication of Camille Jordan’s Traité des Substitutions, group theory became a fully established and very important part of mathematics and science.

So in 1881, Fleming most certainly would have been well aware and conversant in group theory and the group symmetry of a given algebra, and thus of the characteristics of the systems that were included in a given algebraic model. The necessary knowledge to assess the Heaviside vector equations was already there when Morgan’s need (to suppress Nikola Tesla and to render the reduced Heaviside equations harmless) became paramount in the late 1880s.

The news about the group symmetry characteristics of Heaviside’s equations was not good. Those Heaviside vector equations still included some of Maxwell’s asymmetrical systems. And any EM system that freely receives energy from its active environment, and uses it to freely power its loads, is an asymmetrical Maxwellian system a priori. Hence engineers who were taught such a theory would be able to eventually design and build some of Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium” systems.

Morgan’s response would have been short and direct: “Fix it!” Obviously the fix was to simply remove the remaining asymmetry of the Heaviside model’s equations. It is not too hard a job to convince mathematicians to change asymmetry anyway, since they tend to worship “the beauty of symmetry” and asymmetry is considered “vulgar”.

Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations

H. A. Lorentz was the man who was elicited to do the necessary “symmetrization” with ease, thereby accomplishing exactly what Morgan decreed to his own advisors that must be done: Get rid of those Tesla systems capable of taking and freely using EM energy from the active medium. H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) simply lifted and used what L. V. Lorenz (without the “t”) had already done.

For the deliberate “fixing” of the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations, see H. A. Lorentz, “La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,” [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. [Also in H. A. Lorentz, Collected Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, vol. 2, pp. 168-238, esp. p. 168.] This is the work that Lorentz cites later (in 1895) for his proof of the symmetrical regauging theorems (the two equations of symmetrical regauging).

This is the “symmetrization” (at the direction of J. P. Morgan) of the Heaviside equations that arbitrarily discarded all remaining asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – thus discarding all systems that receive excess EM energy freely from the “active medium” (active vacuum) and could use this free energy to power loads and themselves. With this “fix”, Morgan was assured that Tesla’s discovery of the active medium – and that EM energy could be extracted from it – would never be taught.

Electrical engineering was just beginning to be formed and started in those days, and so almost from its inception electrical engineering has used these “fixed” Heaviside equations (erroneously calling the resulting crippled model “Maxwell’s theory” which was and is a blatant falsity). Hence our electrical engineers – almost from the beginning – have thought, designed, built, and deployed only that subset of Maxwellian systems that self-destroy any use of excess energy from the vacuum, hence self-preventing having COP>1.0 and self-powering EM systems taking their excess input energy directly from the active vacuum.

It also prevented electrical engineers from realizing how their circuits are actually powered, and where the energy actually comes from. It does not come from cranking the shaft of the generator! For a clear exposé of how a symmetrical electrical power circuit and system kills its own source, and also to see what actually powers the external circuit in a generator-powered system, see “Figure 2. Operation of a Symmetrical Electrical Power System,” in T. E. Bearden, “Engineering the Active Vacuum: On the Asymmetrical Aharonov-Bohm Effect and Magnetic Vector Potential A vs. Magnetic Field B.”

For an excellent paper adroitly pointing out Lorentz’s propensity for using other people’s work but taking or receiving credit for it himself, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. For the Lorentz symmetrical regauging as used by our present electrical engineers and classical electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell’s (Heaviside’s) equations reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6/11 on p. 246. The Lorentz regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p. 240.

Elimination of Heaviside’s Giant Curled EM Energy Flow Component

Lorentz also was apparently impressed a second time, in 1900, to further reduce the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations, in order to specifically eliminate the newly discovered giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow that – unknown to our present electrical engineers – accompanies every Poynting energy flow component (which is diverged into the circuit to power it), but is itself (the curled component) not diverged and thus is just wasted because it normally does not interact. The giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow component is more than a trillion times greater in magnitude than the accounted Poynting diverged EM energy flow component. Thus the Poynting energy flow theory in our present electrical engineering textbooks and curricula is only a pale shadow of the actual energy flowing in conjunction with an electrical system or circuit.

In Morgan’s view, it would simply not do to have all the future electrical engineers taught (and understand) that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy output as the mechanical shaft energy input we crank into the generator shaft! If they were to all know this, then inevitably some very sharp young doctoral candidates or post docs would figure out how to freely tap some of that available giant Heaviside curled energy flow component. And they would extract some of that giant energy flow and freely use it, thereby ushering in Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium” after all.

Here again, Morgan would simply have ordered the problem “fixed”. And again, Lorentz “fixed it” for him very easily, by introducing the standard little surface integral trick that retains the diverged small component (the Poynting component) but discards the huge nondiverged curled component. In other words, Lorentz altered the actually-used energy flow vector by throwing away that giant Heaviside component quite arbitrarily. Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component is no longer accounted or even recognized in electrical engineering, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow component in every EM system or circuit. [To see the dirty work, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, “Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld,” p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the “entire” energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.]

Justification for Removal of the Giant Heaviside Curled Energy Flow Component

To justify getting rid of the giant curled (and usually nondiverged) Heaviside energy flow component, Lorentz smoothly and slyly stated that “it does nothing and so it has no physical significance.” And that same smooth statement is used by our scientific community to this day to justify the emasculation of the actual energy flow vector and to use only the feeble Poynting component of it. E.g., quoting Jackson: “...the Poynting vector is arbitrary to the extent that the curl of any vector field can be added to it. Such an added term can, however, have no physical consequences. Hence it is customary to make the specific choice …” [J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 237].

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on April 25, 2013, 06:06:29 AM
Part III of Tides and Radio Waves, part II of the previous message:

Suffice it to say that NRAM optical physicists every year regularly perform true COP = 18 optimized experiments, without understanding the true source of the excess energy received from the active vacuum environment. To get their papers published, they are not allowed to use the term “excess emission” (they must use the mind-numbing term “negative absorption”). They are also not allowed to discuss the thermodynamics of the process (which when optimized in the IR or UV gives COP = 18), but can only point out the “increase in the reaction cross section” because of the self-resonance of the charged particles of the absorbing medium as compared to more normal static charged particles in a static absorbing medium.

Thus our electrical engineers and scientists today are totally unaware that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy flow from the vacuum, as is in the mechanical energy flow we input to the generator shaft. This even though in our leading universities our own NRAM optical physicists continue to experimentally prove it, without understanding where the excess EM energy comes from.

This second “fix” by Lorentz then finished Morgan’s suppression of the “new electrical engineering science” so that it would not contain asymmetrical Maxwellian systems nor would it contain Heaviside’s giant curled EM energy flow component. With these changes, Morgan (using Lorentz’s services) deliberately crippled electrical engineering and electrical power systems for more than 100 years, and guaranteed that COP>1.0 and self-powering Maxwellian systems – permitted by nature and Maxwell’s original theory – would not be built by our electrical power engineers.



Deciphering Energy Flow

“…only the entire surface integral of N [their notation for the Poynting vector] contributes to the energy balance. Paradoxical results may be obtained if one tries to identify the Poynting vector with the energy flow per unit area at any point.” [Wolfgang Panofsky and Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1962, third printing 1969, p.180].

“It is possible to introduce the Poynting vector S, defined by S = ExH, and regard it as the intensity of energy flow at a point. This procedure is open to criticism since we could add to S any vector whose divergence is zero without affecting [the basic integration procedure’s result].” … “…fortunately, we are rarely concerned with the energy flow at a point. In most applications we need the rate at which energy is crossing a closed surface.” [D.S. Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p. 52, 53.].

“It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2].

In the hard physics literature, rigorous proof that eliminating the arbitrary Lorentz symmetry condition provides systems having free additional energy currents from the vacuum is given by M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. Quoting from p. 513:

“It is shown that if the Lorentz condition is discarded, the Maxwell-Heaviside field equations become the Lehnert equations, indicating the presence of charge density and current density in the vacuum. The Lehnert equations are a subset of the O(3) Yang-Mills field equations. Charge and current density in the vacuum are defined straightforwardly in terms of the vector potential and scalar potential, and are conceptually similar to Maxwell’s displacement current, which also occurs in the classical vacuum. A demonstration is made of the existence of a time dependent classical vacuum polarization which appears if the Lorentz condition is discarded. Vacuum charge and current appear phenomenologically in the Lehnert equations but fundamentally in the O(3) Yang-Mills theory of classical electrodynamics. The latter also allows for the possibility of the existence of vacuum topological magnetic charge density and topological magnetic current density. Both O(3) and Lehnert equations are superior to the Maxwell-Heaviside equations in being able to describe phenomena not amenable to the latter. In theory, devices can be made to extract the energy associated with vacuum charge and current.”

One of the authors has remarked:

“This has led to one of the greatest ironies in history: All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the steam turbines that ever turned the shaft of a generator, all the rivers ever dammed, all the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, all the windmills and waterwheels, all the solar cells, and all the chemistry in all the batteries ever produced, have not directly delivered a single watt into the external circuit’s load. All that incredible fuel consumption and energy extracted from the environment has only been used to continually restore the source dipole that our own closed current loop circuits are deliberately designed to destroy faster than the load is powered.” [Thomas E. Bearden, “Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum,” Modern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2. Second Edition, Advances in Chemical Physics, Volume 119, Edited by Myron W. Evans. Series Editors I. Prigogine and Stuart A. Rice, John Wiley and Sons, 2001, p. 691-192].

“…[There is] .. an often-overlooked feature inherent in the law that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Rigorously, work is defined as changing the form of energy. When one joule of energy performs one joule of work, one joule of energy still remains, but in an altered form. If that remaining joule of energy has its form changed yet again, another joule of work has been done. And so on.” [M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 515-516].

The Result Is the Horribly Crippled CEM/EE Model We Have and Use Today

As can be seen, from Morgan’s personal view that Tesla and the new Heaviside theory were unacceptable threats to his rising great financial empire, the ruthless Morgan felt fully justified in having the EE theory “fixed” and crippled, to permanently eliminate all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems from the Heaviside theory, and later also to eliminate Heaviside’s own giant curled EM energy flow component as well. In this way, Morgan directly assured the removal of self-powering and COP>1.0 asymmetrical electrical systems receiving and using excess free energy from the vacuum.

Regarding Tesla as his mortal enemy, Morgan also felt fully justified in shackling and then figuratively “imprisoning” Tesla financially for the rest of his life, totally destroying Tesla from any further open research and development that would ever again challenge Morgan’s escalating empire and huge cartels. Interestingly, Heaviside also wound up being a near-total hermit, living in a little garret apartment.

So eerily, more than a century ago and along with its very birthing, our “modern” classical electrodynamics and electrical engineering science was deliberately mutilated and crippled, specifically so that COP>1.0 and self-powering electrical systems – asymmetrically powering loads extracted from “free EM wind energy flows” from the vacuum/space itself – would never be known or developed by our electrical engineers.

Since then, hundreds of thousands of EEs have been graduated worldwide. Electrical engineering (with its deliberately crippled CEM/EE model) has become a giant part of our science, technology, culture, and society. Everything – from our electric lights to our refrigerators and heat pumps, radios and television sets, auto ignitions, lights and power for our cities, etc. – is now using this horribly emasculated CEM/EE model. It has directly prevented struggling nations having no oil or gas resources from achieving a modern economy (which is based on cheap energy). This has left those nations impoverished, with their peoples starving and miserable and disease-wracked. Hundreds of millions of deaths from starvation and disease have resulted worldwide. It has “welded into our minds and our very brains” the mistaken notion that – other than a wee bit of wind power, water power, solar power, etc. – we can only have “energy from consumption of fuel”.

So we have Morgan’s ruthlessness, and the present totally inexcusable lack of insight by our own scientists and engineers (and particularly our scientific leadership) – to thank for the present escalating “world energy crisis” and its resulting world-wide, environmental, and epochal consequences.


On the Physical Lines of Force by J.C. Maxwell, ORIGINAL MAXWELL EQUATIONS WITH DIAGRAMS:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf (http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf)


Maxwell ether theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf)


SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf (http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 01, 2013, 11:37:12 AM
Official chronology information about Sebastian Munster’s Cosmographia:

Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia was an immensely influential book that attempted to describe the entire world across all of human history and analyze its constituent elements of geography, history, ethnography, zoology and botany. First published in 1544 it went through thirty-five editions and was published in five languages, making it one of the most important books of the Reformation period.

Sebastian Münster: Cosmographia, "1544 AD", p. 479:

(http://www.dillum.ch/html/muenster_cosmographie_479_vesuvius_79_ad.gif)

The eruption of Vesuvius is now set as the year 79 AD and Pliny’s Historia Naturalis is described by Munster as having been a major influence upon his own work.

 
http://books.google.ro/books?id=5G-VUKxAIl8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pliny&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=5G-VUKxAIl8C&printsec=frontcover&hl=ro&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pliny&f=false)


Here is also a map of southern Italy drawn by Munster:

http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/public/Cartografia/s11629.jpg (http://www.antiquarius-sb.com/public/Cartografia/s11629.jpg)

 

And yet, during the same period of history, we have the map of southern Italy drawn by Abraham Ortelius, which features Pompeii as a thriving city in full activity:

https://www.ideararemaps.com/en/product/regni-neapolitani/

It is obvious that the entire work attributed to Sebastian Munster was created at least after 1750 AD.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1470359.html#msg1470359 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1470359.html#msg1470359)

 

A review of Edwin Johnson’s work, New York Times, May 14, 1904:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9504E1DE1F3AE733A25757C1A9639C946597D6CF (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9504E1DE1F3AE733A25757C1A9639C946597D6CF)

 

 
The Gregorian calendar reform hoax becomes the key to understanding also how the actual length of the year was modified to hide the truth about the 364 days of the year.

Official chronology of astronomy based on heliocentrism:

The day is measured by the daily reappearance of the Sun in the eastern sky. The actual measurement of a "day" takes place from one "high noon" to the next.

A "day" is actually 3 minutes and 57 seconds (56.55) longer (present consensus mean calculation) than the actual amount of time that it takes the Earth to rotate one time on her axis. The additional time (3 minutes 57 seconds) is necessary because the Earth has not only rotated on her axis but has also moved along in her orbit. It takes an additional 3 minutes and 56.55 seconds for the Earth to return to her daily "relative" position, which is indicated by identical shadows cast by the Sun's previous (yesterday) position.
 

Five synodical years of Venus equal 2919.6 days, whereas eight years of 365 days equal 2920 days, and eight Julian years of 365/4 days equal 2922 days. In other words, in four years there is a difference of approximately one day between the Venus and the Julian calendars.

The reform intended by the Canopus Decree did not take root because the people and the
conservatives among the priests kept faith with Venus and observed the New Year and other
festivals on the days regulated by it. As a matter of fact, we know that the Ptolemaic pharaohs were obliged to swear in the temple of Isis (Venus) that they would not reform the calendar, nor add a day every four years. Julius Caesar actually followed the Canopus Decree by fixing a calendar of 365/4 days. In —26 Augustus introduced the Julian year in Alexandria, but the Egyptians outside Alexandria still continued to observe the Venus year of 365 days, and Claudius Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer of the second Christian century, wrote in his Almagest: "Eight Egyptian years without a sensible error equal five circlings of Venus."



The original 364 days/year calendar which was changed to 365 days/year (one day = 24 hours) is described in the Book of the Luminaries:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1461577.html#msg1461577)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1447025.html#msg1447025)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 01, 2013, 11:09:02 PM
All of physics and chemistry can be reduced to just one diagram:

(http://kendalastronomer.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/anu.jpg)

A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons.

Electricity/magnetism (same form of energy), light, infrared and ultraviolet rays, x-rays, terrestrial gravity are manifestations of these strings of bosons which travel/propagate through a subquark (laevorotatory and dextrorotatory).

Bosons, subquarks, quarks, mesons, baryons, the atoms themselves are resonating cavities.

