# The Flat Earth Society

## Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 01:29:57 AM

Title: About light speed and ether
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 01:29:57 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 01:49:59 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 17, 2010, 04:46:28 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 04:49:04 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning
No problem, didn't mean to make you apologize or anything, I'm just not sure what you are asking.  I'd love to help you out though.  I'm about ot eat breakfast over the world cup, but afterwords I'll dig up a few sources for you to read.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Lorddave on June 17, 2010, 04:53:16 AM
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: spanner34.5 on June 17, 2010, 05:00:28 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
A little something for you to think about.

As an absolute vacuum, to date, has not been observed. Any value for c is only an estimate as it has never been measured. The speed of light has been observed at around 40 mph (in supercooled sodium. Also at 0 mph in Bose Einstein condensate.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:21:43 AM
There are also theories involving Variable Speed of Light that are worth a read.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: John Davis on June 17, 2010, 05:40:11 AM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

The speed of light is based off of the impedance and permitivity of free space which are both physical qualities of space.

Are you saying that since light can't exceed c, this is due to it having a terminal velocity in a supposed vacuum?

The thing about aether is if you call it just about anything else you are a lot more likely to get an answer that isn't "no, ether doesn't exist."

okay sorry I'm very new to this stuff beyond high school level so anyway I'm learning
No problem, didn't mean to make you apologize or anything, I'm just not sure what you are asking.  I'd love to help you out though.  I'm about ot eat breakfast over the world cup, but afterwords I'll dig up a few sources for you to read.

Actually to be honest, to start off, the best place to go is wikipedia.  From there if you have questions I can direct to an appropriate article.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 17, 2010, 08:13:53 PM
Actually, at least what it says on wikipedia, the constant speed of light was tied into the nonexistence of aether, as it had no medium.

Question. what exactly makes it slow down in other things? the physical bumps as it hits the molecules? and in the modern understanding of light, is the photon actually moving in a wave motion?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 18, 2010, 11:29:51 AM
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.
A better analogy would be bouncing off of pins in a Pachinko game. When moving through matter a photon will hit an atom, raise the energy level of an electron, get re-emitted, an repeat until it exits the material or is permanently absorbed.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Raist on June 18, 2010, 12:40:29 PM
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 m/s.

In other mediums it slows down.  Personally I think it slows down not because the wave moves slower but because the wave has to move through matter.  Kinda like if you were walking through water.  You can do it, but the same effort you use walking on dry land isn't enough to give you the same speed.

It's actually due to the light be absorbed and emitted if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 19, 2010, 05:32:13 PM
Isnt that what I just said? lol
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 20, 2010, 02:25:19 AM
Isnt that what I just said? lol

apparently the light feels like it gets there instantly but to everyone else it takes time.  ???
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 20, 2010, 06:17:43 AM
That would imply that the photon leaving a pane of glass is the same photon that entered it.  Its not.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Raist on June 20, 2010, 02:53:43 PM
Isnt that what I just said? lol

I didn't scroll to the bottom before posting. My bad.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 20, 2010, 06:08:54 PM
LOL, No Biggie.  I do sometimes write rather disjointed. Thought maybe it was me.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: optimisticcynic on June 20, 2010, 06:35:28 PM
the explanation that it is the absorption and emitting of the photon that makes it appear that the light is slowing down confuses me. more to the point why that causes the light to bend when it goes into a medium but go semi straight through the medium. it seems like the photon should be emitted randomly. or if it is emitted so it keeps going in a semi straight line then why does it bend when it first enters the substance?   and it seems like it should only slow down certain light. since some light would not have a matching energy level of an electron levels of the substance so it would not be absorbed. not sure how coherent that was. if that made no sense i apologize.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 20, 2010, 10:50:08 PM
It confuses me still, and I have read the Feynman Lectures on the subject, so I could be completely wrong. Here is some more info though.

Reference: F. A. Jenkins, H. E. White, Fundamentals of Optics
McGraw-Hill, NY, 1950

Your question is a good one for the answer is at the heart of modern
physics and engineering. No material is transparent or opaque throughout
the electromagnetic spectrum. Our eyes can only sense a small portion of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
infrared radiation, ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays. All of these,
known collectively as the electromagnetic spectrum, are fundamentally
similar in that they move at 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light
through a vacuum. The only difference between them is their wavelength,
which is directly related to the amount of energy the waves carry (photon
energy). The shorter the wavelength of the radiation, the higher the energy.

The rainbow of colors we know as visible light is the portion of the
electromagnetic spectrum with wavelengths between 400 and 700 billionths
of a meter (400 to 700 nanometers). It is the part of the electromagnetic
spectrum that we see, and we are fortunate that this coincides with the
wavelength of greatest intensity of sunlight and lowest atmospheric absorption.
Visible waves have great utility for the remote
sensing of objects and for the identification of different
objects by their visible colors. If our eyes used longer infrared wavelengths,
we would live in a dense fog all of the time because of the absorption of infrared light
by water vapor molecules in the air. As for your example, a diamond is
transparent at visible wavelengths and it is opaque in the infrared part
of the spectrum. Tissue paper can absorb or scatter light at visible wavelengths
and it is transparent to microwaves and radio waves.

When photons of electromagnetic radiation pass through a substance the
energy can be transmitted, it can be scattered or the energy can be
absorbed as heat. As the photons encounter atoms, or molecules
composed of bonded atoms, they temporarily raise the electrons of
these particles to a higher energy state (quantum level). Depending on
the physical properties of these atoms or molecules, and their physical
spacing, the electrons can reradiate an identical energy photon (the
same wavelength) in the same direction as the incident photon was
traveling. However, in this process there is a slight delay in the
transmission by each atom or molecule. This delay appears to slow down
the speed of light passing through the material and we call this the
index of refraction of the material.

The atoms or molecules could reradiate the delayed
energy in directions other than the direction of travel of the original
photons. We call this scattering. In very special materials the
reradiated photons can be changed in wavelength (color) and we call
this a nonlinear material.