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


The most important and crucial aspect of physics is left out of the textbooks: the fact that laevorotatory subquarks fill each nanometer of space and can be used immediately (double torsion, sound, electrical current) to produce "free energy" and antigravity.


As early as 1916, Professor Francis Nipher discovered antigravitational effects:

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



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)


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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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

One of the most intriguing works on chirality/isomerism:

How did protein amino acids get left-handed
while sugars got right-handed?


http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf (http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2013, 03:12:00 AM
Among the most mysterious constructions in the world, the underground cities of Anatolia represent an extraordinary feat of engineering.

The Ozkonak underground city could house up to 60,000 people for three months.

The Derinkuyu underground city could provide shelter for up to 50,000 people.

http://www.goreme.com/derinkuyu-underground-city.php (http://www.goreme.com/derinkuyu-underground-city.php)

And there are a total of some 200 underground cities in Anatolia (they are still being found), with a total housing capacity estimated to be between 100,000 and 1,000,000 people.


It is obvious that they were built to escape a certain disaster (the entrances have gates in the shape of a millstone), after which the inhabitants returned to the surface.

Notwithstanding the amazing work done, how did these people know WHEN the cataclysm/natural catastrophy was going to occur (to the year and month)?


The very fact that it is underground suggests that the Derinkuyu Underground City was built as a shelter for residents of the homes aboveground. Its later use as just that only cements the theory. What is interesting about this theory is the sheer size of Derinkuyu. To construct such a massive shelter, there had to have been a good reason. It could protect from certain natural disasters as well. Whatever the case, the amount of foresight and effort that went into Derinkuyu would rival even modern emergency shelters, if that was its use. Building an emergency space for tens of thousands of people that is specifically for that use is not modern practice.


The new radical chronology provides us with answers, not only why these immense constructions were built, but, most importantly, when they were built.

http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.ro/2013/02/the-cities-of-cappadocia-is-cappadocia.html (http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.ro/2013/02/the-cities-of-cappadocia-is-cappadocia.html)



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2013, 06:10:58 AM
Aborigines of the New World: “the Sun and the moon had equal light in the past."


At the other end of the world the Japanese asserted the same: the Nihongi Chronicle says that in the past "the radiance of the moon was next to that of the sun in splendor."


Traditions of many peoples maintain that the Moon lost a large part of its light and became much dimmer than it had been in earlier ages.


The memory of a world without a moon lives in oral tradition among the Indians. The Indians of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Colombia relate some of their tribal reminiscences to the time before there was a moon. "In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens," say the tribesmen of Chibchas.


Traditions of diverse peoples offer corroborative testimony to the effect that in a very early age, but still in the memory of mankind, no moon accompanied the Earth.


The Bundahishn (the most fantastic treatise in pre-Flood cosmology and astronomy) tells that   at a certain time in the past, the Earth had 24 hour a day light, coming from two Suns (the visible Sun and our present Moon) and that there were no solar or lunar eclipses.


Then, the Black Sun and its companion (the heavenly body which does bring about now the lunar eclipse) caused the first solar and lunar eclipses, in a cosmic catastrophe which is still recalled in various legends around the world.


Before the first eclipses occurred, when we had the two suns providing 24 hour a day light, our brain architecture was different.


Thalamus gland implant, brain architecture modification:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56149.msg1403007.html#msg1403007 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56149.msg1403007.html#msg1403007)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905)


Photographs of the Black Sun in Antarctica:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385209.html#msg1385209 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385209.html#msg1385209)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385488.html#msg1385488 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385488.html#msg1385488)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2013, 07:24:20 AM
Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity


Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf) (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem (http://creation.com/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem) (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality)

http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved (http://crev.info/2004/06/mystery_of_the_lefthanded_proteins_solved) (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf (http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf)


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23536046) ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin%20of%20salt%20in%20ocean%20water%20peptides%20primordial%20soup&f=false)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/ (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutionary-theory-just-add-water/)


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306)

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html (http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.html) (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060 (http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060) (R. Shapiro debunks the Miller experiment and the RNA world)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark:

(http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image007.jpg)

Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


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


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).

The physics of the subquark:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 03:10:36 AM
A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD (the summary is from a writer who commented on the work done by G. Nosovsky, I also included commentaries from the chapter on new chronology penned by Nosovsky himself).


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 19, 2013, 10:19:22 AM
An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Here is N. Tesla describing the difference between an e/m wave and a scalar wave:

You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect.  That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance.  A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect.  That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae.

To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out.  I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction.  I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy. 

You see, the apparatus which I have devised was an apparatus enabling one to produce tremendous differences of potential and currents in an antenna circuit.  These requirements must be fulfilled, whether you transmit by currents of conduction, or whether you transmit by electromagnetic waves.  You want high potential currents, you want a great amount of vibratory energy; but you can graduate this vibratory energy.  By proper design and choice of wave lengths, you can arrange it so that you get, for instance, 5 percent in these electromagnetic waves and 95 percent in the current that goes through the earth.  That is what I am doing.  Or you can get, as these radio men, 95 percent in the energy of electromagnetic waves and only 5 percent in the energy of the current. . . . The apparatus is suitable for one or the other method.  I am not producing radiation with my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic waves. . . . In my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that the energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved. . . .


Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.

What electromagnetic radiation looks like (subquark strings):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)

More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 06:10:23 AM
Therefore, the truncated Maxwell equations refer ONLY to the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea, and NOT to the scalar/ether waves themselves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)


Now, a closed-form formula for the natural logarithm:

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

n+1 parantheses to evaluate - in the last parenthesis we substract 2 and take the square root one last time (n+1), before we multiply the result by 2^n

For v very large, we can omit the term 1/v


By summing the nested square root function, we obtain the final result:

LN v = 2n x ( v(1/2^n) - 2 + v-(2^-n) )1/2

Of course, we can use the first formula for computation utilizing only a pocket calculator with only the four basic arithmetic operations (since a square root function is essentially a continued fraction).


And there are more formulas to be derived from the logarithm continued function:

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

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

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

TAN-1 v = ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ v2)1/2})^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 x 2^n (n+1 evaluations)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 17, 2013, 05:55:29 AM
High School Physics 12th grade textbook, 2020 edition, table of contents


I. Ether Quantum Physics


1. Atomic structure of the subquark (tachyon)


2. String theory - bosons and antibosons

2.1 Vortex model of the atom

2.2 Geometrical structure of the elements

2.3 Boson and antiboson configuration


3. Antigravity through sound and double torsion

3.1 UFOs - structure, form, flight mechanism physics

3.2 Granite megalithic blocks levitation

3.3 Transmutation of metals

3.4 Dr. Bruce DePalma and Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev experiments


Endnote: failed theories of the 20th century - planetary model of the atom


II. Magnetricity


1. Linus Pauling experiments: laevorotatory structure of the living organisms


2. Ether – telluric currents


3. Aether – medium of propagation of ether waves


4. G.B. Airy's experiment (1871)


5. Compton effect explained by ether waves


6. Ball lightning and cavity resonators


Endnote: failed theories of the 20th century - the theory of relativity


III. Free energy and ether waves


1. Nikola Tesla nonhertzian wave analysis


2. Floyd Sweet transistor


3. Biefeld-Brown effect


4. Viktor Schauberger double torsion theory



IV. Sound - fundamental force of the Universe


1. The discoveries of John W. Keely


2. Implosion of the atom: from protons to baryons, mesons, quarks, and subquarks


3. Resonating cavity theory


4. Cymatics


5. Sacred cubits, lateral octaves, FA-MI interval
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2013, 04:15:57 AM

They never explain where this large amount of gravity comes from? ???

Force experienced by a 1 kilogram object on the surface of the earth is governed by: F = GMm/r^2

F = (6.67x10^-11 x 1 x 5.972E24)/ (6,371x10^3)^2
F = 9.8136N

The large amount of gravity comes from the massive rock underneath you.


Gases do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN BAROMETRIC PRESSURE

The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.


“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


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


The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles (official atmospheric data).



GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

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

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

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


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


Liquids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

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

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


Solids do not obey an attractive gravitational law:

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, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

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.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


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

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50942.msg1248776.html#msg1248776)

(Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2013, 04:52:40 AM
Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking
against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot
roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the
headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and
prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is
all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and
all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their
walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer
bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this
pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters
steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks
are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust;
seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers,
Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great
cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery
expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring
forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."


A well-known student of S. Freud and roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton had the following comments:

How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament
must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas,
birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from
sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?


Now we know that the “ancient” Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian bibliographical sources were all forgeries of the 18th Century, as demonstrated with ample proofs here in the new radical chronology subject.

The only sources we can trust for a description of  past planetary collisions (FE theory) in Worlds in Collision are as follows: Polynesia, Maoris of New Zealand, Samoan tribes, Tahiti, Hawaii, Loanga, Kanga, Wanyoro tribes in Africa, Oraibi, Kaska, Choctaw and Pawnee tribes in North America, Lapland tribes.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120913084341/http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20120913084341/http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Velikovsky-Worlds-in-Collision# (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Velikovsky-Worlds-in-Collision#)

Their description matches exactly that narrated by "Ovid", which means that the authors of the Metamorphoses were actual witnesses to some of these cosmic catastrophes.


The first great cataclysm occurred some 50 years before the Flood, when the first solar and lunar eclipses took place.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602)


The second cataclysm happened very close to the year 1700 AD (official chronological dating): the great Flood/Deluge, when the extraordinary underground cities of Anatolia were built:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488591.html#msg1488591 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488591.html#msg1488591)


The remaining two major cosmic catastrophes occurred during the exodus of Seth (Kush) to the Sinai Peninsula and the exodus of Akhenaton (son of Nimrod) to the same region near Egypt a few decades later (1750 AD).



Revelation, chapter 1, verse 11:

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SvnTwKLNxlg/TtfheddPMUI/AAAAAAAAOVI/X-r_Yb-Cn20/s200/alpha_omega+%25281%2529.jpg)

(http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/Druids_files/ankh2.jpg)

(http://thetalkingpot.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ankh_svg.png?w=165&h=300)

I am Alpha and Omega = I am Ankh = I am Osiris

(http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/osi.gif)


More details here:

http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm (http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2013, 06:08:46 AM
There is another way to prove that the new radical chronology is correct: the dimensions of the first Temple of Solomon, the Temple with a human form.

www.templesecrets.info (http://www.templesecrets.info)

(http://www.templesecrets.info/index/firsttemple3.gif)
(copyright tony badillo)

The key to the Temple’s secrets is in the floor plan and layout of its furnishings. The “plan” or “pattern” (Heb., tabnit) of its structure and  furniture is mentioned I Chronicles 28:11, 12, 19. Tabnit is also translated as design, structure, figure, form, likeness, and shape. Thus, in Deuteronomy  4:16-18 the Israelites are forbidden making any likeness, form, or figure of a human or beast for worship.

(http://www.templesecrets.info/index/firsttemple4.gif)
(copyright tony badillo)

(http://www.templesecrets.info/index/firsttemple8.gif)
(copyright tony badillo)

Thus the building’s floor plan and even the holy items put inside were secretly designed to contain the hidden form of a man.


The Temple's interior architecture reveals King Nebuchadnezzar’s metal statue:

(http://www.templesecrets.info/index/firsttemple10.gif)


This also explains the most bizarre incident in the Torah, the brazen serpent quote from Numbers 21:7 - the mother of all graven images - the commandments were added later in the priestly version.

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,45731.msg1130692.html#msg1130692 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,45731.msg1130692.html#msg1130692) (who wrote the bible/koran section)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1469190.html#msg1469190 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1469190.html#msg1469190)


Numbers 28:18

In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein

Matthew and John, we are told, WERE IN THE SAME ROOM AND WITNESSES OF THE LAST SUPPER.

John 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.


Matthew 26:17

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

Mark 14:12

And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the Passover?”

The episode described in John 13 could not possibly have taken place given the text to be found in Matthew and Mark: a direct violation of the commandment given in Numbers 28:18


The authors of the gospels of Matthew and Mark HAD NO IDEA/KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE REGULATION/LAW PRESENTED IN NUMBERS 28:18 - the gospel of John was added AFTER the Priestly version was introduced in the Old Testament, that is why the date of the last supper was changed by a whole day.


HOW COULD Clement, Origen, Ignatius, Polycarp, Paul, not to mention Augustine, Eusebius and Jerome/Hieronymus himself, miss these incredible discrepancies?

Any scribe in the 1st or 2nd century AD would have noticed these serious and grave errors and would have pointed them out.

It is inconceivable that these errors could have passed unnoticed for some 2000 years.

As I proved earlier (see the New Dating of the Council of Nicaea message at the top of this page), both the Old and the New Testament were written at the same time in the period 1775-1780 AD; thus, just some 50 years later, the scholars began to notice the teeming errors and discrepancies in the text.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2013, 06:09:47 AM
Official science: "The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Moon, and to a lesser extent other bodies, on the Earth."

But the new radical chronology is the most direct and perfect proof that there was no axial precession (modification of the Earth axis of supposed rotation) in the past.

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947)

Thus there are no external attractive gravitational forces acting upon the Earth (sun, moon, or any other planet) - the same conclusion was reached by the author of the letters attributed to Newton (correspondence with Halley, Bentley and Oldenburg), as we have seen earlier.

Therefore terrestrial gravity is a force due to pressure (it cannot be an attractive force, or a rotational type of force): a confirmation of the correctness of the original set of Maxwell's equations.

Maxwell's original equations tell us that terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism are one and the same force: double helix theory of the magnetic field - the dextrorotatory helix (subquark string) is the terrestrial gravitational force, the laevorotatory helix acts as the electrical (antiterrestrial gravitational) force.

The experiments conducted by F. Nipher, T. Townsend Brown, T. Henry Moray and N. Tesla prove conclusively that electricity can  and does cause antigravitational effects upon objects.

Since terrestrial gravity is actually a force due to the pressure of telluric currents, it means that the surface of our Earth is completely flat: a spherical earth needs an attractive type of gravitational force for the entire heliocentric scenario to function.

As there are no solar/lunar/planetary gravitational forces acting upon the Earth, it means that the rotational type of gravity which does provide the force needed for the orbits of the Sun/Moon/Planets/Stars to exist, is separated by some kind of energy barrier/shield from the terrestrial pressure-type of gravity.

These conclusions can be easily reached once the full power of the new radical chronology is taken into account: no axial precession of the Earth has ever taken place in the past.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2013, 07:10:21 AM
The colossal dimensions of the Baalbek monoliths:

#ws (http://#ws)

#ws (http://#ws)

#noexternalembed-ws (http://#noexternalembed-ws)


Acoustic Levitation used to transport immense blocks of granite:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1388219.html#msg1388219 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1388219.html#msg1388219)

New radical chronology: baalbek monoliths - period of 1750 - 1770 AD

Eastern Europe, Bridge of the Giants (built in the same period, using the same technology: ball lightning acoustic levitation):

Podul Lui Dumnezeu, Ponoare Mehedinti Romania www.ponoare.ro (http://#)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 26, 2013, 07:43:16 AM
Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking
against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot
roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the
headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and
prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is
all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and
all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their
walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer
bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this
pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters
steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks
are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust;
seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers,
Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great
cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery
expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring
forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."


A well-known student of S. Freud and roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton had the following comments:

How could the poet have known that a change in the movement of the sun across the firmament
must cause a world conflagration, blazing of volcanoes, boiling of rivers, disappearance of seas,
birth of deserts, emergence of islands, if the sun never changed its harmonious journey from
sunrise to sunset?

How the Roman poet Ovid could have known of the relation between the interrupted movement of the sun and a world fire unless such a catastrophe had really occurred?


Now we know that the “ancient” Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Babylonian bibliographical sources were all forgeries of the 18th Century, as demonstrated with ample proofs here in the new radical chronology subject.

The only sources we can trust for a description of  past planetary collisions (FE theory) in Worlds in Collision are as follows: Polynesia, Maoris of New Zealand, Samoan tribes, Tahiti, Hawaii, Loanga, Kanga, Wanyoro tribes in Africa, Oraibi, Kaska, Choctaw and Pawnee tribes in North America, Lapland tribes.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120913084341/http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20120913084341/http://openeye.99k.org/Books/Worlds%20In%20Collision.pdf)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Velikovsky-Worlds-in-Collision# (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746049/Velikovsky-Worlds-in-Collision#)

Their description matches exactly that narrated by "Ovid", which means that the authors of the Metamorphoses were actual witnesses to some of these cosmic catastrophes.


The first great cataclysm occurred some 50 years before the Flood, when the first solar and lunar eclipses occurred.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602)


The second cataclysm happened very close to the year 1700 AD (official chronological dating): the great Flood/Deluge, when the extraordinary underground cities of Anatolia were built:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488591.html#msg1488591 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488591.html#msg1488591)


The remaining two major cosmic catastrophes occurred during the exodus of Seth (Kush) to the Sinai Peninsula and the exodus of Akhenaton (son of Nimrod) to the same region near Egypt a few decades later (1750 AD).



Adam Maloof (Princeton) and Lonnie Thompson (Ohio State University) confirm that a stupendous catastrophy occurred some 5200 years ago (of course, they will never accept that this catastrophe actually happened during the 18th century, as proven and described here).

http://web.archive.org/web/20131216205151/http://www.mayanendoftheworldplanetx.com/Pages/videostudio.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131216205151/http://www.mayanendoftheworldplanetx.com/Pages/videostudio.html)

Princeton University geoscientist, Adam Maloof investigates 2012 Maya prognostications, in response to the many queries he has received concerning the possibility of an upcoming geographical poleshift. Dr. Maloof's specialities include paleogeography, the study of continental plate transmigrations. In these National Geographic video clips, he travels from the frigid Arctic to the scorching outbacks of Australia to the dense forrest of Central America, to investigate geologic evidence and traditions of any pass geographic poleshift.

His research revealed not one but two important discoveries; one poleshift transpired slowly over a million years( posing no threat to life on earth) while the other happened abruptly some 5200 years ago(approximately the end of the Maya's last Great Cycle, when the last "world" ended.) Perhaps a coincidence, but it was enough for Dr. Maloof to pursue and study the ancient Maya legacy in greater depth. A journey that would take him from Dresden Germany, home of the famous Dresden Codex (one of four codices that survived the Inquisition) to the ancient ruins of Chi'chen Itza.

To understand how these ancient people with such remarkable mathematical and astronomical skills, were inclined to prognosticate the future with such conviction. Their obsession with cycles and climate change, their beliefs that all major cycles began and ended with global destruction.

With the aid of notable Paleoclimatologist, Lonnie Thompson from Ohio State University, they venture to the summit of the Quelccaya ice caps of the Peruvian Andes at sixteen thousand feet, to unlock secrets trapped in the glaciers for over five thousands years. While continents apart, from ice core samples at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Africa to "Otzi The Iceman" from the Austrian Alps, all corroborate a global disaster at the end of the last Long Count cycle and provide possible insight on what may happen at the end of this current Great Cycle.

Full video can be seen in the National Geographic 2012 The Final Prophecy documentary.

And of course we have a Flat Earth alternative to the Ice Ages hypothesis.

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.


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 27, 2013, 01:15:50 AM
Adam Maloof and Lonnie Thompson, National Geographic documentary (Svalbard - Norway, Australia, Quelccaya ice cap, Kilimanjaro glaciers)

National Geographic - 2012 Countdown To Armageddon.avi (http://#ws)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 27, 2013, 02:13:09 AM
Is There a Creator? Part Two "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman" [HD] (http://#ws)
(starts at 7:00)

Latest research: universe as a "computer simulation".

What the researchers at JPL and CalTech do not understand is that this computer is not inorganic, but organic.

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/creatorprogrammer.php (http://www.messagetoeagle.com/creatorprogrammer.php)

http://www.transcend.ws/are-humans-advanced-simulations-is-the-universe-a-virtual-reality/ (http://www.transcend.ws/are-humans-advanced-simulations-is-the-universe-a-virtual-reality/)


Here we have discovered the real structure of the atom: the pixels in Dr. Rich Terrell's analysis are actually the laevorotatory subquark and the dextrorotatory subquark.

Crystal hexagonal universe:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905)

Thalamus gland/organic computer:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56149.msg1403007.html#msg1403007 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56149.msg1403007.html#msg1403007)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 27, 2013, 03:09:11 AM
COMETS TAIL/AGE OF THE HELIOCENTRIC SOLAR SYSTEM PARADOX

(from Worlds in Collision)

One theory sees in the comets errant cosmic bodies arriving from interstellar space. After approaching the sun, they turn away on an open (parabolic) curve. But if they happen to passclose to one of the larger planets, they may be compelled to change their open curves to ellipsesand become comets of short period. This is the theory of capture: comets of long periods or of no period are dislodged from their paths to become short-period comets. What the origin of the long-period comets is remains an unanswered question.

The short-period comets apparently have some relation to the larger planets. About fifty comets move between the sun and the orbit of Jupiter; their periods are under nine years. Four comets reach the orbit of Saturn; two comets revolve inside the circle described by Uranus; and nine comets, with an average period of seventy-one years, move within the orbit of Neptune. These comprise the system of the short-period comets as it is known at present. To the last group belongs the Halley comet, which, among the comets of short periods, has the longest period of revolution—about seventy-six years.


When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.

But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.


Dr. D. Russell Humphreys:

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.

Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


Dr. Danny Faulkner:

http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system (http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system) (very well documented)

The standard model of a comet is one in which all of the material observed is released by an icy nucleus only a few kilometres across. This model strongly suggests that comets are very fragile, losing much of their material during each close pass to the Sun. Most comets follow orbits that take them vast distances from the Sun. If a comet’s orbit takes it too far from the Sun, then the comet could easily be captured by the gravitational attraction of other stars and thus would be lost to the Solar System. This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years). When combined with an estimate of how many trips around the Sun that a comet can survive, we can estimate the maximum age of comets. This figure is far less than the adopted 4.6 Ga age of the Solar System. Because no source of creation for comets has been identified, comets are assumed to be primordial. If this is true, then the age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.




Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 09, 2013, 03:06:39 AM
The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.

From the work Saturnian Comets:

The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons. By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.

K. Vshekhsviatsky, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 74 (1962), p. 106.


http://creation.com/more-problems-for-the-oort-comet-cloud (http://creation.com/more-problems-for-the-oort-comet-cloud)


Halley's Comet, official astrophysics information

15 kilometers long, 8 kilometers wide and perhaps 8 kilometers thick.

Based strictly on this data, we have the following results:

Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years.

Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years.


http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system (http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system)


That is, the age of the entire solar system cannot be more than 2,500-3,000 years old - an extraordinary agreement with the results of the facts that can be deduced from the new chronology subject.


However, as we have seen, the size of the Sun/Moon/planets/comets in the fixed flat earth context (see the proofs using the Solar ISS transit videos/Antarctica photographs) is much smaller than in the assumed heliocentric framework.

In the full fixed flat earth context, a comet has only some 20-30 meters in diameter: thus the dissipation rate of the material in a comet's tail (Halley's comet for example) does prove that Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit for only a few hundred years (another proof for the new radical chronology theory).
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 14, 2013, 02:49:02 AM
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html)

Comets, Small Bodies, and Problems of the Solar System, full article
K. Vshekhsviatsky, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 74 (1962)


Vshekhsviatsky concludes that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 18, 2013, 01:58:33 AM
Electric Comet

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/goodspeed.htm (http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/goodspeed.htm)

The unpredictable behavior of comets continually contradicts the tenets of traditional comet theory - to the point that some experts now wonder if a theory even exists. “It's a mystery to me how comets work at all,” said Donald Brownlee, principle investigator of NASA's Stardust Mission.
 
One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.
 
At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?
 
Unfortunately, the science media and the astronomical community had barely anything to say about Comet Holmes. This seems nearly unbelievable, considering the enormous interest the comet generated on the Internet. As Thunderbolts contributor Scott Wall explained in his 2008 article, " Comet Holmes - a Media Non-event":

You might think that this remarkable behaviour would be big news, particularly among astronomers. A prominent Astronomy magazine recently published their top ten news stories of 2007. Surprisingly, this spectacular comet was not named as the top story. It didn't even finish in the top ten. In fact, the entire magazine completely ignored the comet. There was not even an editorial comment. Additionally, there was little if any newspaper or TV coverage....
One might think that the bizarre and unpredictable behavior of comets would inspire a fundamental reconsideration of comet theory. But comet science as a whole continues in a state of drift, never asking the questions that could change the picture entirely. For years, however, the questions have been asked by proponents of the Electric Universe, who contend that comets are charged objects moving through the electric field of the Sun. In recent years only the electric comet model has anticipated the major surprises in comet science, a fact anyone can confirm for himself. It is only reasonable, therefore, to ask if an electrical explanation might help us to understand the explosive behavior of Comet Holmes.


“The remarkable properties of comets are not even remotely explicable by any of the numerous ad hoc assumptions of ‘modern’ comet theory.”
— R A Lyttleton, FRS, Journey to the Centre of Uncertainty, Speculations in Science & Technology.

Therefore, for example, the ‘Oort Shell’ hypothesis of comets surrounding the Solar System is considered an unnecessary fiction. Indeed, Professor Ray Lyttleton described the Oort Shell theory as ‘a piece of trash.’

Professor S. Vsekhsviatskii, Director of the Kiev Observatory and Head of the Faculty of Astronomy, University of Kiev, has concluded from his studies of comets that:

i). Celestial mechanics, the distribution and statistics of cometary orbits, and consideration of the kinematics of the cometary system leave no doubt whatsoever that all comets, and therefore the products of their decay, were formed inside the Solar System, and were formed a little later, on the average, than were the planets.

ii). The existence of the families of short-period comets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and the peculiarities of their motion and nature – their chemistry, the presence of ice in their nuclei, their close association with Jupiter prior to discovery, etc. – demonstrates the recent origin of comets.

This is in accord with the theory of the eruptive development of planets, as developed by Lagrange, Proctor, Crommelin and Vsekhsviatskii. Recent, comprehensive investigations by Everhart (1969) confirmed once more that peculiarities of the observed distribution of short-period comet orbits cannot be explained on the basis of the ‘gravitational capture’ hypothesis.


In the event, it has been left to two astronomers [C. E. R. Bruce and Eric Crew] with a particular interest in electric discharge phenomena to propose a promising ejection mechanism which may explain the features of comets and meteorites.

… T. van Flandern has proposed the formation of comets, meteorites, asteroids and tektites from the explosion of a larger former planet in the Solar System by some unknown mechanism. He shows how many anomalies in the characteristics of our solar system may be simply explained by such an event. The stratification of chondritic types within the asteroid belt certainly indicates at least four separate events in that region of the Solar System. The differences in composition of meteorites from those regions may be diagnostic of the parent bodies.

(Wal Thornhill, 2008)


Electric Comet model:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/030108_evidence_confirms_electric_comet.htm (http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/030108_evidence_confirms_electric_comet.htm)


Here is another work signed S.K. Vsekhsviatskii (in addition to the article posted in the previous message):

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1958SvA.....2..433V&classic=YES (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1958SvA.....2..433V&classic=YES)

ON THE CAPTURE HYPOTHESIS OF SHORT PERIOD COMETS
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2013, 07:44:19 AM
Through.the.Wormhole-Can.We.Travel.Faster.than.Light?ENG.HD (http://#ws)

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, subquark strings/telluric currents/magnetic monopoles double torsion strings):

starts at 9:31 (negative energy and pressure gravity experiment)


John Webb (USNW): the first total and definite proof that the speed of light is VARIABLE

starts at 28:50

More information here: http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm (http://www.rense.com/general28/erin.htm)

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 26, 2013, 02:05:10 AM
Here is how modern science describes the lunar eclipse:

One of the most remarkable coincidences found in nature is the fact that the Moon and Sun both appear the same size as seen from Earth. The Moon, a small, cold, dark body, is only 3500 km in diameter while the Sun, a self luminous, gaseous giant, is 1,400,000 km across. The coincidence arises from the fact that although the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, it is also 400 times farther from Earth.

Moon Paradoxes: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709)

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

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

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

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

From Columbus words is clear that double eclipses were also known to the king and to the queen.


This alone proves that Columbus's journal was falsified much later in time...



(http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/pirireis2.gif)

(https://s14.postimg.org/kq62vone9/bunda.jpg)


(https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488602.html#msg1488602)

The Bundahishn (the most fantastic treatise in pre-Flood cosmology and astronomy) tells that   at a certain time in the past, the Earth had 24 hour a day light, coming from two Suns (the visible Sun and our present Moon) and that there were no solar or lunar eclipses.

Then, the Black Sun and its companion (the heavenly body which does bring about now the lunar eclipse) caused the first solar and lunar eclipses, in a cosmic catastrophe which is still recalled in various legends around the world.


For those who still have doubts that the surface of the Sun is actually solid, here is solar paradox #4:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html)

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm)

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.htm)

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/moss.htm)


solid core + plasma cloud, based only on official photographs given by Nasa:
www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf (http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf)

about the fact that O. Manuel's article includes the wrong hypotheses, (imploding supernova), on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm)

http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html (http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/5th_state_of_matter.html) (more info)


According to the Pawnee Indians tradition, there is a bull buffalo in the sky to the far northwest: with the passage of each year, the bull loses one hair, when all these hairs are gone, the world will end.


In Thrace we have the following account: there is a period at the end of which the sun, moon, and all the planets return to their original position.


A complete description of the sun's true orbit on the flat earth (see the maps posted earlier):

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71)
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_72 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_72)
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_73 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_73)
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_77 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_77)


Distance for the six gates: 6356.2 km (arch of the circle will measure 6666.2 km)

Distance for a single gate: 1060.86 km

Since there are 30 windows for each gate, the distance alloted for each window will measure 35.362 km.


That is, there is ONLY a certain space assigned for each window: once the orbit of the sun will reach the final portion of a certain window, the sun/moon/planets will return to their original position.

In that position, for the first time in human history, the MOON will be visible during the solar eclipse: the solar eclipse will take place, but the moon will be visible in other hemi"sphere" (semicircle on a flat earth).


Moreover, the 35.362 km alloted for each window does prove that our history is very short, only a few hundreds of years old (confirming the comet tail paradox/new radical chronology proofs).

Let us assume that our history is just 354 years old.

Then the precession for the sun will measure 100 meters/year (35.4 km/354 years). 100 meters = 157.33 sacred cubits

If we divide this figure by 364 days in the year (see my earlier message about the different unit of time used in the book of Enoch), we obtain 0.43223 sacred cubits, or 0.274725 m.

Of course, the change in the path from gate to gate was added by the forgers of history to account for the 20 minutes/year in the official data for the earth's precession (which is proven to be nonexistent here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947) ).
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on November 29, 2013, 02:19:17 AM
Why did the Bronze Age precede the Iron Age even though iron is more widely distributed over the world and its manufacture is simpler than that of the alloy of copper and tin? (from Worlds in Collision)


(https://s9.postimg.org/l69d6j2of/tin1.jpg)
(https://s22.postimg.org/un1o013y9/tin2.jpg)
(https://s2.postimg.org/55u43d1mh/tin3.jpg)

(History: Fiction or Science, A. Fomenko, pg. 70)

Stone Age Hoax

http://www.thestoneage.org/ (http://www.thestoneage.org/)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/controversy-in-anthropology (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/controversy-in-anthropology)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13a.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13a.htm)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13b.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13b.htm)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13c.htm (http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13c.htm)

Egyptian Pteranodon and Roman Dinosaurs:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1412429.html#msg1412429 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1412429.html#msg1412429)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1413765.html#msg1413765 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1413765.html#msg1413765)


Palestrina Mosaic:

(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/palestrina-mosaic1.jpg)

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ (http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/)

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html (http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html)


http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html (http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html)

Panicked Evolutionists:  The Stephen Meyer Controversy

 "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." 