Finally the atoms or molecules can
absorb the energy of the photon and convert it to heat. We call this
absorption. In most materials transmission, scattering and absorption
all occur at the same time only, dependent on the wavelength, with
different relative amounts of energy in each.
Not only do transparent materials have an index of refraction, this
index can change with wavelength (photon energy). In the visible part
of the spectrum we call this chromatic aberration which we observe in
camera and telescope lenses and prisms. However, in the general case
we call this delay dispersion. Material dispersion can change over
very great values at some places in the electromagnetic spectrum.
A resonant absorption and possible reradiation can also occur at a
very specific wavelengths and each element in the periodic table of
elements has a particular set of resonant absorption wavelengths
throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. We can use these dark
bands in the spectrum to identify the specific elements and molecules
over astronomical distances. We can also use resonant reradiation to
create lasers and atomic clocks. However, in general absorption can
occur of large portions of the spectrum.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Raist on June 21, 2010, 09:52:58 AM
I award that the most helpful copy pasta of the day.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 21, 2010, 12:06:48 PM
Yeah, I didnt feel like reinventing the wheel on that question.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: optimisticcynic on June 21, 2010, 12:55:05 PM
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 21, 2010, 03:19:22 PM
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
You know, there is this thing called google.  I find it very useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: optimisticcynic on June 21, 2010, 04:34:31 PM
that helped with everything except why diffraction happens.
You know, there is this thing called google.  I find it very useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

sorry refraction. all the reason I found for refraction deal with the fact light speed changes in a medium.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 21, 2010, 05:14:49 PM
If the terminal velocity of light in the vacuum is c, does that prove aether (for 'air' resistance).  ???  :o :o :o

OK for the OP, that isn't terminal velocity, that is inertial velocity. nothing is there to make it go faster, nothing is there to make it go slower. i.e. no resistance here
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 22, 2010, 09:18:28 AM
Nikola Tesla:

You are wrong, Mr. Einstein - ether does exist!

They say much about the Einstein's theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether's opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson - Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth's movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn't mean the ether's non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.

What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether's properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether's existence.

A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.

Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson - Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.

Einstein's assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let's consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It's correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether's substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.

I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 22, 2010, 10:14:30 AM
Except that ball lightning has never been proven to exist, nor really created artificially. And even if it were, comparing an atmospheric phenomena, where the properties of the gasses in the air would have a far greater effect than any "ether", to the propegation of light through some undiscovered medium is a bit of a non sequitur.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 24, 2010, 02:40:30 AM
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.

British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)

U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html

Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 24, 2010, 04:04:26 AM
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.

British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)

U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html

Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."

I'm sorry, but you must lrn2gravity water doesn't stick, it goes where the forces make it
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 24, 2010, 04:29:07 AM
The same comments apply to you voice...no research at all...you are blindly accepting anything offerred on a scientific plate...use your intelligence please...

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

Let us go back to the very source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us take a look at the fact 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#p35542

Without attractive gravity, round earth theory falls flat on its nose...

By repeating the actual propaganda, the round earth supporters show the unbelievable level of their scientific ignorance; NEWTON NEVER MENTIONED ANY KIND OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE CONCEPT, on the contrary...
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: three-dimensional-world on June 24, 2010, 06:03:55 AM
No wonder round earth supporters believe that 1 billion trillion tons of water just stick to the outer surface of a sphere, with so little research.

British physicist Mark Stenhoff on ball lightning:

(the classic Ball Lightning: An Unsolved Problem in Atmospheric Physics, very well documented)

U.S. Naval Research Lab physicist Graham Hubler on ball lightning:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning.html

Physicist R.C. Jennison claimed that he had personally witnessed ball lightning during an airplane flight. What's more, he'd reported the incident in a letter to Nature two years earlier. Here's the nub:

I was seated near the front of the passenger cabin of an all-metal airliner (Eastern Airlines Flight EA 539) on a late night flight from New York to Washington. The aircraft encountered an electrical storm during which it was enveloped in a sudden bright and loud electrical discharge (0005 h EST, March 19, 1963). Some seconds after this a glowing sphere a little more than 20 cm in diameter emerged from the pilot's cabin and passed down the aisle of the aircraft approximately 50 cm from me, maintaining the same height and course for the whole distance over which it could be observed.

In his 1971 letter, Jennison added that "my account tallied precisely with that of the only other occupant of the passenger cabin, a terrified air hostess who was strapped in her seat on the opposite side and farther to the rear of the aircraft. She saw the ball continue to travel down the aisle and finally disappear towards the lavatory at the end. I had no alcohol on this flight."

NO gaseous property of air would produce an effect like that...please wake up...

Nikola Tesla ACTUALLY kept some of his ball lightning in wooden boxes...

Tesla was also something of a showboat. When scientists or reporters visited his laboratory, he would light lamps without wires by allowing the electricity to flow through his body. In this way he hoped to allay the prevailing fears about alternating current. One visitor described the experience well, "Fancy yourself seated in a large, well-lighted room, with mountains of curious-looking machinery on all sides. A tall, thin young man walks up to you, and by merely snapping his fingers creates instantaneously a ball of leaping red flame, and holds it calmly in his hands. As you gaze you are surprised to see it does not burn his fingers. He lets if fall upon his clothing, on his hair, into your lap, and, finally, puts the ball of flame into a wooden box. You are amazed to see that nowhere does the flame leave the slightest trace, and you rub your eyes to make sure you are not asleep."

he sounds like a bit of an eccentric  :P
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 24, 2010, 12:39:46 PM
Not to mention a prime example of logical fallacy and insulting attitude.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 24, 2010, 02:46:33 PM
The same comments apply to you voice...no research at all...you are blindly accepting anything offerred on a scientific plate...use your intelligence please...

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

Let us go back to the very source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us take a look at the fact 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#p35542

Without attractive gravity, round earth theory falls flat on its nose...

By repeating the actual propaganda, the round earth supporters show the unbelievable level of their scientific ignorance; NEWTON NEVER MENTIONED ANY KIND OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE CONCEPT, on the contrary...

Clearly you are deaf to the voice of reason.