What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise. 
     Accepting the scientific claim that the Cambrian explosion took place "about 530 million years ago," Meyer went on to explain that the "remarkable jump in the specified complexity or 'complex specified information' [CSI] of the biological world" cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. 


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55960.msg1398306.html#msg1398306)

http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.htm (http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.ro/2012/02/what-evidence-is-found-for-first-life.htm) (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060 (http://www.uncommondescent.com/science-education/oldies-but-baddies-af-repeats-ncses-eight-challenges-to-id-from-ten-years-ago/#comment-453060) (R. Shapiro debunks the Miller experiment and the RNA world)

The greatest work on paleogeology:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval# (http://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval#)


The existence of aether proven again:

#ws (http://#ws)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 13, 2013, 01:54:06 AM
More details concerning the Tibetan Acoustic Levitation (original message posted here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1388219#msg1388219 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1388219#msg1388219) )

https://web.archive.org/web/20110304035318/http://www.nilsolof.se/ljudkraft.htm

(https://image.ibb.co/mkedky/tib1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/ic95Xd/tib2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cQHaXd/tib3.jpg)


http://web.archive.org/web/20060306044903/http://www.ianlawton.com/sl2.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20060306044903/http://www.ianlawton.com/sl2.htm)

Rudolf von Linauer, tibetan levitation:

http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/07/rudolf-von-linauer-and-tibetan-mystery.html (http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/07/rudolf-von-linauer-and-tibetan-mystery.html)

UPDATE ON R. V. LINAUER:

http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/10/rudolf-von-linauer-and-tibet.html (http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/10/rudolf-von-linauer-and-tibet.html)

http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/09/new-data-on-rudolf-von-linauer.html (http://ufoarchives.blogspot.ro/2013/09/new-data-on-rudolf-von-linauer.html)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Om.svg/220px-Om.svg.png)

On the meaning of the crescent (raif) and the bindu:

http://www.mandalayoga.net/pretty_print.php?rub=what&p=mantra_om&lang=en (http://www.mandalayoga.net/pretty_print.php?rub=what&p=mantra_om&lang=en)


An equivalent symbol is the Thule swastika: red = laevorotatory ether, white = dextrorotatory ether, black = shadow swastika/aether swastika (see http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58472.msg1487905#msg1487905 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58472.msg1487905#msg1487905) )

Analysis of the acoustic levitation (D. Davidson):

If we assume that each monk with his instrument produced one half this much sound energy (which is highly unlikely) and we make the further gross assumption that this is the amount if power that reaches the stone (actually sound dissipates rapidly over distance), we would have about 0.04 watts (i.e., (19 instruments + 19 x 4 monks) x 0.000094) hitting the huge stone block.

This is an astoundingly small amount of energy actually hitting the 1.5 cubic meter stone to produce the effect.

To lift the stone 250 meters takes a prodigious amount of energy. Rocks such as granite and limestone have weights in the neighborhood of 150-175 pounds per cubic foot.

If we assume a nominal value of 160 pounds per cubic foot then the 1.5 cubic meter stones weighed around 8475 pounds (i.e., over 4 tons!!!). To lift the 8475 pounds 250 meters would require about 7 million ft-pounds of work (i.e., 8475 pounds X 250 meters / 0.30408 meters/foot = 6,968,035).

Since this was done over a 3 minute period then about 70 horsepower was produced (i.e., 7 x 106 foot-pounds / 180 seconds / 550 horsepower/foot-pound/second = 70.384). This is equivalent to 52 kilowatts (i.e., 70.384 X 0.74570 kilowatts/horsepower = 52.5).

The over unity power factor we obtain is 5,250,000 over unity (i.e., 52,500 watts/0.01 watts).


(https://image.ibb.co/jRVCCd/sea1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m11VyJ/sea2.jpg)

The density of ether and aether where humans are present is markedly different (photographs taken near a Black Sea resort in the 1970s and 1980s showing the telluric currents: no flash reflection or fake streamers; other examples of real streamers here, http://www.pinellaspascoparanormal.com/aboutorbsandstreamers.htm (http://www.pinellaspascoparanormal.com/aboutorbsandstreamers.htm) )

"Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated the ether waves by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell's original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference "return" from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a "standing columnar wave," and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West."


Thus Tesla was able to change the initial data for the path of the ball lightning: the destination of the trajectory, based on a spherical earth hypothesis, was wrong, and had to be modified to reach an unhabitated area (the desired location of Tunguska). His equipment detected a different density of ether and aether, signaling the presence of human habitation (city of Kezhma).

http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif (http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south, then it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.


It was the research done by professor Giuseppe Longo (University of Bologna) which uncovered the forgotten photographs taken in Irkutsk on June 30 and July 1, 1908.

(https://image.ibb.co/hYK0yJ/sea3.jpg)

He also was able to find the map drawn by Vasilyev (of course, Vasilyev's research ONLY reached as far east as the city of Krasnoyarsk).

There were other expeditions which went much further to the east, for example the I.M. Suslov voyage...

Evenki tribe account.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm (http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm)

A bright summer night fell, the fire began to diminish. In place of the heat, it grew cold. We decided to move toward the Katanga [river]. By the time we got to the Chambe river, we were already totally weak, all around we saw marvels, terrible marvels. It wasn’t our forest [any more]. I never saw a forest like that. It was strange somehow. Where we lived there had been dense forest, an old forest. But now in many places there was no forest at all. On the mountains all the trees lay flat, and it was bright, and everything was visible for a far distance.

(translation by Bill DeSmedt)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on December 27, 2013, 06:26:46 AM
“The universe is more like a giant thought than a giant machine and the substance of the great thought is consciousness which pervades all space.”
Sir James Jeans

Spirit – transcendent verb
Thought/Emotion – intentional/visualized verb (desire)
Imagination – potential verb (word for the idea/emotion) (knowledge)
Sound – manifested verb (action)

http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf (http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_secret_life_of_nature.pdf) (takes the reader inside a subquark: the structure of a boson/antiboson) walnut = subquark/Anu/UPA

Chapters 7, 8 and 9

Taking a closer look at one walnut, Ron saw that two threads came out of it, one of which appeared fainter than the other.The clearer one looked like a tangled, twisted piece of string, which could be pulled out into a straight line with little effort and which, on being relaxed, resumed its tangled state.

Thinking he would see a spiral within one of these strings, Ron magnified it. Instead he saw a stream of bubbles flowing back and forth so quickly he could not observe the moment they reversed direction.

As the bubbles came out of the walnut in single file to move along what looked like a tube, some form of energy appeared to expand them to their maximum over a distance of up to ten bubble diameters.
Then the current reversed.

Fastening his attention onto a single bubble, Ron saw that as it moved through the tube the tube rotated one instant in one direction, next in the opposite, clockwise as the bubbles moved away, counterclockwise as they moved toward him, though again he could not distinguish the actual instant of transition.

Estimating the distance between successive bubbles as about six times the width of a bubble, Ron noted that as each bubble passed, the tube seemed to collapse very slightly, its edges no sharper than the boundary between two liquids. Managing to move along with a bubble-obviously not moving his physical body but his viewpoint-Ron saw that it was shaped like a fat doughnut, with an indented sort of cap that led the bubble's motion and trailed a tail.Wanting to see what was happening close up to one of the walnuts, Ron approached a thread that appeared to link two walnuts.

On closer inspection, the bubbles seemed to Ron to be created in the corkscrew spiral near the exit because there was no sign of bubbles at the start of this spiral. As the bubbles flowed back into the walnut, instead of forming a puff like those entering from the other thread, they simply shrank down to nothing. Whenever bubbles reversed direction, the tail would fade away, to reappear on the opposite side.

Bubbles in what to Ron was thread number two started out as mere squiggles of energy, pointed at both ends. Then the squiggle got fatter, turning into the stable tadpole shape.


Therefore, it is the tail (Ron’s own description) itself which forms both the bosons and antibosons.


What is the structure of the tail, so far the smallest particle known to science?

The Gizeh Pyramid is a large scale model of the particles which do make up the tail (which itself becomes a boson or an antiboson).

One of the most mysterious features of this Pyramid is the scale of its measurements: certainly the pyramid could have been built larger or smaller (keeping all of the proportions equal, of course), but it could only function if and only if it was built to its present scale.

Let us imagine our Universe (http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3%5B1%5D4.jpg (http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3%5B1%5D4.jpg) ) to be the size of a subquark (http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image010.jpg (http://www.alliancesforhumanity.com/matter/matter_files/image010.jpg) ). We know that a subquark has some 14 million bosons (and many more antibosons) inside its structure, and that a boson consists of two inverted pyramids which exchange aether and ether. Then, roughly, the Gizeh Pyramid would correspond to the size of such a boson’s interior pyramids.


Where are the “secret” tunnels/passages of the Gizeh Pyramid located?

Chinese five notes cycle

jiao (1)
shi (2)
gong (3)
shang (4)
yi (5)

1-3
3-5
5-2
2-4
4-1

(this, by the way, is also the origin of the Chinese five elements creation cycle)

1 – will designate the area from the base of the Gizeh pyramid to the top of the queen’s chamber
2 – from the bottom of the queen’s chamber, to the bottom of the king’s chamber
3 – from the bottom of the king’s chamber, to the top of the djed apex (just before the block separating the apex from its lower chambers)
4 – the djed itself
5 -  from the top of the djed apex, all to the way to the top of the Gizeh pyramid

I predict, therefore, that there is a narrow passage from the top of the djed apex all to the way to the top of the pyramid. The “secret” passage from the top of the pyramid which leads to the queen chamber has already been discovered a few years ago.

Two more secret passages will be discovered: leading from the queen’s chamber to the djed apex, and the other one descending from the djed apex to the base.

The most mysterious feature of the pyramid is the groove (FA-MI interval) inside the Grand Gallery:

(http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca/@Giza$Grand%20Gallery$Chapter_files/image003.jpg)


In the center of the boson we have the two apexes (called parabindu) which rotate as follows:

http://www.eaglespiritministry.com/pd/howto/images/mt_01.gif (http://www.eaglespiritministry.com/pd/howto/images/mt_01.gif)

The virtual (thought-like) pyramid is facing downwards: this is called the aparabindu particle in vedic physics. It produces aether, the medium needed for the sound to propagate.

The upward facing pyramid (imagination) produces sound, which activates the shadow/thought pyramid.

The Gizeh pyramid has a virtual twin pyramid: it faces downwards, like in the following images (posted in a different context here: http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Reticulum.htg/Great_Pyramid.jpg (http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Reticulum.htg/Great_Pyramid.jpg) ):

(http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Reticulum.htg/hourglass.jpg)

(http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Reticulum.htg/Zep_Tepi_hourglass.JPG)

Examples of the virtual component of matter (electrophotography/kirlian images):

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kf.html (http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kf.html)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html (http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html) (plants)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html (http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html) (plants)

(http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfjava/flor1.gif)

(http://webspace.webring.com/people/gl/lemagicien/kfpage/kfjava/flor2.gif)

More photographs here: http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html (http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html)

The Secret Life of Plants, Tompkins and Bird, 1973 (http://www.scribd.com/doc/94867560/The-Secret-Life-of-Plants-Tompkins-and-Bird-1973#)


ETHERIC REGION OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD (BARYONS, MESONS, QUARKS AND SUBQUARKS):

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng01.htm#part2 (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng01.htm#part2)


Who actually built the Gizeh pyramid?

Zecharia Sitchin - The Wars of Gods and Men (3rd Book of Earth Chronicles) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/36694833/Zecharia-Sitchin-The-Wars-of-Gods-and-Men-3rd-Book-of-Earth-Chronicles#)

Chapter 7, figure 42 (a and b)

In chapter 7 we will also find a very good demonstration that the Gizeh pyramid could not have been built by any pharaohs (sixth or first dynasty).

In chapter 10 (figures 66 and 71), we can see the four meters of masonry at the base of the pyramid which means that the actual height measures 136.1 meters.

In figure 42 beings are shown with a crystal in front of their foreheads. Using this crystal, it was possible to build the Gizeh pyramid in less than two months, utilizing acoustic levitation and drilling.

In all humans, this virtual crystal (actually made up of baryons, mesons and quarks) is latent: only a few have been able to activate it on a very limited scale, Nikola Tesla was one of them.

Tesla Mind Lab:

http://www.creativethinkingwith.com/Nikola-Tesla-Creative-Thinking-Secrets.html (http://www.creativethinkingwith.com/Nikola-Tesla-Creative-Thinking-Secrets.html)


The original configuration of the Gizeh pyramid included many pairs of stones which actually made it possible for the inverted virtual pyramid to be activated.

Ninurta (Nimrod) found inside the pyramid...

"....Escorted by the Chief Mineralmaster, Ninurta inspected the array of "stones" and instruments. As he stopped by each one of them, he determined its destiny - to be smashed up and destroyed, to be taken away for display, or to be installed as instruments elsewhere. We know of these "destinies" and of the order in which Ninurta had stopped by the stones, from the text inscribed on tablets 10-13 of the epic poem Lugal-e. It is by following and correctly interpreting this text that the mystery of the purpose and functions of many features of the pyramid’s inner structure can be finally understood.

"Going up the Ascending Passage, Ninurta reached its junction with the imposing Grand Gallery and a Horizontal Passage. Ninurta followed the Horizontal Passage first, reaching a large chamber with a corbelled roof. Called "vulva" in the Ninharsag poem, this chamber’s axis lay exactly on the east-west center line of the pyramid. Its emission ("an outpouring which is like a lion whom no one dares attack") came from a stone fitted into a niche that was hollowed out in the east wall. It was the SHAM ("Destiny") Stone. Emitting a red radiance which Ninurta "saw in the darkness," it was the pulsating heart of the pyramid. But it was anathema to Ninurta, for during the battle, when he was aloft, this stone’s "strong power" was used " to grab to kill me, with a tracking which kills to seize me." He ordered it "pulled out... be taken apart... and to obliteration be destroyed."

Among other features, Ninurta encountered:

"....Whereas in the narrow passages only " a deem green light glowed," the Gallery glittered in multicolored lights - "its vault is like a rainbow, the darkness ends there." The many-hued glows were emitted by twenty-seven pairs of diverse crystal stones that were evenly spaced along the whole length of each side of the Gallery.... each crystal stone emitted a different radiance, giving the place its rainbow effect....

Ninurta’s priority was the uppermost Grand Chamber and its pulsating stone.... he reached the Antichamber of unique design...."There three portcullises - "the bolt, the bar and the lock" of the Sumerian poem - elaborately fitted into grooves in the walls and floor, hermetically sealed off the uppermost Grand Chamber: "to foe it is not opened...." But now, by pulling some cords, the portcullises were raised, and Ninurta passed through.

"He was now in the pyramid’s most restricted ("sacred") chamber, from which the guiding "Net" (radar?) was "spread out" to "survey Heaven and Earth...." It responded to vibrations with bell-like resonance. The heart of the guidance unit was the GUG Stone ("Direction Determining").... Ninurta ordered this stone destroyed: "Then, by the fate-determining Ninurta, on that day was the Gug stone from its hollow taken out and smashed."

Finally there was the Apex Stone of the Pyramid, the UL ("High As The Sky") Stone: "Let the mother’s offspring see it no more," he ordered. And, as the stone was sent crashing down, "let everyone distance himself," he shouted. The "Stones," which were "anathema" to Ninurta, were no more.


There were several attempts to build a similar pyramid on a much smaller scale. They all ended in failure: the corners of the structure could not be aligned perfectly.

(http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Reticulum.htg/Great_Pyramid.jpg)

http://www.mysticalconspiracy.info/2013/12/16/the-1978-nippon-pyramid-project/ (http://www.mysticalconspiracy.info/2013/12/16/the-1978-nippon-pyramid-project/)

http://sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/the_great_pyramid_of_giza.html (http://sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/the_great_pyramid_of_giza.html)


The structure of a magnet is larger scale version of the boson itself:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563059#msg1563059 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563059#msg1563059)


Comments on antigravitons:

http://dougvanvenrooij.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/anti-gravitons-may-explain-dark-matter-dark-energy-and-the-universe-we-observe-today-2/ (http://dougvanvenrooij.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/anti-gravitons-may-explain-dark-matter-dark-energy-and-the-universe-we-observe-today-2/)


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 06, 2014, 02:43:58 AM
Gizeh Pyramid Advanced Calculus

The concept of radian measure, as opposed to the degree of an angle, is normally credited to Roger Cotes in 1714. He had the radian in everything but name, and he recognized its naturalness as a unit of angular measure

The first mention of the natural logarithm was by Nicholas Mercator in his work Logarithmotechnia published in 1668, although the mathematics teacher John Speidell had already in 1619 compiled a table on the natural logarithm.

The problem of extending the factorial to non-integer arguments was apparently first considered by Daniel Bernoulli and Christian Goldbach in the 1720s, and was solved at the end of the same decade by Leonhard Euler.



Basically, all the previous attempts to discover the hidden mathematical properties in the Gizeh Pyramid used only π and the golden section.

However, the most important figure of all is the ratio 136.1/53.33 = one hundred sacred inches. Then if we multiply this number by 25 we get the sacred cubit, or 0.63566 m. One sacred inch = 0.025424 m.

As I will demonstrate, the constructors of the pyramid had at their disposal all the details needed from advanced calculus: radian measure, Taylor series expansion, natural logarithm, gamma function, Stirling series (complete with realistic error bounds), and much more.

(http://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/8/7355.jpg)

The sacred cubit is designated in the form of a horseshoe projection, known as the "Boss" on the face of the Granite Leaf in the Ante-Chamber of the Pyramid. By application of this unit of measurement it was discovered to be subdivided into 25 equal parts known now as: Pyramid inches.


http://guardians.net/egypt/gp2.htm (http://guardians.net/egypt/gp2.htm)

http://books.google.ro/books?id=8LZCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=vyse+operation+gizeh+1837+queen+chamber+niche&source=bl&ots=4fJ-tNxlTs&sig=akFC7UCDV6SBqW87gq9VcokwMGU&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=OrNAUKzXE4TAhAfshYGwDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=vyse%20operation%20gizeh%201837%20queen%20chamber%20niche&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=8LZCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=vyse+operation+gizeh+1837+queen+chamber+niche&source=bl&ots=4fJ-tNxlTs&sig=akFC7UCDV6SBqW87gq9VcokwMGU&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=OrNAUKzXE4TAhAfshYGwDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=vyse%20operation%20gizeh%201837%20queen%20chamber%20niche&f=false) (page 112)

https://web.archive.org/web/20120314235117/http://www.aiwaz.net/queen-chamber/a25 (https://web.archive.org/web/20120314235117/http://www.aiwaz.net/queen-chamber/a25)

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_2.htm (http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_2.htm)

http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca (http://thegreatpyramidofgiza.ca)

http://www.samuellaboy.com/New_Folder/Special_Topics/Advanced_s.htm (http://www.samuellaboy.com/New_Folder/Special_Topics/Advanced_s.htm)

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/great-pyramid.html (http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/great-pyramid.html)


100 – 36.43 = 100 sc (sacred cubits) = 360/π2

0.63566 radians = 36.4206 degrees

sin 136.12 = ln 2

ln 20sc = 2.5424 (=1si)

140.7 (total height without the apex) / 203 (steps of the pyramid )~= ln 2

sin 72.7 degrees = 1.5 sc

7.2738 = 286.1 si = displacement factor

tan 51.8554 degrees = 2 sc

(51.87 degrees = angle formed by the height of the pyramid, 5813 si, and the base, 9131 si)

Apex plateau triangle: base 224.6 si, height 286.1 si

Angle 1 = 51.87 degrees
Angle 2 = 38.13 degrees

sin 38.13 degrees  = 0.618

sin 51.87 degrees = 1/2sc

51.87/38.13 = 1.3603

3.813 = 6 sc

sin 5 x 286.1 sc = sin 909.31163 degrees = -1.618/10

286.1 si x 0.4 = 1.361 x 4 x 0.534

Triangle with sides 309.5si, 286.1si and 118.1si and angles of 67.57 and 22.43 degrees

sin 22.43 degrees = 0.381562

Queen chamber niche measurements

First step – w 1.568m / l 1.0414 m / h 1.743 m
Second step – w 1.34 m / l 1.0414 m / h 0.87266 m

π/360= 0.0087266

2.618/20 = 0.1309
0.1309/1.5 = 0.087266

1.743 = 0.87266 x 2

Third step – w 1.062 m / l 1.0414 m / h 0.69733 m

0.1309 x 5.34 = 0.699

0.69733 x 1.25 = 0.87266

0.69733 = 40π/360

https://web.archive.org/web/20170605173236/http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/3324/nefersschooloflearning.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20170605171457/http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/3324/nefershouse.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120802231648/http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/3324/pan3.gif

There are several values to be used for the sacred cubit depending on the color of the light spectrum: starting from 0.62832 all the way to 0.64 – the most important value is of course 0.63566, the sacred cubit.

The authors of the work even express each and every value of the Gizeh pyramid using a very special type of circle:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120802231648/http://reocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/3324/pan5.gif

However, I will use a different and more interesting representation in order to uncover the hidden mathematical symbols of the Gizeh pyramid, where the radius is equal to 68.05 (68.05 x 2 = 136.1 = the diameter of the circle).

On such a circle, using s = r x @ (@ measured in radians), we will obtain some very special values:

Degrees   -   Arclength

22.5 – 26.66
45 – 53.4
90 – 106.68 (exactly the frequencies used by the Tibetan monks)
72.9 – 86.5 (=136.1 sc)
2.142 – 2.542 (1si x 100)
136.1 – 161.8

FULL PYRAMID VOLUME

2,658,672.883 m3

We divide three times by 1si and we get,

1.6178314 x 1011

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/c/5/ac57cb1b5db9b61155d862c7a02fe425.png)


(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/StirlingsSeries/NumberedEquation1.gif)

I will use all the terms up to and including 1/12x.


Then,

Γ(15.23065) = 1.6178314 x 1011

15.23065 x 180/π = 872.652 degrees (let us remember that π/360= 0.0087266).

15.23065 - 4π = 2.66428

Now let us use the special circle described above (r = 68.05) –

2.66428 x 68.05 = 181.3 (286.1 sc = 181.6)

FULL PYRAMID LATERAL AREA

87,326.424 m2

If we divide once by 1si we get 3,434,802.71

If we divide twice we get 135,100,798.7

Γ(10.966) = 3,434,802.71

15.23065/10.966 = 1.3889 = 25/18

Γ(12.495) = 135,100,798.7 

12.495 x 180/π = 715.91

12.495 - 3π = 3.0702

3.0702 x 68.05 = 208.93


208.93 = 72.83 + 136.1


FULL PYRAMID VOLUME/TOTAL LATERAL AREA = 30.4452

But 15.23065 x 2 = 30.4452


APEX TOTAL VOLUME

78.636 m3

Again, we divide three times by 1si to get,

4,785,112.6

Γ(11.116) = 4,785,112.6

11.116 x 180/π = 636.9

11.116 - 3π = 1.69122

1.69122 x 68.05 = 115.087

115.087 = 181.1 x 1sc


APEX TOTAL LATERAL AREA

88.93 m2

88.93 = 3,497.9 si

If we divide 88.93 twice by 1si we get

137,582


Γ(7.815) = 3497.9

7.815 x 180/π = 447.7665

447.7665 /5 = 140.8 x 1 sc (140.8 total height of the pyramid without the apex)

447.7665 – 360 = 87.766

7.815 -2π = 1.5318

153.18 + 26.18 = 180

1.5318 x 68.05 = 104.24

286.1/104.24 = 1/(1 – 1sc)



11.116/7.815 = 1.4224 = 64/45

VOLUME OF THE APEX/TOTAL APEX LATERAL AREA = 0.8842

1.4224 x 0.618 = 0.8842



Γ(9.564) = 137,582

9.564 x 180/π = 547.97 (= 447.76 + 100)

9.564 - 3π = 0.139222

0.139222 x 68.05 = 9.474

9.474/5 = 1.8948 = 1.361 + 5.34


It should be noted that we obtain these figures only for the Gizeh pyramid.

As an example, for the following values used for another pyramids, no correspondence can be obtained from the same kind of calculations.

1.   Side of the pyramid = 8, height =3, volume = 64 cubic meters
2.   Side of the pyramid = 6.18034, height = π, volume = 40 cubic meters


Let us proceed further with the Gizeh pyramid.

KING CHAMBER VOLUME

305.258 cubic meters

Dividing three times by 1si we get,

18,575,281.96

Γ(11.685) = 18,575,281.96

11.685 x 180/π = 669.5

11.685 - 3π = 2.26

2.26 x 68.05 = 153.81 (same figure as in the apex total lateral area)

153.81 + 26.18 = 180

KING CHAMBER SARCOPHAGUS VOLUME

77.56si x 21.77si x 33.46si = 69288.7

Γ(9.251) = 69,288.7

9.251 x 180/π = 530

9.251 - 2π = 2.9678

2.9678 x 68.05 = 201.96

201.96/π = 450/7

King chamber volume/201.96 = 1.511 exactly the distance from the queen chamber niche to the apex of the queen chamber itself.


In the next message, full calculations for the queen chamber niche, apex cone, and the queen chamber itself.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 08, 2014, 01:27:12 AM
Gizeh Pyramid Advanced Calculus (II)


VOLUME OF THE CONE GENERATED BY THE APEX PYRAMID

123.523 cubic meters

Dividing the volume three times by 1si, we get

7,516,502.3

Γ(11.308) = 7,516,502.3

11.308 x 180/Π = 647.9

11.308 - 3Π = 1.8832

1.8832 x 68.05 = 128.153


128.153 - 90 = 38.153 = 60sc

128.153/53.4=2.4

VOLUME OF THE APEX/VOLUME OF THE APEX CONE = 0.63657


VOLUME OF THE CONE GENERATED BY THE PYRAMID

4,176,223.827 cubic meters

2.5412838 x 1011

Γ(15.398) = 2.5412838 x 1011

15.398 x 180/Π = 882.24

15.398 - 4Π = 2.83163

2.83163 x 68.05 = 192.7

192.7 = 7.2738 x 26.5


Γ(11.06) = 4,176,223.827

11.06 x 180/Π = 633.691

11.06 - 3Π = 1.635222

11.06 x68.05 = 111.277

111.277/1.618 = 68.774

111.277 + 68.774 = 180

 FIBONACCI NUMBER #106

F106 = 6,356,306,993,006,846,248,183 = 6.3563 x 1021

F106/VOLUME OF THE PYRAMID = 1/2.5412838 x 10-11 (VOLUME OF THE PYRAMID CONE)



(http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/greatpyramid3-19.jpg)

QUEEN’S CHAMBER VOLUME

VOLUME OF THE RECTANGULAR PRISM

140.9 cubic meters

8,574,194.2

Γ(11.363) = 8,574,194.2

11.363 x 180/Π = 651.05

11.363 - 3Π = 1.938

1.938 x 68.05 = 131.896

131.896/0.618 = 213.4 (=4 x 53.4)


VOLUME OF THE TRIANGULAR PRISM

45.57 cubic meters

2,773,032.4

Γ(10.884) = 2,773,032.4

10.884 x 180/Π = 623.61

10.884 - 3Π = 1.4592

1.4592 x 68.05 = 99.3

68.05Π – 99.3 = 11.448 (11.444 = 4 x 286.1si)


TOTAL VOLUME OF THE QUEEN’S CHAMBER

186.47

11,346,902.7

Γ(11.4803) = 11,346,902.7

11.4803 x 180/Π = 657.8

11.4803 - 3Π = 2.0555

2.0555 x 68.05 = 139.88

139.88/99.3 = 1.408 (height of pyramid = 140.7 meters)

139.88/2.618 = 53.43


QUEEN’S CHAMBER NICHE, FIRST SECTION

w = 1.568 m
h = 1.743 m
l = 1.0414 m

V = 2.8462 cubic meters

173,192.62

Γ(9.67) = 173,192.62

9.67 x 180Π = 554

9.67 - 3Π = 0.24522

0.24522 x 68.05 = 16.687

16.687 = 27 x 0.618

QUEEN’S CHAMBER NICHE, SECOND SECTION

w = 1.34 m
h = 0.87266 m (Π/360 = 0.0087266)
l = 1.0414

V = 1.217776 cubic meters

74,103

Γ(9.28) = 74103

9.28 x 180/Π = 531.7

9.28 - 2Π = 2.9968

2.9968 x 68.05 = 203.93 = 6sc x 53.4 = 136 x 1.5

QUEEN’S CHAMBER NICHE, THIRD SECTION

w = 1.062 m
h = 0.69733 m
l = 1.0414 m

V = 0.77122 cubic meters

46,929.81

Γ(9.07) = 46,929.81

9.07 x 180/Π = 519.67

9.07 - 2Π = 2.7868

2.7868 x 68.05 = 189.64

189.64 = 136.1 + 53.4

QUEEN’S CHAMBER NICHE, FOURTH SECTION

w = 0.773
h = 0.69733
l = 1.0414

V = 0.56135 cubic meters

34,158.9

Γ(8.924) = 34,158.9

8.924 x 180/Π = 511.3

8.924 - 2Π = 2.6408

2.6408 x 68.05 = 179.707

179.707/286.1 = 2Π/10

QUEEN’S CHAMBER NICHE, FIFTH SECTION

w = 0.5156
h = 0.69733
l = 1.0414

V = 0.37443 cubic meters

22,784.38

Γ(8.725) = 22,784.38

8.725 x 180/Π = 500

8.725 - 2Π = 2.4418

2.4418 x 68.05 = 166.166

166.166 ~= 10 x 16.687 (value obtained for the first section)

554 (value from the first section) x 3 = 10 x 166.2


CONCLUSIONS

The builders of the Gizeh Pyramid had at their disposal a deep knowledge of differential and integral calculus.

The notions of the radian, Taylor series expansion (used to calculate the decimal/fractional values of the trigonometric functions), tables of sine/cosine/tangent values, error estimates for the Taylor series (which uses the Extended Mean-Value Theorem, attributed to A. Cauchy), natural logarithm, Gamma function, Stirling series were well known to these builders as the foregoing calculations have shown in great detail.

Furthermore, the Stirling series could not have been used without an adequate error analysis which would provide realistic error bounds. Such an error analysis would involve knowledge of the Euler integral, Euler limit form, Euler constant, the notion of an asymptotic expansion, the Zeta function.

For proofs see Asymptotics and Special Functions, F.W.J. Olver, chapter 2 - sections 1.3, 1.4, 11.1-5, chapter 8 - section 4.1


It is inconceivable to state that the Gizeh pyramid was built some 5,000 years ago: no matter which hypothesis is used (extraterrestrials coming from the 12th planet [Z. Sitchin] or from some other galaxy - which would need negative energy/tachyon technology, thus debunking/disproving the infinite universe/multiple galaxy conjecture, Atlantis, or any other) there simply is not enough time for a round planet to have formed itself, given the official chronology used for any solar system evolution physics.

The Gizeh pyramid must have been built just a few hundreds of years ago: some decades later, the mathematics and physics used in its construction were infused into the Western scientific mainstream.


L. Euler: a fictional character invented at the end of the 18th century:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483598#msg1483598 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483598#msg1483598)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483917#msg1483917 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483917#msg1483917)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 10, 2014, 06:20:00 AM
Origin of Calculus: How Mathematical Analysis Was Imported to India, Italy, France and England

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yuktibhasa.pdf (http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yuktibhasa.pdf)

A relevant epistemological question is this: did Newton at all understand the result he is alleged to have invented? Did Newton have the wherewithal, the necessary mathematical resources, to understand infinite series? As is well known, Cavalieri in 1635 stated the above formula (the infinite series expansion for the sine function) as what was later termed a conjecture. Wallis, too, simply stated the above result, without any proof. Fermat tried to derive the key result above from a result on figurate numbers, while Pascal used the famous “Pascal’s” triangle long known in India and China. Though Newton followed Wallis, he had no proof either, and neither did Leibniz who followed Pascal. Neither Newton nor any other mathematician in Europe had the mathematical wherewithal to understand the calculus for another two centuries, until the development of the real number system by Dedekind.