I don't see why you have a problem with gravity.
Newton+kepler made a reasonably good theory of gravitation, although they simply didn't know the cause of it, much like they didn't know the cause of electromagnetic force. This is what your first bit is saying. as for the concept being impossible, you have not shown this. Now for the bit of two gravities, if he did truly believe that, he was wrong within the modern view of classic gravity, which just follows Gauss's Law/Newtons law. There is nothing wrong with the aether gravity. this is pretty much the theory of gravitons, that says the particles/forces moves outward like a light wave, so geometrically their density within space follows an inverse square pattern. you have sadly misunderstood what he was talking about. he was referring to the idea of gravitons much like the photon is in EM.

for the part against attractive gravity, you clearly don't understand gravity, every time you reach a contradiction you should have asked an explanation for it, so you could learn more. these questions are among several that are explained in physics 101.

But I'm not going to even bother striking down all of these cases, a simple idea known as the equivalency principal destroys your argument. there is no physical difference between the earth accelerating up, and all the atoms accelerating downward. look at it mathematically
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 27, 2010, 04:15:04 AM
voiceofunreason, as the caliber of your statements indicates, you do not take ideas or Physics 101 seriously.

The modern view of gravity, as you say, is a view based on ATTRACTIVE gravity, and the physical facts (to be enumerated below) show that it does NOT follow at all Newton's "law" especially in the case of planetary orbits/movement of gas particles. Newton did not believe at all in attractive gravity.

A fundamental principle of science becomes a LAW, if and only if, we know or can discern the CAUSE. Until then, that principle of science is just a HYPOTHESIS.

No, the aether theory of gravity has NOTHING to do with gravitons; you are fast becoming one of those round earth supporters who must be sent back to kindergarten to study physics again.

The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.

Here is the best demonstration that a three body system, Sun-Planet-Satellite (as an example, Sun-Jupiter-Europa) could not function at all if gravitons existed, since the Law of Conservation of Energy would be immediately violated:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

Now, the precise and perfect demonstration, just for you, voiceofunreason, that there is no such thing as attractive gravity:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

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.

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.

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

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.

EARTH MASS

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.

(even at a factor of 12 km/6378 km =~ 0,002, law of "gravity" could not keep the Earth in equilibrium)

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.

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.

PLANETARY ORBITS

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

So, voiceofunreason, you have not done your homework at all; these facts are NOT discussed in either Physics 101 or 501 for your information; they show very clearly the tremendous fallacies upon which the modern theory of gravity is based.

Here is something else for your enquiring mind that wants to know.

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.

But in fact gravity can be influenced by electricity, as was demonstrated by Dr. Francis Nipher in a series of famous experiments:

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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. 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.

How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

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

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 27, 2010, 11:55:07 AM
voiceofunreason, as the caliber of your statements indicate, you do not take ideas or Physics 101 seriously.

The modern view of gravity, as you say, is a view based on ATTRACTIVE gravity, and the physical facts (to be enumerated below) show that it does NOT follow at all Newton's "law" especially in the case of planetary orbits/movement of gas particles. Newton did not believe at all in attractive gravity.

A fundamental principle of science becomes a LAW, if and only if, we know or can discern the CAUSE. Until then, that principle of science is just a HYPOTHESIS.

No, the aether theory of gravity has NOTHING to do with gravitons; you are fast becoming one of those round earth supporters who must be sent back to kindergarten to study physics again.

The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.

Here is the best demonstration that a three body system, Sun-Planet-Satellite (as an example, Sun-Jupiter-Europa) could not function at all if gravitons existed, since the Law of Conservation of Energy would be immediately violated:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

Now, the precise and perfect demonstration, just for you, voiceofunreason, that there is no such thing as attractive gravity:

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

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.

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.

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

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.

EARTH MASS

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.

(even at a factor of 12 km/6378 km =~ 0,002, law of "gravity" could not keep the Earth in equilibrium)

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.

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.

PLANETARY ORBITS

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

So, voiceofunreason, you have not done your homework at all; these facts are NOT discussed in either Physics 101 or 501 for your information; they show very clearly the tremendous fallacies upon which the modern theory of gravity is based.

Here is something else for your enquiring mind that wants to know.

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.

But in fact gravity can be influenced by electricity, as was demonstrated by Dr. Francis Nipher in a series of famous experiments:

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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. 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.

How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

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

You are not educated. I don't care what Newton thought. now people Either think of it in terms of Einstein's GR, or if it works like electromagnetism. Do you have evidence that spacetime under Einstein's GR doesn't work? Or that Newton+Kepler didn't give good approximations? and you are wrong : "Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them" lrn2read.

Everything you said in GASES is wrong. namely because of the equivalency principal. This makes gravity equivalent to acceleration.
The bit about EARTH is dumb. lets see, the mass of the crust is insignificant as compared to the mass of everything else. also you assume that the mass of the core has even distribution. also you forgot that the earth is like one massive gyroscope. that's why when an asteroid hits, the earth doesn't spin wrong. light pressure? due tell me how much force the light puts on satellites. and you chose this guy to be your source for the planets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

No real scientists have yet repeated the bit on electricity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics.

in the end, in an attempt to get away from mainstream science, you are intentionally seeking bad scientists and pseudo scientists.
Your sources are not reliable, and many of their arguments can be invalidated with 2 words.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: bowler on June 27, 2010, 01:24:32 PM
This thread seems to be discussing a lot of quantum physics of the vacuum when discussing the aether that assumes that special relativity is true. When discussing a theory its usually more important to understand the assumptions than it is to understand the theory. So, lets review,
Special relativity assumes, amongst other things,
*************************************
from wiki cos im lazy
* The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.[1]
* The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
*************************************

Pay particular attention to the second bullet point. If we assume special relativity to be true, we implicitly assume the second bullet point to be true. The aether was only brought into physics to accommodate the discovery of electromagnetic waves, postulate 2 makes this surplus to requirements. The full quantum mechanical theory that allows for the vacuum energy requires special relativity to be true.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 27, 2010, 07:41:04 PM
Levee, you really need to Daniel J Boorstin's books on the history of science.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 28, 2010, 02:53:45 AM
eire, d. boorstin is old news...it doesn't compare at all with the Ominous Parallels by L. Peikoff...I strongly recommend to you that you read this one...