The next question naturally is this: if Newton and Leibniz did not quite understand the calculus, how did they invent it? In the amplified version of the usual narrative, how did Galileo, Cavalieri, Fermat, Pascal, and Roberval etc. all contribute to the invention of a mathematical procedure they couldn’t quite have understood? The frontiers of a discipline are usually foggy, but here we are talking of a gap which is typically 250 years.

Clearly a more natural hypothesis to adopt is that the calculus was not invented in Europe, but was imported, and that the calculus took nearly as long to assimilate as did zero.


Dr. Joseph George Gheverghese from the University of Manchester said there was strong circumstantial evidence that the Indians passed on their discoveries to mathematically knowledgeable Jesuit missionaries who visited India during the 15th century.

That knowledge may have eventually been passed on to Newton himself, he said.



A key development of pre-calculus Europe, that of generalisation on the basis of induction, has deep methodological similarities with the corresponding Kerala development (200 years before). There is further evidence that John Wallis (1665) gave a recurrence relation and proof of the Pythagorean theorem exactly as Bhaskara II did.

Although it was believed that Keralese calculus remained localised until its discovery by Charles Whish in 1832, Kerala had in fact been in contact with Europe ever since Vasco da Gama first arrived there in 1499 and trade routes were established between Kerala and Europe. Along with European traders, Jesuit missionaries from Europe were also present in Kerala during the 16th century. Many of them were mathematicians and astronomers, and were able to speak local languages such as Malayalam, and were thus able to comprehend Keralese mathematics. Indian mathematical manuscripts may have been brought to Europe by the Jesuit priests and scholars that were present in Kerala.


Other pieces of circumstantial evidence include:

James Gregory, who first stated the infinite series expansion of the arctangent (the Madhava-Gregory series) in Europe, never gave any derivation of his result, or any indication as to how he derived it, suggesting that this series was imported into Europe.


Kerala's established trade links with the British East India Company, which began trading with India sometime between 1600 and 1608, not too long before Europe's scientific revolution began.

There was some controversy in the late 17th century between Newton and Leibniz, over how they independently 'invented' calculus almost simultaneously, which sometimes leads to the suggestion that they both may have acquired the relevant ideas indirectly from Keralese calculus.


Some of Bhaskara's contributions to mathematics include the following:

Integer solutions of linear and quadratic indeterminate equations (Kuttaka). The rules he gives are (in effect) the same as those given by the renaissance European mathematicians of the 17th Century.

A cyclic, Chakravala method for solving indeterminate equations of the form ax2 + bx + c = y. The solution to this equation was traditionally attributed to William Brouncker in 1657, though his method was more difficult than the chakravala method.

Solutions of Diophantine equations of the second order, such as 61x^2 + 1 = y^2. This very equation was posed as a problem in 1657 by the French mathematician Pierre de Fermat.

Preliminary concept of mathematical analysis.

Preliminary concept of infinitesimal calculus, along with notable contributions towards integral calculus.

He conceived differential calculus, after discovering the derivative and differential coefficient.

Stated Rolle's theorem, a special case of one of the most important theorems in analysis, the mean value theorem.

Traces of the general mean value theorem are also found in his works.

Calculated the derivatives of trigonometric functions and formulae.


The calculus has played a key role in the development of the sciences, starting from the “Newtonian Revolution”. According to the “standard” story, the calculus was invented independently by Leibniz and Newton. This story of indigenous development, ab initio, is now beginning to totter, like the story of the “Copernican Revolution”. The English-speaking world has known for over one and a half centuries that “Taylor” series expansions for sine, cosine and arctangent functions were found in Indian mathe-matics/astronomy/timekeeping (jyotisa) texts, and specifically in the works of Madhava,Neelkantha (Tantrasangraha, 1501CE), Jyeshtadeva (Yuktibhâsâ, c. 1530 CE) etc. No one else, however, has so far studied the connection of these Indian developments to European mathematics.


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.

Prashastpada



ISAAC NEWTON, THE CALCULUS THIEF: (some excerpts)

He copied his laws of gravity from "Surya Sidhanta" the great Sanskrit astronomical work written in the Vedic age . Reproduced in another written text by Bhaskara , 1200 years before Newton it clearly explains gravity without an apple. However Vedic gravity was a push ( after observing the solar eclipse ) and NOT a pull. 

They took Calculus to Europe , from where the likes of Gottfried Wilhelm Von Liebniz , Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke raced with each other to translate , re-invent and market it in their own names, in a acrimonious manner.

It was John Wallis , while he was the keeper of Oxford Univeristy archives who first started pondering over translated Mathematics stolen from India. 

John Wallis patented Vedic Math infinity and infinitesimal in his own name.  Rest he could NOT understand .  Whatever he could make head or tail of, he included in his Arithmatica Infinitorum and Treatise on Algebra.

His baton was taken over by Isaac Barrow, who tutored Isaac Newton in Kerala Calculus.




http://ckraju.net/IndianCalculus/Bangalore.pdf (http://ckraju.net/IndianCalculus/Bangalore.pdf)

The Infinitesimal Calculus: How and Why it Was Imported into Europe


https://web.archive.org/web/20130713214810/http://indianrealist.com/2009/01/26/how-jesuits-took-calculus-from-india-to-europe/

‘Calculus is India’s Gift to Europe’

In his speech at ICIH 2009, Professor C.K. Raju revealed that calculus was an Indian invention that was transmitted by Jesuit priests to Europe from Cochin in the second half of 16th century. “Indian infinite series has been known to British scholars since at least 1832, but no scholar tried to establish the connection with the calculus attributed to Newton and Leibnitz,” he said.

Dr. Raju’s 10-year research that included archival work in Kerala and Rome was published in a book “Cultural Foundations of Mathematics.” It established that the Jesuit priests took trigonometric tables and planetary models from the Kerala mathematicians of the Aryabhata school and exported them to Europe starting around 1560 in connection with the European navigational problem.

“When the Europeans received the Indian calculus, they couldn’t understand it properly because the Indian philosophy of mathematics is different from the Western philosophy of mathematics. It took them about 300 years to fully comprehend its working. The calculus was used by Newton to develop his laws of physics,” Dr. Raju added. Ironically, some British scholars claimed credit for this research despite being warned against plagiarizing Professor Raju’s work.



However, what Dr. C.K. Raju does not realize is that the same science of calculus was also imported to India, in order to create the false impression of an ancient indian history.

http://madhesi.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/did-ashoka-exist/ (http://madhesi.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/did-ashoka-exist/) (how Emperor Ashoka, India's greatest historical figure, is a fictional character invented in the 19th century)

Not so ancient India:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27888#27888 (http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27888#27888)


Ptolemy's Almagest: it was created at least after 1350 AD, here are the complete proofs:


When was Ptolemy's star catalogue in Almagest compiled in reality?

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf)



The dating of Ptolemy's Almagest based on the coverings of the stars and on lunar eclipses

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf)


Both works appeared in the Acta Applicandae Mathematicae (17 - 1989 and 29 - 1992).


http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/ (http://new-chrono-book.livejournal.com/)

HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE? VOLUME 3, DATING PTOLEMY'S ALMAGEST

mediafire.com 2ljuudrjdnt

Pg. 209 - 214

Tycho Brahe = N. Copernicus


Pg. 248 - 259

Who actually wrote the works attributed to Hipparchus, T. Brahe and C. Ptolemy


Pg. 302 - 327

J. Kepler = N. Copernic = T. Brahe = C. Ptolemy the most extraordinary analysis

The other pages include one of the best ever discussion on the new chronology of the times of J. Kepler, C. Ptolemy, T. Brahe, N. Copernicus, who were actually one and the same person.


Dating Ptolemy's Almagest (a more technical work):

mediafire.com qnmmdljvxkm

The coverings of the stars, and the lunar eclipses described in Almagest, could have occurred ONLY during the period 800 - 1350 a.d. and not one thousand years earlier. Archimedes' Palimpsest was also forged after 1750 AD.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on January 28, 2014, 12:47:36 AM
Therefore, the truncated Maxwell equations refer ONLY to the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea, and NOT to the scalar/ether waves themselves:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)


Now, a closed-form formula for the natural logarithm:

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

n+1 parantheses to evaluate - in the last parenthesis we substract 2 and take the square root one last time (n+1), before we multiply the result by 2^n

For v very large, we can omit the term 1/v


By summing the nested square root function, we obtain the final result:

LN v = 2n x ( v(1/2^n) - 2 + v-(2^-n) )1/2

Of course, we can use the first formula for computation utilizing only a pocket calculator with only the four basic arithmetic operations (since a square root function is essentially a continued fraction).


And there are more formulas to be derived from the logarithm continued function:

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

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

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

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


ln v = 2n x ( v1/2n+1 - 1/v1/2n+1 )

This is the correct formula for the natural logarithm function, linking algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions, providing the fastest way to calculate the value for any logarithm, and at the same time help to evaluate any integral containing lnx terms.


For a first approximation:

ln v = 2n x ( v1/2n - 1 )

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

Example: x = 100,000 ; lnx = 11.5129255

with n=20, the first approximation is lnx = 11.512445 (e11.512445 = 100001.958 )


For the function 2n x v1/2n, there is a certain pattern for the succesive approximations, (fk+1 - fk)/(fk - fk-1); as an example for 1x108 after the first four evaluations, the ratios approach 2; for 1x105, after the first four calculations, for 5.23 x 1012, after the first five evaluations.

Now, for the first time, we can evaluate and obtain estimates for the logarithmic integral (li(x)):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/5/e45c5ac061c344e09072e21062be8c66.png)

Perhaps we will encounter integrals of the form ( u2n+1/(u-1) x du ) or some form of partial fraction decompositions containing 2n+1 factors, but there is an excellent chance to obtain a formula or even some kind of an estimate which will settle the matter:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/0/9/909e0e0f5bad15cbd4d82e2f0e2e6b10.png)

li(x) - Π(x) = O(x1/2lnx) (number of primes not exceeding x and a verification of Riemann's hypothesis at the same time - I recommend H.R. Edwards' Riemann's Zeta Function for further information)

We all know that the integral of lnx = xlnx - x; however, the real beauty and significance of this formula is revealed only when we use the correct logarithm expression derived above for the first time:

2n x ((1/(1 + 1/2n+1)) x v1 + 1/2n+1  -  (1/(1 - 1/2n+1)) x v1 - 1/2n+1 )



Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”


ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf)

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


On Physical Lines of Force, the original set of Maxwell's equations:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf (http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf)


The best work done on the original set of Maxwell's equations belongs to Dr. Frederick Tombe.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf)

The correct demonstration of the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell’s vortex cells.

Dr. Tombe's paper demonstrates quite clearly the fallacy of Einstein's statement.


Dr. Tombe went even further with his paper: Gravity and Light -

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe18.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe18.pdf)

Abstract. Gravity and light are two different manifestations of aether flow.

Another classic by Dr. Tombe:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe5.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe5.pdf)

Gravitation and the Gyroscopic Force



Double helix theory of the Magnetic field:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf)


There is no such thing as the theory of relativity:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563056#msg1563056 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563056#msg1563056)


Dayton Miller ether drift experiments:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563058#msg1563058 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60367.msg1563058#msg1563058)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2014, 12:34:18 AM
Circle arclength formula:

A = 2n x (2c2 - c(2c2 + c(2c2 ... +c(2c2 - 2bc)1/2)1/2)1/2...)1/2

c = radius, b = side of the right triangle which lies on the x-axis


Then, we can certainly factor out the term c1/2n+1, which means that the logarithm of the radius of a circle is definitely linked to the trigonometric functions.


Sacred cubit radians

Degrees to sacred cubit radians - divide by 36.4206 = (100 - 100 sc)

Sacred cubit radians (scr) to degrees - multiply by 36.4206

50 degrees = 1/0.7284 scr (7.28 = displacement factor of the Gizeh Pyramid)

100 degrees = 2.7457 scr = 1/0.364206


sc = sacred cubit = 0.63566 (there are several sacred cubit measurements, ranging from 0.625 to 0.64)


b12 + a12 = c12

b1 = d1 x d2 (divisors of b1)

a1 = (d12 - d22)/2

c1 = (d12 +d22/2


b1, a1, c1 in the natural numbers set

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



Using sacred cubit radians, we finally understand the importance of the arclength for the b12 + a12 = c12 formula.


b1 = 33
c1 = 65

arccos 33/65 = 1.0385 radians = 59.4897 degrees, no symmetry can be detected

However, using scr, we get 1.6334 scr.

Multiplying the arclength for the given angle by one sc we get 106.1785, and then by the scr value: 167.025

65sc2 = 26.264

167.025/26.264 = 6.36 (10 sc)

Similarly, for 5177 = b1 (c1 = 14425), we get the value 2.5424 x 1/0.2861

for 3173 = b1 (c1 = 14125), we get (2 + 1/sc2)/sc, and so on.


The sequence 2sc - 1/2sc x N (N = 1,2,3 ... ) will give the values: 5.34, 7.287, 13.6034, 63.65 and much more.


The Fibonacci numbers are actually sacred cubit numbers.

1,618034 = 4sc2 (sc = 0.636009827)

Then Fn = 1/(8sc2 -1) x 22n x sc2n



Then we get:

(b12)sc + (a12)sc =~ ([(b1 + a1 + c1)/2]2)sc

b11/sc + a11/sc =~ c11/sc


b1sc + a1sc = (k x c1)sc , 1 < k <~2




Let p(n) = partitions of a natural number

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/3/e/43ece82da690519129ca823eb824f391.png)


I am going to derive the asymptotic formula for p(n) using just the sacred cubit as a guide; using the above formula I have calculated p(n) up to n = 96, we also know that p(243) = 133,978,259,344,888

For starters let n!/([lnn]! x (n - [lnn])!) = f(n), where [ x ] is the integer part of x, then

f(83)/p(83) = 1/sc

f(91)/p(91) = 1/12


Using various functions to approximate ln p(n) such as (n/sc2)1/2, and n1/2/sc2, we get some special values:

ln p(33) = 331/2 x 1.6195

[(1 + 4sc2) x 33 )]1/2/sc = ln p(33) x 1/sc

For h1 = ((1 + 4sc2) x lnn)1/2/sc we get

h1(33) - (3sc + lnn) = 1sc
h1(51) - (3sc + lnn) = 1/2sc

2431/(1 - sc) = 3sc + ln 243


Finally, without using complex analysis or Ramanujan sums, we get:

ln p(n) = [(1 + 4sc2) x n )]1/2/sc  - (lnn + 1 + 1/sc2 - 1/sc) - a very good approximation



Next, I am going to attempt to solve the most difficult known problem in number theory: large number factorization of semiprimes (product of two very large prime numbers), at least for a semiprime which has ten digits, using just the sacred cubit: a new formula (the leading asymptotic term) which solves the problem for numbers with ten digits or less, and a new algorithm featuring Fibonacci numbers remainders.

There is a wealth of information which can be obtained from the b1 term, using sacred cubits, and which can be the starting point to a whole new approach to factoring semiprimes.

Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 14, 2014, 12:53:54 AM
(b12)sc + (a12)sc =~ ([(b1 + a1 + c1)/2]2)sc

b11/sc + a11/sc =~ c11/sc



a1 + c1 = d12

List of 4sc2 sequence numbers (Fibonacci numbers):

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


With a reasonable approximation for a1, we can obtain a very good estimate for d1 from the first formula, presented for the first time in my previous message.

8141 x 131071 = 1073602561

1073602561 = 286572 + 252378911 = 28657 x 46368 - 255165215  (where 28657 = F23, and 46368 = F24)

If b1<a1, then the a1 term will be of the form F242 - ..., or 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


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

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.