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity/space-time continuum theory, here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39372.msg982142#msg982142

YOU have no idea what relativity really means, or how this hypothesis was invented at the end of the 19th century...please do your homework and study, because statements like "now people Either think of it in terms of Einstein's GR, or if it works like electromagnetism. Do you have evidence that spacetime under Einstein's GR doesn't work?" are truly laughable...

growlofreason, you have NOT addressed any of the issues I raised in my previous message; the use of wikipedia websites to provide support for your views can work in a high-school bull session type of debate, but not here...let me help you to raise your level of scientific understanding...

You mentioned the core of the Earth and magnetism...you should study this subject A LOT MORE:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148

In fact, Immanuel Velikovsky was A. Einstein's best friend and roommate at Princeton...in 1955, after Einstein's death, only one book was found upon his desk opened: it was the Worlds in Collision by Velikovsky, a work Einstein read many times. Velikovsky spoke fluently six foreign languages, and studies with Freud in Viena; Freud thought that Velikovsky (and also Reich) were his most original and brilliant students.

Nikola Tesla is the GREATEST scientist ever, he practically invented modern civilization; and he commented very harshly with regard to the theory of relativity and the modern quantum mechanics approach to the shape of the atom.

Here is Professor Francis Nipher's biography:

Francis Eugene Nipher, physicist of world-wide reputation, educator and author in the field of his chosen science, was born at Port Byron, New York, December 10, 1847.

Francis Eugene Nipher, physicist of world-wide reputation, educator and author in the field of his chosen science, was born at Port Byron, New York, December 10, 1847, his parents being Peter and Roxalana P. (Tilden) Nipher. In the paternal line he is descended from Michael Niver, who came from the kingdom of Wurtemberg, Germany, in 1756 and settled on Livingston Manor in New York. On his mother's side he traces his ancestry to Nathaniel Tilden, who came from Truterden, Kent, England, in 1634 and settled in Plymouth colony. His collegiate course was pursued in the State University of Iowa, from which he was graduated with the Ph. B. degree in 1870. Three years later his alma mater conferred upon him the Master of Arts degree and in 1905 he received from Washington University of St. Louis the degree of Doctor of Laws. Three years after his graduation from the State University of Iowa he was married on the 1st of July, 1873, to Miss Matilda Aikins, of Atalissa, Iowa, and they have become parents of a son and four daughters, the family home being maintained in Kirkwood.

Dr. Nipher has devoted his entire life to physics, largely along the line of research work, although as an educator and as a contributor to scientific literature his name is widely known. From 1870 until 1874 he was instructor in the physical laboratory of the State University of Iowa and in the latter year became professor of physics in Washington University of St. Louis, occupying that position until 1914 when he was made professor emeritus. In 1885 he was chosen president of the Academy of Science of St. Louis and continued to occupy the position for five years. He was also president of the Engineers Club of St. Louis in 1890 and became a member of the American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, also has membership with the American Philosophical Society, the Society Francaise de Physique, the Royal Society of Arts and the Authors Club of London.

growlofreason, I bring here only the VERY BEST proofs and the very best scientific works, please update your wikipedia list of sites visited so far.

Here is another REAL SCIENTIST FOR YOU, completely disproving your claim you found on wikipedia about electrogravity; none other than the Nikola Tesla of the former Soviet Union, Dr. A.N. Kozyrev, with the world famous gyroscope experiment:

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)

(http://www.divinecosmos.com/images/stories/kozyrev.jpg)
Dr. Nikolai A. Kozyrev

Kozyrev's first scientific paper was published at the tender age of seventeen, and other scientists were amazed by the depth and clarity of his logic. His main work was in astrophysics, where he studied the atmospheres of the Sun and other stars, the phenomenon of solar eclipses and radiation equilibrium.

By age twenty he had already graduated from the University of Leningrad with a degree in physics and mathematics, and by age twenty-eight Dr. Kozyrev was widely known as a distinguished astronomer who had taught at several colleges.

Also, Bruce dePalma and T. Brown are among the most celebrated physicists of the 20th century, for your information...

Why did Kozyrev and dePalma study torsion waves?

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

Both Kozyrev and dePalma's experiments prove that gravity can be modified by various means (among which we can include electricity).

The only pseudo-scientists in our debate are the ones you have been relying upon so far, voice...given the statements you make, you know at the present time about 3% of what a real scientist should know...if you carefully read my messages, you can raise this percentage very quickly to about 75%...

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

And last but not least, let me address again the GASES/EARTH MASS issues...

DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR CAN YOU UNDERSTAND that an attractive law of gravitation MUST place the northern hemisphere of a round earth with its face to the sun, given the UNEQUAL distribution of land mass? You have no idea what the core of the earth really looks like or its composition is like, please update your studies:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148

YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WITH SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS, GASES DO NOT OBEY ANY KIND OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD:

GASES

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.

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.

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

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.

so voice...you have just shown us that you do not WANT TO accept what these scientific facts tell all of us very clearly: GASES DO NOT OBEY an attractive gravity law...on the contrary...

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 28, 2010, 05:42:44 AM
You should research the subject Wilhelm Reich and his orgone/orur Cloudbuster.

Now, let us get back to this quote: I don't care what Newton thought

Unfortunately, such an opinion is not warranted at all; Newton used from the very start a pushing (pressure) gravity hypothesis to arrive at his results in mechanics; the attractive gravity supposition was added years later by certain members of the London Royal Society, who needed such a concept to describe the heliocentric theory.

Here is another quote from Newton, which invalidates immediately any and all big bang hypotheses:

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing 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."

Big bang desperately needs a perfect vacuum to account for the orbits of stars/planets, with no friction whatsoever; that is why the experiment of G.B. Airy is so important, because it proved for the first time the existence of the aether between the stars and the flat earth.

Here is the demonstration that if we take into account a perfect vacuum hypothesis, the premises of the big bang theory are completely nullified:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551#p24647

Also: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551&start=0

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: General Disarray on June 28, 2010, 07:02:50 AM
Has levee ever answered a direct question?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 28, 2010, 08:23:38 AM

Big bang desperately needs a perfect vacuum to account for the orbits of stars/planets, with no friction whatsoever; that is why the experiment of G.B. Airy is so important, because it proved for the first time the existence of the aether between the stars and the flat earth.

You do love to confuse your disciplines, dont you?  The "Big Bang" theory deals with with the formation of the early universe, not the formation of solar systems.  Interplanetary space is far from a perfect vacuum, and this fact has been known for a long time. It is filled with gas, dust, cometary debris, asteroids etc.  Yet the mathematical calculations for determining planetary position are no less accurate in their predictions.  Why you would think that friction would ever come in to play is beyond me, other than it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the interaction between massive bodies in space.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 29, 2010, 02:43:03 AM
generaldissappointment, at the present time you are not able to debate with me on any scientific subjects; you have tried in the past, and your efforts amounted to absolutely nothing. Please try to stop posting like a simpleton.

eire...we have already met several times on this forum...you thought you knew something, or you imagined you had the answers, that is until I answered back and set things straight.

"That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing 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."

We are talking here about that very notion called VACUUM, and NOT about gas, dust, cometary debris, how could you miss this very simple subject of our discussion?

Friction MUST come into play, if the nature of the so-called perfect vacuum is different from what we have been led to believe so far.

That is, the existence of a MEDIUM (the very thing Newton was hinting at) through which YOUR gas/dust/cometary debris/orbits of planets do exist, changes things dramatically. We would then have a SPACE-FILLING SUBSTANCE, or field, or a transmission medium.

Now, eire, do you understand what I was talking about?

If there is such a medium, then we have FRICTION, and NOT a perfect vacuum, as it was envisioned several decades ago.

If planets/stars DO move through aether, then we would have friction between the planets/stars and that medium made up of aether.

That is what we are talking about here. It is PRECISELY the reason the concept of the perfect vacuum was introduced to the public in the first place, to eliminate the possibility of friction in describing the orbits of planets/stars; ANY FRICTION would make impossible a heliocentric planetary system.

Now, the precise demonstration that a perfect vacuum hypothesis for the big bang theory would be completely impossible.

THE OUTWARD RUSHING PARTICLES

1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.

THE PARTICLES CHANGED DIRECTIONS

AND FORMED GAS CLOUDS

The theory?Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By 'gas,' we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.

GAS CLOUDS

PUSH THEMSELVES INTO STARS

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star?or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2 1/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This 'missing mass' problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, 'Review of Mysteries of the Universe,' Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

'Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.'?*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit's research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another.

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that Harwit's research should be mentioned in more detail:

Harwit's research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - Novotny's research findings are also very important. Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of 'gaseous dispersion.' It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time.

eireengr, you have not done your homework at all, have you?

Here is the classical experiment of G.B. Airy (one of the greatest physicists of the 19th century) which does prove the existence of aether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39116.msg986695#msg986695

A. Einstein, 1928:

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time.

In 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:

The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.

So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics!
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: General Disarray on June 29, 2010, 07:11:11 AM
I guess that's a "no" then.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 29, 2010, 10:27:35 AM
You did nothing of the sort levee, other than to prove that you will go to any lengths to misrepresent science to try to prop up your outlandinsh claims. Lets go point by point.

1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star?or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

Intersteller gas does clump, just not as tightly as solid matter will. The gravitational attraction is cumulative, and will naturally coalesce to meet equilibrium with the gas pressure.  This is how the first stars formed, but modern star formation gets a bit of assistance, as I will explain later.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

I would like to see who performed that study, and then ask them to explain stellar nurseries that we keep finding (coincidentally) in the middle of clouds of dust and gas.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2 1/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.
Sure, if you are confused about the nature of an expanding universe.  You seem to be stuck on the idea that all objects in the universe are on the skin of a balloon which is being inflated.  This would  mean that they themselves are moving and it would violate the speed of light for them to get to their current positions. Except that, that is not the way the universe is expanding. Space-time is being created between objects making their position from each other appear to move apart.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

Gas clouds expand, when they do, because they are the ejected remains of stars which have or are about to die.  There is a kinetic component to them which eventually will be counteracted by gravity.  Some are expanding, some clearly contracting, and others appear motionless because they are at the point of equilibrium.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

Still thinking in earth based terms I see.  The Big Bang was not a massive explosion ejecting matter out into an already formed bubble of space-time. It was the rapid expansion of space-time itself.  This is why the cosmic background radiation is so uniform.  The matter and energy that coalesced out of this expantion was also spread in a roughly uniform manner, which is why the universe looks pretty much the same no matter which direction you look

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

Not necessarily. The way stars operate does not really require there to be any rotational component to "keep the fires burning".  All the star needs is for the gas pressure created by the fusion reaction to be balanced by the gravitational attraction of the matter in the star.
What causes stellar systems to form rotating, disk shaped constructs are tiny events that happen during formation. Imagine a stable, largely motionless cloud of gas that is slowly contracting on itself.  Now, introduce a small kinetic event, say a micro meteorite that was ejected from the nova of a nearby star.  As it enters the gas cloud, it will impart a bit of its kinetic energy to some of the gas in the cloud, either through gravitational interaction, or through impact events.  This gas now has a kinetic moment which will be reinforced though gravitational forces from the cloud. Over time, this interaction will begin to affect the rest of the cloud, fed by the energy of gravitational contraction, and the entire mass will be spinning as a disk.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.
And in frictionless space, the rather weak gravitational force now becomes a major player.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

Only if the rotational forces were strong enough to counter the gravitational pull. Since the gravitational energy is really what feeds the rotation, it is pretty obvious that it has enough strength to do this.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This 'missing mass' problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, 'Review of Mysteries of the Universe,' Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

'Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.'?*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

You really need to get some more current sources than thirty year old astronomy magazines.  While we dont seem to be able to account for some of the gravitational effects that we see using visible matter alone, there certainly is more than enough for star formation to occur.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit's research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another.
Certainly the density of interstellar Hydrogen is too low for star formation, but since this is not where stars form, his point is moot.
Second, there is a force that can bond hydrogen together: its called gravity.  Still thinking in earth terms.  If you have a few atoms of Hydrogen floating around they are never going to coalesce into a ball of solid hydrogen as you seem to think. What will happen is that they will become gravitationally entangled and orbit around each other.  As they encounter other atoms, the collective gravitation of this cluster will entangle them, adding to the mass, and therefore attraction, of the cluster.  This process continues until you have a star.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 03:51:10 AM
eireengr, please try to understand: there is no such thing as attractive gravity. Your explanations make heavy use of a hypothesis which can be disproven immediately. You did NOT address any of the issues I raised, other than to make recourse to the false concept of attractive gravity.