But we can actually accomplish much more, by using the 4sc2 sequence to reveal the sacred cubit structure of the natural number system.


821 x 941 = 772561

772561 = 610 x 987 + 170491 = 9872 - 201608

170491 = 3772 + 28362 = 377 x 610 - 59479

The sum of the remainders obtained by dividing the numbers by Fn will equal a product of Fn numbers.

201608 = 377 x 610 - 28362 = 3772 + 59479

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


Of course, we can immediately obtain a first approximation for d1, d1 = 918; by summing the remainders of b1 in their corresponding order, we can obtain even better estimate for d1.


Now, 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 start the a1 sequence of remainders starting from the bottom up, or by using a very interesting shortcut involving b1sc.

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

Using the same scheme as above, we get finally:

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 sum of the remainders at each stage of the calculation will equal a product of Fn numbers.


One of the remainders of a1 will be 2857.


3004 - 2857 = 147



772561sc = 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 b1sc and some of the a1 remainders.


The same reasoning can be used for any b1 = d1 x d2.

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, b1sc = 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 Fn)

9368 is one of the a1 remainders

Another a1 remainder is 3448

6515.72 - 3448 =~ 552 = 233 x 13


The algorithm uses only Fn numbers, and is proportional to the number of the digits of b1 and not to any divisor of b1.


I believe that this formula is just the first leading term of a certain asymptotic approximation to d1, and we have seen the extraordinary approximations which can be obtained effortlessly:

(b12)sc + (a12)sc =~ ([(b1 + a1 + c1)/2]2)sc


Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 16, 2014, 07:47:45 AM
2123 = b1 = 11 x 193
18564 = a1

2123sc = 130.26

301 - 130.26 = 34 x 5

854 - 130.26 =~ 144 x 5

301 and 854 remainders of 18564 upon division by the corresponding Fn numbers.


21232sc = 16967.50815

a1 - 21232sc = 1596.4918  (1597 = F17)


18564sc = 516.92

902 - 516.92 = 7 x 55

902 remainder of 2123


15617 = b1 = 97 x 161
8256 = a1


8256sc = 308.84

15617sc = 463.13

463.13 - 106 = 89 x 4   (106 remainder of 8256)

932 - 308.84 = 7 x 89   (932 remainder of 15617)


1000009 = b1 = 3413 x 293
5781360 = a1

10000092sc = 293627 x 144.5  (293627 remainder of 5781360)
10000092sc - (293627 x 144.5) = 25519.6
25840 - 25519 = 233 + 89 (25840 remainder of 1000009)

1000009sc = 6515.72

6515.72 - 3448 =~ 552


231 - 1 = 2147483647

261 - 1 = 2.3059 x 1018

b1 = (231 - 1) x (261 - 1) = 4.951760152 x 1027
a1 = 2.658455989 x 1036

In a situation like this b12sc can be used to find useful relationships between the remainders of b1 and a1, and even estimates.

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


I would need access to a computer which can handle division/multiplication of integers with 50 digits+, and then use the b1, a1 remainders to discover the hidden sacred cubit symmetries:

-the following powers of b1 also would be very useful to discover further formulas: 2sc + 1/2sc, 1/sc, 2sc, 1, 1/2sc, 2 - 2sc, sc, sc/2, 2sc - 1/2sc (in fact it would cover the range of all possible values of a1)

-ln (b1/a1 + a1/b1) leads to the conclusion that the remainders of 2c1 and b1 + a1 also do contain useful information


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.

An elegant method would not resort to "needle in the haystack algorithms", but would make full use of the very interesting mathematical relationships which do exist between the remainders of b1 and a1 upon division by the corresponding Fn numbers - an algorithm which is proportional to the number of the digits of b1.


Even the universal constants of bifurcation theory are related to the sacred cubit.

136/18 x 1/4sc2 = 4.66933 (Feigenbaum constant)

136/48 x 1/4sc2 = 2.8333 (-2.8333 is the Shenker-Rand constant)

4.6692 + 2.618034 = 7.2872 (displacement factor of the Gizeh pyramid, 286.1 sacred inches = 7.28)

2 x 2.8333 = 4.66933 x 3sc2


Albert Einstein,Relativity, The special and the general theory, 11th ed., 1936, p.64:

“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.”


PROJECT MONTGOLFIER - Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown proves the fallacy of Einstein's statetment; also the Biefeld-Brown effect shows that terrestrial gravity and antigravity are electrical forces of opposite spin.


http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1540161#msg1540161 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1540161#msg1540161)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1552735#msg1552735 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1552735#msg1552735)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1554378#msg1554378 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1554378#msg1554378)

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1553607#msg1553607 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1553607#msg1553607)
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2014, 07:55:42 AM
Riemann’s Hypothesis – Sacred cubit structure of the zeros of the Zeta function

(http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/zeros.jpg)

The zeros of the Zeta function of Riemann are angles (expressed in radians); by finding the corresponding angles in the first four quadrants, and multiplying by 68.05 (radius of the circle), we obtain a certain arclength.

Then, an intricate and extraordinary system/network of sacred cubit equations will become apparent, showing that the structure of the zeros of the Zeta function cannot be understood without employing the notion of the  sacred cubit.

Furthermore, each group of five consecutive zeros of the Zeta function will form a five element cycle (as described earlier), with striking sacred cubit mathematical relationships becoming evident.


The zeros of the Zeta function can be viewed as sort of a Poincare map: the iteration of an initial point (of a periodic differential equation on a cylinder, for our case, for visualization purposes) under the Poincare map is the succesive interaction of the spiral with a vertical line on the cylinder (the sequence of Poincare maps fit together to make a spiral on the cylinder).


http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html)

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics1.htm (http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics1.htm)

http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/Riemann.html (http://member.melbpc.org.au/~tmajlath/Riemann.html)

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/index.html (http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/index.html)



The Stieltjes constants are actually sacred cubit constants.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/8/588c959810d6a7a80c98cca8fe7735ad.png)

A0 = 0.5772156649
A1 = 072815845

7.28158 is one of the values of the displacement factor of the Gizeh pyramid.

In fact,

0.078158455 – 0.07273942 = 7.6425 x 10-5

7.6425 x sc = 4.858 = 10 x (2sc – 1/2sc)

Then, the Euler constant can be expressed as:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/3/4/334de1ea38b615839e4ee6b65ee1b103.png) = 0.07273942 x 18sc/(18sc – 10)

(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/Euler-MascheroniConstant/Inline5.gif)

We can express Catalan’s constant, G, in terms of sacred cubits.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/0/d/b0d0101eaeceacd98b6e430f4ce72b60.png)

G x 0.2861 = 1/6sc

G/1.361 = 1/[1 + (2sc – 1/2sc)]

The Feigenbaum constant can be expressed in terms of G.

4.6693 x 0.72738 = 5.34 x sc

(18sc – 10)/18sc x sc x 53.4 = 4.27678

4.27678/4.6693 = G


The sum of the negative integer powers of the nontrivial zeros is again a sacred cubit constant.


(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros/Inline60.gif)

=  (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/equations/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros/Inline62.gif)

The sum will equal 0.02309571

2.309571/sc = 7.2738/2 – 3.5567 x 10-3

355.555 = 2/3 x 533.33

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannZetaFunctionZeros.html) (for all the sums of the negative integer powers of the nontrivial zeros, from Z(1) to Z(6) )


FIRST FIVE ZEROS OF THE ZETA FUNCTION (see http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/index.html (http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/index.html) )

We reduce the value of the zero itself (angle expressed in radians) to the first few quadrants, as needed, then multiply this value by 68.05 to find the value of the arclength.

14.134725 - 4π = 1.568354 (value of the width of the first section from the queen chamber niche)

1.568354 x 68.05 = 106.726

Let us now find further sacred cubit equations featuring 14.134725

Ln 14.134725 = 14.134725/5.3366

14.134725 x 0.618 = 1/0.11447 (11.444 is one of the most important constants of the Gizeh pyramid, and equals 4 x 2.861)

14.134725/2.5424 = 1/180

14.134725 – 21/2 = 12.7205 = 20sc

14.134725 - 5π = -1/sc

26.666 x 4 = 106.666

106.726sc = 14.134725 + 5.332

Let us now express 45 degrees as sacred cubit radians:

45/36.4206 = 1.23556

1.23541 x 180 = 222.37

Dividing 14.134725 by one sacred cubit we obtain:

14.134725/sc = 22.22363

Since 106.666 is the radian value for 90 degrees multiplied by68.05, we can see that the first zero of the Zeta function is absolutely related to the value of 90 degrees.


21.02204 - 6π 2.172476

2.172476 x 68.05 = 147.837


25.0108 - 7π = 3.0196

3.0196 x 68.05 = 205.487


30.424 - 8π = 5.29125

5.29125 x 68.05 = 360.07


32.935 - 2π = 26.666
32.935 - 8π = 7.8022

7.8022 x 68.05 = 530.94

37.586

by substracting 9π and multiplying by 68.05 we get 633.658
by substracting 8π and multiplying by 68.05 we get 847.444

Now, the crucial observation is made: each set of five consecutive zeros of the Zeta function, expressed as arclength (and at this early stage also as the zero divided by one sc) will obey the rules of the five elements cycle defined earlied on this page.


Therefore,

360.07 – 106.726 = 253.444
253.42 = 156.6 x 1.618

360.07 – 205.487 = 154.583

154.583 x 0.618 = 100sc x 1.5

530.94 – 360.07 = 170.874 (Gizeh pyramid value)

633.659 – 530.94 = 102.719
102.719/sc = 161.594 (136.1 expressed in radians and multplied by 68.05)


Since the values of the zeros at this early stage are actually spaced out quite nicely, we can divide their values by one sc to obtain further equations.

Dividing the previous values of the first five zeros of the Zeta function by one sc we get:

22.22363

33.07

39.346 (1/1si)

47.862

51.81

33.07 = (the Euler constant x 180)/π

39.346/22.22363 = 1.77

e1/1.77 = 1.759398 = 1 + 39.346/51.81

e0.75943 = 4 x 53.4

0.75943 = 1/1.31678

51.81/33.07 = 1.5666

47.862/33.07 = 1.4473

1.4487 = 52.762 degrees/36.4206

140.6/52.762 = 2.666

With an angle of 5.29125 and a radius of 68.05 the triangle formed will have sides measuring: 37.2285, 56.9635, 68.05 – their sum will be 99.884

If we subtract π/2 from the 3.0196, we get again 1.4488 – the corresponding triangle will have sides measuring 8.2768, 67.54, 68.05, and a sum of 143.872

143.872/99.884 = 1.4462

47.862/22.223 = 2.154

2.154/5.34 = sc2

2.154/1.5666 = 1/0.727296

2.154/1.316777 = 1 + sc

1.316777 + 0.25 = 1.56666

32.935 – 14.134725 = 18.8

Volume of Gizeh pyramid/Lateral area = 30.4452

30.4452 x 0.618 = 18.815

30.4452 x π/180 =1/1.882

Volume of apex/Lateral area of apex = 0.8842


5.29125 – 1.4488 = 3.84246

3.84246 x 68.05 = 261.474


205.487/261.479 = 1/2sc

261.479/360.07 = 0.7263 (one of the values for the displacement factor)

360.07 x 2sc = 458.01

530.94 – 458.01 = 72.931


ZEROS 6 THROUGH 10

37.586

40.9187

43.32707

48.00515

49.774

Using the same procedure (1. Deriving the value of the arclength and 2. Dividing each zero by one sc) we will get again equations involving sc.

Most importantly, again, the consecutive five zeros will obey the rules of the five elements cycle defined earlier.

In fact 1463.0528/1074.2345 = 1.361 (1463.0528 is the arclength for 49.772, and 1074.2345 is the arclength for 40.9187)

Moreover, we meet again with the constant 2.534


ZEROS 125 THROUGH 129

278.2507

279.229251

282.465

283.2111851

284.875964

Again the same precise mathematical relationships involving sc and the five elements cycle.




From the list posted earlier, let us pick at random the following five zeros:

361574.0875
361574.94195
361575.08737
361575.76592
361576.1480

The angles reduced to the first two quadrants will measure:

1.90582 (3sc)
2.76022
2.90562
3.584213
3.9663

Multiplying by 68.05 we get:

129.69105
187.833
197.727
243.906
269.91

I invite the reader to discover the precise equations involving sc and the five element cycle of values expressed as various formulas involving sc.






At random, again, let us pick another set of five consecutive zeros.

1132486.2441
1132486.3922
1132486.87488
1132487.57186
1132487.951

Angles:

1.7827
1.9307
2.9127
3.1107
3.4897

Arclengths:

121.3127
131.384
164.184
211.683
237.474

We obtain again mathematical equations involving sc, and the precise five element cycle values expressed as various formulas involving sc.


Let us now put the sacred cubit to the ultimate test: the Lehmer phenomenon.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LehmersPhenomenon.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LehmersPhenomenon.html)

7005.0606918
7005.10055

Angles:

2.450667
2.4905252

Arclengths:

166.7679
169.48024

169.48024 – 166.7679 = 2.71234

2.71234 x euler’s constant = 1.5656

2.71234/2sc = 4 x 0.533

2.71234/8 = 0.339 = 0.53333 x sc

2.71234 – 0.1695 = 2.54284  (2 x 0.1695 = 3.39)


Conclusions:

The builders of the Gizeh pyramid must have had among their ranks the equivalent of G.F.B. Riemann and must have had at their disposal the Riemann-Siegel formula:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Riemann-SiegelFormula.html (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Riemann-SiegelFormula.html)

Either all zeros lie on the x=1/2 line, or none of them do (each set of five consecutive zeros are part of a five element cycle, and of an intricate system of equations involving sc: if a single zero is to be found on different x = @ line, then the previous four zeros will no longer be part of a five element cycle, and so on right back to the very first zero.

The zeros of the Zeta function are intersections of the helical sound wave travelling from the pyramid to the apex (at the quantum physics infinitesimal level, see my previous message on this page for a complete explanation) with the outer surface of the cylinder (or some similar shape) which links the pyramid with its apex, then the values themselves are projections onto the central axis (in our case the x = ½ line).
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 11, 2014, 05:02:17 PM
So if I get the gist of it, Newton merely adopted what was known earlier (and aided in the Gizeh construction), as evidenced by the surprising finding that he did not fully comprehend his own supposed invention? Very interesting!!! I also found the Wolfram links quite helpful. Thank you Levee.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2014, 07:06:20 AM
Here is a work on Riemann's Zeta function which explains further the findings of C.L. Siegel in the 1930s: the discovery of the asymptotic formula of the Zeta function in Riemann's archives, and of course, much more on the Riemann's hypothesis, if you are interested in this problem:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=ruVmGFPwNhQC&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=edwards+riemann+zeta+function&source=bl&ots=P4HbjJaNFk&sig=ySMxAy_uEaOaKAkKCo6gbN_w-CQ&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=LbEhU8jmKafF0QHukIHoBg&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=edwards%20riemann%20zeta%20function&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=ruVmGFPwNhQC&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=edwards+riemann+zeta+function&source=bl&ots=P4HbjJaNFk&sig=ySMxAy_uEaOaKAkKCo6gbN_w-CQ&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=LbEhU8jmKafF0QHukIHoBg&ved=0CGoQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=edwards%20riemann%20zeta%20function&f=false)


Believe or not, the value of the first zero of the Zeta function on the x = 1/2 line has everything to do with the value of the frequency of the musical instrument (drum) used by the tibetan monks, as described earlier - the single drum of 534.4 Hz.

Height of apex of pyramid: 7.2738 units (286.1 si)

Two apexes in merkabah formation: 9.245 units total height (http://www.absoluteempowerment.com/attachments/Image/Merkabah/002.gif (http://www.absoluteempowerment.com/attachments/Image/Merkabah/002.gif) )

Pyramid total height (including subterranean chamber): 174.6 units (140.6 + 30 + 4)

Each and every boson/antiboson has in its center two truncated pyramids facing each other, with their two apexes rotating in opposite direction right in the center of the distance between the truncated summits.