Without attractive gravity, as YOUR OWN arguments clearly show, we have no big bang, no stellar evolution, no heliocentric planetary system.

Have you ever thought about the concept of attractive gravity eire? If not, I will help you to do so, maybe you will understand; WITHOUT the attractive gravity notion you used to answer some of the issues I raised earlier, ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS amount to nothing at all.

It is very clear that you have accepted with your eyes closed ANYTHING offerred by a textbook which relies on a false hypothesis to start with.

Here is Newton himself tellling you eire, that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mention attractive gravity:

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

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

NO MENTIONING WHATSOEVER OF THE CONCEPT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY IN NEWTON'S PRINCIPIA.

Newton believed ONLY in a pressure-type of gravity:

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

Here is another quote from Newton himself:

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

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

Now, eire, here is the complete demonstration that in fact YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CONCEPT CALLED GRAVITY: YOU HAVE ACCEPTED WITHOUT EVER THINKING the official story.

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them disobey the law of laws which is supposed to know no exception.

GASES

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.

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.

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

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.

WHERE DID YOU STUDY PHYSICS EIREENGINEER? I HAVE JUST DEMONSTRATED TO YOU THAT GASES DO NOT (NOT NOW, NOT EVER) OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE TYPE OF GRAVITY.

EARTH MASS

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.

(even at a factor of 12 km/6378 km =~ 0,002, law of "gravity" could not keep the Earth in equilibrium)

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.

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.

No such thing as an iron core for the earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148

PLANETARY ORBITS

The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference. As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

J. Zenneck, Gravitation, in Encyclop. der Mathem. Wiss., vol. V, part I p.44.

The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

WHERE DID YOU STUDY PHYSICS EIREENGINEER?

SUN ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

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).

EIREENGINEER, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF GRAVITY, I'M TELLING YOU THIS FOR THE THIRD TIME, maybe you'll get it through your head.

Your outlandish claims about attractive gravity, which you used to try to explain somehow the extraordinary precise proofs I provided (which demonstrate that the big bang is just a hare-brained scheme) AMOUNT TO NOTHING.

This is what you wrote:

Second, there is a force that can bond hydrogen together: its called gravity.  Still thinking in earth terms.  If you have a few atoms of Hydrogen floating around they are never going to coalesce into a ball of solid hydrogen as you seem to think. What will happen is that they will become gravitationally entangled and orbit around each other.  As they encounter other atoms, the collective gravitation of this cluster will entangle them, adding to the mass, and therefore attraction, of the cluster.  This process continues until you have a star.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, your claims only show the unbelievable level of ignorance of physics you have eireengr.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 04:00:36 AM
Now, eireengineer some REAL ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS just for you.

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth's surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach's principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth it defies either logic or observation.

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.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

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.

Usually, heliocentrists come up with some arguments which involve either angular momentum, or pressure gradients...everything stops dead in front of the Restoring Forces Paradox, which further shows that the Earth is stationary.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Here eireengineer you will find the complete demonstration (boundary layers, thermal convection, angular momentum) that the Earth does NOT ROTATE AROUND ITS OWN AXIS.

The restoring force MUST INCREASE WITH ALTITUDE, exactly the opposite of a frictional force which CANNOT EXIST AT ALL GIVEN THE VIDEOS WHICH SHOW CLOUD TRAJECTORIES EAST TO WEST, AND NORTH TO SOUTH, AT VERY LOW ALTITUDES, where friction supposedly is strongest.

YOU, eireengineer, HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS OTHER THAN THE FALLACIOUS NOTIONS YOU HAVE ABSORBED FROM THE OFFICIAL TEXTBOOKS.

DO YOU understand, or better said, CAN YOU understand that the explosion which took place at Tunguska in 1908 was seen FROM LONDON, STOCKHOLM, ANTWERP? A fact which is completely impossible on a round earth given the 4333 km visual obstacle?

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1142

NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF 6000 KM LONDON - TUNGUSKA

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

Lake Baikal is at a distance of some 600 km from the place of the explosion.

(http://static.icr.org/i/research/papers/sa/sa-r05a.jpg)

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 KM IS 21.57 KM; NO WAY THAT AN EXPLOSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AT AN ALTITUDE OF 7 KM COULD BE SEEN FROM THAT DISTANCE.

Now, we will take a distance of just 6000 km between London and Tunguska.

Over this distance, WE HAVE A VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 4333 KM; ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE ANYTHING WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A GLOBE.

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

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 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

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.

THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'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

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.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

Also, here are the undeniable facts about the modification of gravity using electricity and high-speed gyroscopes:

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

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)

You are no physicist, eireengineer, just a gullible person, who does not think at all about the fairy-tales fed to you by the official story line.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2010, 04:04:04 AM
I want to respond to levee but there is just to much incorrect information.  I just don't know where to start.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 04:06:08 AM
You should start by actually graduating from high school.

Here is the complete and absolute embarrassment of sokarul:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984444#msg984444
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2010, 04:24:44 AM
You should start by actually graduating from high school.

Here is the complete and absolute embarrassment of sokarul:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984444#msg984444
You linked to two posts which demonstrates you have no idea what a mirage is. What does that have to do with anything?
I will respond to arrangements in this thread.  I'm not letting you off.  It just need to find the time.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 04:30:48 AM
sokarul, it has been brought to your attention before that you do not understand anything about modern physics (irrespective of the flat/round earth debate); all your claims have been dealt with carefully many times here.

Your idiotic, repetitive "mirage" comments really show that you should not be posting here at all.

You have been shown, again and again, with direct quotes from the photographers and the actual quotes from the Holland Newspaper, that there was NO MIRAGE at all present in Grimsby or Holland.

Please grow up, or get the fuck out of here...
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2010, 05:03:28 AM
sokarul, it has been brought to your attention before that you do not understand anything about modern physics (irrespective of the flat/round earth debate); all your claims have been dealt with carefully many times here.

Your idiotic, repetitive "mirage" comments really show that you should not be posting here at all.

You have been shown, again and again, with direct quotes from the photographers and the actual quotes from the Holland Newspaper, that there was NO MIRAGE at all present in Grimsby or Holland.

Please grow up, or get the fuck out of here...
The only one that needs to grow up is you.  You stole stories and pictures form websites about mirages. Then you ran away from the thread.  Enough said.  All you do is try to deceive people.  You post of "facts" from 100 years ago claiming they are still relevant today.  Leave science to real scientists.
There is a whole tread dedicated to how much of a loony you are.
Like I said, you better start getting your old ass "facts" ready, because I will respond to your arguments.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 05:29:32 AM
I told you that, since you have no scientific arguments at all, you will resort to repetitive, idiotic responses; that is all that can be expected out of you. You have been banned before for this kind of approach to debating.

Here is what you wrote: Then you ran away from the thread

But in fact the opposite happened: right here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985173#msg985173

John cautioned you with these words: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg996646#msg996646

Contentless posting is against the rules.

How many times do we have to go through this with sokarul?

The facts from the Tunguska explosion in 1908 are as relevant today as ever; the newspaper accounts are very clear and leave nothing to the imagination.

What about the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1877 YOU rely upon to justify relativity? Are you saying that Principia should be discarded since it was written more than 200 years ago? Again, you are showing yourself for the idiot you really are sokarul.

Your also wrote: You stole stories and pictures form websites about mirages.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

It says right at the beginning:

Normal day with no mirage

Got it?

Here is the story from Holland, Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

And the actual quote: And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

NO MIRAGE can make a person see a 40 meter building (County Court House, in Racine) from 128 km away.

Here was the bombshell you promised to bring in front of us before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984141#msg984141

And here is my response showing that you have no understanding of physics:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984444#msg984444

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on June 30, 2010, 06:19:09 AM
eireengineer, what are we going to do with you? How can you mention mindlessly space-time, without having an understanding of what is going on?

There is no such thing as a space-time continuum.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

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.'

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein's statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.

G.F. Riemann introduced (1854 - 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.

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., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on June 30, 2010, 06:41:34 AM
Great work Levee. Some people just never grow up.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 30, 2010, 12:56:41 PM
Levee, you really need to learn about logical fallacies, and then try not to use so many of

them in your arguments. Maybe this will help: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

First, your Appeal to Authority by referring to Newton is absolutely erroneous. The science

of physics did not simply stop cold in the 1600's.  While certainly a genius, and well ahead

of his time, Newton's formula for gravity does have its limitations, especially involving

accuracy and measurements of extremely massive objects.  This being said, the formula does

give a good approximation of the forces involved.   Newtons beliefs are also irrelevant.

Belief is not fact, and there was no much still not understood in Newton's time.

Electromagnetism had yet to be satisfactorily researched and unified, statics was certainly

nascent, and the structure of the atom was no where near being understood.  Newton had made

such a titanic leap forward that he outpaced the science of his day, and was left grasping

for explanations for forces which while he could predict them, he could not explain their

action.

Now Newton is not alone in this problem.  The ultimate explanation of the action of gravity

does indeed still remain a mystery, though that does not invalidate Newton's Law or the

Theory of Relativity.  Both work with a high degree of accuracy in their respective areas.

Relativity posits that mass itself warps space-time, and it is this warping that causes

objects to appear to be attracted to each other.  However, this does create other questions,

namely what is the intrinsic property that gives mass to a particle.  This is why they have

spent billions on the LHC in an attempt to identify the Higgs Boson, a hypothetical particle

that conveys mass.

Now, on to your assertions about gas.  Fluid dynamics is a subject that is so complex that

it has evolved into its own discipline in science. It involves aspects of kinetics,

thermo-dynamics, chaos theory, and a host of other scientific principles.  Trying to form an

argument in bumper sticker terms about any fluids behavior is going to leave you with an

incomplete picture.

Take your ozone example.  Ozone cannot exist on its own for very long.  It is quite

chemically active, and rapidly bonds with other oxygen atoms to form O2, and even bonds with

O2 to form O3.  Its "shelf life" is very short, and the only way for it to exist in any

measurable quantity is for it to be constantly produced. This is why you find greater

quantities of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Molecules of O2 and O3 in the upper atmosphere

are constantly being bombarded with high energy UV rays from the sun, rays which are strong

enough to break the bonds between the oxygen atoms and create ozone. I myself have created a

system in the lab that duplicates this process, and high energy UV certainly has the ability

to do this.

You also seem to be extremely confused about the nature of buoyancy. It is not the weight of

the gas that determines if a gas will rise or sink in a column of air: it is the density.

This is why a tank of helium will not float, but if you fill balloons with the gas in that

tank (thus preserving the overall "weight" of the system, but increasing it's volume,

lowering the density), and then tied them to the same tank, the system will float away. This

is also why a hot air balloon floats. The "weight" of the air has not changed, but with the

addition of heat the molecules of air are moving far more rapidly and therefore seek more

volume. This obviously reduces the density of the air inside the balloon and generates lift.

What was really funny about your argument is that Ozone (O1) has half the weight of a

molecule of atmospheric oxygen (O2).