The importance of the value of 534.4 is as follows: 340 + 9.245 + 170 = 534 - 2x7.27

The distance between the pyramids is 186 (actually 185.58625)

In the center lie the two apexes in a merkabah mathematical figure.


Then, 185.586 - 1/0.0063566 = 2 x 14.134725 (where 14.134725 is the value of the first zero of the Zeta function on the x = 1/2 line).


9.245 - 7.2738 = 1.9712

9.245 - 2x1.9712 = 5.3026

2x14.134725 - 5.3026 = 2x11.483425

11.483425 - 11.444 = 0.039425   -   where 0.039425 = 2x0.0197125

In order to discover the true significance of the value of 14.134725 we must make use of the one of the most interesting geometrical figures of the Gizeh pyramid: the sothic triangle (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/SothicTri.jpg (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/SothicTri.jpg) ).

That is, we embed the apex itself into a larger triangle as follows:

the side angles of the sothic triangle will measure, of course, 51.87 degrees

its height will measure 16.786 units

the base of the sothic triangle will measure 26.35224 (2x13.17612)


For the apex there are only two possible side angle measures: 68.57 degrees and 51.87 degrees.

68.57 degrees

Substracting 1/2 the value of the base of the apex from 1/2 the value of the base of the sothic triangle we get:

10.32135

14.134725 - 10.32135 = 3.813375 = 6 sacred cubits


51.87 degrees

Substracting 1/2 the value of the base of the apex from 1/2 the value of the base of the sothic triangle we get:

7.4666

14.134725 - 7.4666 = 6.666 = 1/0.15


Now things get really interesting.

tan 51.87 degrees x 13.17612 = 16.786

16.786 - 14.134725 = 2.65129 = 5.3026/2

e2.65129 - 14.134725 = 1/26.6

2.65129 - 2.648634 = 0.00266

We remember that ln 14.134725 = 2.648634


Then, we understand precisely the significance of this figure:

http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/zeros.jpg (http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/zeros.jpg)

The distance from the very center of the boson to the apex of the sothic triangle will measure exactly 14.134725

Then the sound wave vortex manifests itself and each intersection of this helix with the outer surface of the cylinder (in the shape of a very complex sine wave) will appear on the center axis (its projection) with a certain value: the exact values of the zeros of the Zeta function on the x= 1/2 line).

As the a new wave starts from the pyramid and travels towards the its apex in the center, more values of the zeros of the Zeta function will be plotted on the x = 1/2 line, and so on.


"Although the Riemann zeta-function is an analytic function with [a] deceptively simple definition, it keeps bouncing around almost randomly without settling down to some regular asymptotic pattern. The Riemann zeta-function displays the essence of chaos in quantum mechanics, analytically smooth, and yet seemingly unpredictable."

M.C. Gutzwiller, Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (Springer, 1990), p. 377

"One idea for proving the Riemann hypothesis is to give a spectral interpretation of the zeros. That is, if the zeros can be interpreted as the eigenvalues of 1/2 + iT, where T is a Hermitian operator on some Hilbert space, then since the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are real, the Riemann hypothesis follows. This idea was originally put forth by Pólya and Hilbert, and serious support for this idea was found in the resemblance between the "explicit formulae" of prime number theory, which go back to Riemann and von Mangoldt, but which were formalized as a duality principle by Weil, on the one hand, and the Selberg trace formula on the other.

The best evidence for the spectral interpretation comes from the theory of the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE), which show that the local behavior of the zeros mimics that of a random Hamiltonian. The link gives a more extended discussion of this topic."

"Gutzwiller gave a trace formula in the setting of quantum chaos which relates the classical and quantum mechanical pictures. Given a chaotic (classical) dynamical system, there will exist a dense set of periodic orbits, and one side of the trace formula will be a sum over the lengths of these orbits. On the other side will be a sum over the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian in the quantum-mechanical analog of the given classical dynamical system.

This setup resembles the explicit formulas of prime number theory. In this analogy, the lengths of the prime periodic orbits play the role of the rational primes, while the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian play the role of the zeros of the zeta function. Based on this analogy and pearls mined from Odlyzko's numerical evidence, Sir Michael Berry proposes that there exists a classical dynamical system, asymmetric with respect to time reversal, the lengths of whose periodic orbits correspond to the rational primes, and whose quantum-mechanical analog has a Hamiltonian with zeros equal to the imaginary parts of the nontrivial zeros of the zeta function. The search for such a dynamical system is one approach to proving the Riemann hypothesis."   (Daniel Bump)


However, these distinguished mathematicians will NEVER be able to understand the true significance of Riemann's hypothesis outside of the subject of my previous messages: the Gizeh pyramid and the sacred cubit.


The Gizeh pyramid is the architectural equivalent of Riemann's Zeta function.


There were several people who wrote the works attributed to Newton: one wrote the Principia, another the texts on alchemy, another the treatises on chemistry, and others who compiled the works on optics and Newton's private letters.

Newton merely adopted what was known earlier (and aided in the Gizeh construction), as evidenced by the surprising finding that he did not fully comprehend his own supposed invention? Very interesting!!!

Indeed. The Gizeh pyramid was constructed only a few hundreds of years ago: calculus was then slowly infused into the Western cultural/scientific mainstream during the Renaissance which occurred during the 18th century.
Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 15, 2014, 03:09:56 AM
Ukraine/Crimeea/Moldavia - Flat Surface of the Earth

In the official historical chronology, Dimitrie Cantemir is recognized as one of the greatest geniuses ever produced by Eastern Europe.

Dimitrie Cantemir (1673–1723) was twice Prince of Moldavia (in March–April 1693 and in 1710–1711). He was also a prolific man of letters – philosopher, historian, composer, musicologist, linguist, ethnographer, and geographer.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Dimitrie_Cantemir_-_Foto01.jpg/220px-Dimitrie_Cantemir_-_Foto01.jpg)

In 1714 Cantemir became a member of the Royal Academy of Berlin. Between 1711 and 1719 he wrote his most important creations. Cantemir was known as one of the greatest linguists of his time, speaking and writing eleven languages, and being well versed in Oriental scholarship. His oeuvre is voluminous, diverse, and original; although some of his scientific writings contain unconfirmed theories and inaccuracies, his expertise, sagacity, and groundbreaking researches are widely acknowledged.


http://www.dacii.go.ro/materiale/dacii/spiritualitate/pagini/monument_megalitice_ceahlau.htm (http://www.dacii.go.ro/materiale/dacii/spiritualitate/pagini/monument_megalitice_ceahlau.htm)

From the classic work signed Dimitrie Cantemir, Descriptio Moldaviae (http://www.educatlaiasi.ro/uploadpoze/2%20martie%20semnificatii.jpg (http://www.educatlaiasi.ro/uploadpoze/2%20martie%20semnificatii.jpg) ), we have the following quote:

"Cel mai inalt multe al Moldovei este Ceahlaul si daca acest munte ar fi fost cunoscut poetilor vechi, el ar fi fost tot atat de celebru ca si Olimpul, Pindul sau Pelia. De alta parte, cat de inalt este muntele acesta se poate conchide din imprejurarea ca in timpul cat cerul este senin si soarele se inclina spre apus, acest munte se poate vedea intreg si asa de curat de la orasul Acherman (Tyras, Cetatea Alba), departe de 60 de ore, ca si cand ar fi in apropiere. Iar pe dealurile din jur se vad urme de cai, de caini si de pasari, imprimate in stanci, in numar asa de mare ca si cand ar fi trecut pe acolo o oaste imensa de calareti.”

Acherman = Cetatea Alba = White Fortress

Here is the map:

(http://zelea-codreanu.com/Cuvantul_Legionar/2011/07/poze/RSS_Autonoma_Moldova.jpg)

(http://basarabia-bucovina.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Cetatea-Alba-Reproducere-Mariana-Slapac-Basarabia-Bucovina.Info_.jpg)

Carpathian Mountains, Ceahlaul Range, Toaca Peak:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Csalh%C3%B3.jpg/800px-Csalh%C3%B3.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Csalh%C3%B3.jpg/800px-Csalh%C3%B3.jpg)

Exact location on map: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A2rful_Toaca,_Masivul_Ceahl%C4%83u (http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A2rful_Toaca,_Masivul_Ceahl%C4%83u)


TOACA PEAK MEASURES 1907 METERS IN ALTITUDE

DISTANCE CETATEA ALBA/WHITE FORTRESS TO TOACA PEAK: OVER 300 KM


Dimitrie Cantemir is saying that he could see the highest peak of the Ceahlaul Range all the way from the White Fortress very clearly.

The visual obstacle, for a distance of 300 km, altitude of observer some 20 meters above sea level (White Fortress) measures some 4 km.


Of course, now we know that the works attributed to Cantemir were invented at the beginning of the 19th century...however, the description is extraordinary.


Here is a historical figure which did exist: Gheorghe Asachi.

Gheorghe Asachi, surname also spelled Asaki; March 1, 1788 – November 12, 1869) was a Moldavian-born Romanian prose writer, poet, painter, historian, dramatist and translator. An Enlightenment-educated polymath and polyglot, he was one of the most influential people of his generation. Asachi was a respected journalist and political figure, as well as active in technical fields such as civil engineering and pedagogy, and, for long, the civil servant charged with overseeing all Moldavian schools. Among his leading achievements were the issuing of Albina Românească, a highly influential magazine, and the creation of Academia Mihăileană, which replaced Greek-language education with teaching in Romanian. His literary works combined a taste for Classicism with Romantic tenets, while his version of the literary language relied on archaisms and borrowings from the Moldavian dialect.

http://www.mlnar.ro/system/files/images/gheorghe_asachi.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.mlnar.ro/system/files/images/gheorghe_asachi.thumbnail.jpg)


http://romaniapress-misterelelumii.blogspot.ro/2011/01/misterele-ceahlaului-fenomene.html (http://romaniapress-misterelelumii.blogspot.ro/2011/01/misterele-ceahlaului-fenomene.html)

Ceahlaul nu se ridica, nici pe departe, la altitudinea altor piscuri muntoase din România sau din tarile vecine. Cu toate acestea, in mod paradoxal, el este singurul masiv care poate fi vazut de la sute de kilometri departare. in anumite conditii atmosferice si de luminozitate solara, piscurile Ceahlaului se zaresc cu o deosebita claritate de pe tarmul Marii Negre si de pe malurile Nistrului. Gheorghe Asachi scria despre acest fenomen inca din anul 1859: „Corabierul de pe Marea Neagra vede piscul cel inalt al acestui munte, de la Capul Mangaliei si pâna la Cetatea Alba. Locuitorul de pe tarmul Nistrului vede soarele apunând dupa masa acestui munte, iar pastorul nomad, dupa ce si-a iernat turmele sale pe câmpiile Bugeacului, se intoarce catre casa având in vedere vârful Pionului, sau Ceahlaului”.


Translation: The ship owner (corabier denotes actually each member of the crew, from captain to sailor) sailing the Black Sea can see the highest peak of the Ceahlaul range, starting from Mangalia all the way to the White Fortress.

The local inhabitants located on the banks of the river Nistrul can see the sunset, as the sun disappears behind the Ceahlaul range.

Mangalia on the map:

http://romeonet.ro/imagini/forum.romeonet.ro_litoral.jpg (http://romeonet.ro/imagini/forum.romeonet.ro_litoral.jpg)

River Nistru:

http://romaniancoins.org/harti/entransnistria.jpg (http://romaniancoins.org/harti/entransnistria.jpg)

Banks of river Nistru:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Ua_river_dnestr_piliptsche.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Ua_river_dnestr_piliptsche.jpg)

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE FROM MANGALIA TO THE TOACA PEAK MEASURES OVER 12 KM.

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE FROM RIVER NISTRU TO TOACA IS 2.7 KM.


Mountain climbers say that they can see the Black Sea all the way from the Carpathian mountains, Bucegi Range, Omu Peak (2505 m in altitude):

https://web.archive.org/web/20090422052937/https://www.infomontan.ro/Galerie/Turism%20Diverse/Files/009.html


It is absolutely impossible to see the Black Sea from Peak Omu on a spherical earth: the visual obstacle measures 800 meters (Peak Omu on the map):

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A2rful_Omu,_Mun%C8%9Bii_Bucegi (http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A2rful_Omu,_Mun%C8%9Bii_Bucegi)


Photographs of Peak Omu taken from Bucharest, residential neighborhood, building measuring 20 meters in height:


http://forum.softpedia.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21996.html (http://forum.softpedia.com/lofiversion/index.php/t21996.html)

(http://image.ibb.co/nuXcAS/Bucegii_2a.jpg)

(http://image.ibb.co/d43Ojn/pipera2.jpg)

(http://image.ibb.co/g8C2AS/bucegii.jpg)

(http://image.ibb.co/d43Ojn/pipera2.jpg)


Each and every geographical detail can be seen over the 150 km distance: no curvature whatsoever.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444) (curvature, visual obstacle formulas)



Title: Re: Alternative Flat Earth Theory
Post by: sandokhan on March 19, 2014, 03:43:27 AM
Here is another clear proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat:

 
Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

COAST GUARDS SEE MILWAUKEE LIGHTS GLEAM

Captain Wm. J. Preston and Crew See Lights of Milwaukee

and Racine Clearly From Surf Boat

ANSWER TO FLARE

Crew Runs Into Lake in Search For Flashing Torch

Grand Haven Daily Tribune   April 3, 1925

Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake.  As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.

 The phenomena was first noticed at shortly after seven o’clock last night, when the lookout called the keeper’s attention to what seemed to be a light flaring out on the lake.  Captain Preston examined the light, and was of the impression that some ship out in the lake was “torching” for assistance.

Launch Power Boat

   He ordered the big power boat launched and with the crew started on a cruise into the lake to locate, if possible, the cause of the light.  The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer.  The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

 Captain Preston decided that the flare came from the government lighthouse at Windy Point at Racine.  Being familiar with the Racine lights the keeper was able to identify several of the short lights at Racine, Wis.

Saw Milwaukee Also

   A little further north another set of lights were plainly visible.  Captain Preston knowing the Milwaukee lights well, easily distinguished them and identified them as the Milwaukee lights.  The lights along Juneau Park water front, the illumination of the buildings near the park and the Northwestern Railway station were clearly visible from the Coast Guard boat.  So clearly did the lights stand out that it seemed as though the boat was within a few miles of Milwaukee harbor. 

   Convinced that the phenomenon was a mirage, or a condition due to some peculiarity of the atmosphere, the keeper ordered the boat back to the station.  The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.


DISTANCE GRAND HAVEN TO MILWAUKEE: OVER 80 MILES (128 KM).

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/images/twomichigans2a.gif (http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/images/twomichigans2a.gif)


Windy Point Lighthouse:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg/800px-Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg/800px-Wind_Point_Lighthouse_071104_edit2.jpg)

The lighthouse stands 108 feet (33 m) tall

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

Using the well known formula for the visual obstacle, let us calculate its value:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS


No terrestrial refraction formula/looming formula can account for this extraordinary proof that the surface across lake Michigan is flat.

In fact: http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm# (http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm#)

If we use h = 50 for the observer, and 140 for the distant object height, we get a negative answer: no way it could be seen over a 128 km distance; while the actual data for the account is h = 5 m, and d = 40 m.


Looming/modified lapse rate:

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html (http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html)

The formula used here does not recognize the change in the range of temperature values, nor do we know if it takes into consideration the very basic formula I posted earlier for the visual obstacle: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28196.msg674444#msg674444) - however, it is an excellent place to start and to explore the effect of looming/ducting on the visual target being observed.

Let us use several values, starting with the value of 15 C for that day (Milwaukee/Racine/Holland/Grand Haven) and increasing the value for the target by 1-3 degrees.

For a value of 15 C overall we get of course a negative altitude value of the target.

For a value of 16 C (for the target) we get, again, a negative altitude value for the target (−0.317 degrees of arc) - target is hidden by horizon

For a value of 17 C (for