Now there is nothing mystical about cloud formation, and it ties to the previous point about

density. Even on a cloudless day, the air above you is filled with tonnes of water, or to be

more accurate, water vapor. How did it get there? Every schoolchild knows about the

properties of evaporation and ablation. Just where do you think the steam from your tea

kettle is going?  When a mass of warm air meets a mass of cooler air, or a colder object

like a mountain range, a cloud will begin to form. The normally invisible water vapor begins

to condense as it gives some of its heat up to the colder air. However, these micro droplets

have not accreted enough water yet to be denser than the surrounding air, so they will not

sink. There are even ice crystals in these clouds which stay aloft for the same reason.

Eventually, enough accretion will occur that these droplets will sink, and fall to earth. We

call this rain or snow lol.

Barometric pressure fluctuations have to do with...wait for it.....Density and Heat. Again.

Shocking, I know. The uneven heating of the earth (which you would have to contend with on a

flat earth as well) is what for the most part accounts for the variations.  Where air is

warm it will expand and be less dense, cold it will contract and be more dense. Using

experiments from the 1600s to try to prove your notion is really probably not the way to

Onto the gravity of a mountain experiment, which was horribly flawed in concept.  Trying to

use a plumb bob when the earths gravity is going to overwhelm any signal from the mountain

which is 1/1000th its size is ridiculous.  Gravity maps made with modern equipment show

gravity peaks and troughs pretty much where you would expect them: Mountain ranges,

subduction zones, and areas of intense vulcanism (much of which is indeed under water).
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/gocedeliveri.jpg

As for your proposed incongruity of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, why did this seem to

stop in the early 1900s? Could it be that measurement techniques have gotten more

sophisticated? One sole source does not an argument make, especially if that source is out

of date. I will look into this one further though.

The sun does not really have an atmosphere per se, nor does it have a surface, , so you were

comparing apples and oranges.  However, the pressure of the gas in the photosphere is

indeed very low, but the reason why is obvious. Contrary to your assertion, the gravity

acting on any particular atom of gas is quite large, because gravity is cumulative, and the

distance is rather small. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of heat and energy, and

that tends to reduce the density and the pressure. There are indeed a number of theories

that deal with this, but further research is needed.  However, you may want to do a little

research into tidal locking before assuming that Murcury and the Moon never rotated faster

than their current rate.

You can assert that there is no such thing as an attractive gravitational force, but so far

all you have proven is how easily confused you are.  Only the intellectually dishonest

attempt to make tendentious arguments, and cherry picking outdated data is certainly another

sign. I have been involved in science all my life, and it is a subject of tremendous

interest to me. I would be curious where you got your physics degree, since you keep asking

about mine, which was a BS from Maryland to go along with my EE.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on June 30, 2010, 12:58:12 PM
Great work Levee. Some people just never grow up.

Ah yes, arguing against someones tendentious, inaccurate, and obtuese claims makes me the childish one lol
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: bowler on June 30, 2010, 01:05:25 PM
sokarul, it has been brought to your attention before that you do not understand anything about modern physics (irrespective of the flat/round earth debate); all your claims have been dealt with carefully many times here.

Your idiotic, repetitive "mirage" comments really show that you should not be posting here at all.

You have been shown, again and again, with direct quotes from the photographers and the actual quotes from the Holland Newspaper, that there was NO MIRAGE at all present in Grimsby or Holland.

Please grow up, or get the fuck out of here...
The only one that needs to grow up is you.  You stole stories and pictures form websites about mirages. Then you ran away from the thread.  Enough said.  All you do is try to deceive people.  You post of "facts" from 100 years ago claiming they are still relevant today.  Leave science to real scientists.
There is a whole tread dedicated to how much of a loony you are.
Like I said, you better start getting your old ass "facts" ready, because I will respond to your arguments.

You are insane. The reason I say that is because to argue logically against insanity is itself insane. Its pretty clear to anyone who really knows what all those sciency sounding words means that its nothing but a collection of fancy sound words strung together in, as far as I can tell, no discernable order. If you don't know what they mean then it doesn't really matter if they're in a discernable order.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: bowler on June 30, 2010, 03:13:37 PM
Isn't that the plot of stargate?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Lorddave on June 30, 2010, 04:04:25 PM
Fuck it, I can invalidate Levee's Aether:

If there is a solid substance pushing on us, it would be even pressure meaning the upper atmosphere should be just as dense as the lower atmosphere.  It's not.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2010, 06:47:26 PM
I told you that, since you have no scientific arguments at all, you will resort to repetitive, idiotic responses; that is all that can be expected out of you. You have been banned before for this kind of approach to debating.

Here is what you wrote: Then you ran away from the thread

But in fact the opposite happened: right here http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985173#msg985173
No, you were just acting like a broken record.  You would only generally respond, you couldn't pick apart my post. The you would just copy paste.  Like I said, you never actually responded.
Quote
John cautioned you with these words: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg996646#msg996646

Contentless posting is against the rules.
And?

How many times do we have to go through this with sokarul?

Quote
The facts from the Tunguska explosion in 1908 are as relevant today as ever; the newspaper accounts are very clear and leave nothing to the imagination.

They think it was from a metor hitting the atmoshpere, 5-10 km above ground.  Don't make the claim the explosion was on the ground and people saw it.
Quote
What about the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1877 YOU rely upon to justify relativity? Are you saying that Principia should be discarded since it was written more than 200 years ago? Again, you are showing yourself for the idiot you really are sokarul.
I have done the experiment myself as many others have.  It fails every time. No aether. I don't know what you are trying to get at. People to this day are experimenting for general relativity. You can travel up 123 years any day now.
Principia is outdated.  Some things no longer apply.  Kind of like the Bohr atom model.

Quote
Your also wrote: You stole stories and pictures form websites about mirages.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

It says right at the beginning:

Normal day with no mirage

Got it?
You mean the pictures I which I showed are correct for the round earth model.  How the city sits before the horizon.  You cannot and did not make a comeback for this.  Now post where the Lake Michigan stories come from. A website containing stories about mirages.

Quote
Here is the story from Holland, Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

And the actual quote: And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

NO MIRAGE can make a person see a 40 meter building (County Court House, in Racine) from 128 km away.

I know the story because you fucking posted it 18 fucking times. Your logic is still incorrect on it.  What does it say, they saw the lights 6 times in 30 years?  The fact is to claim that as evidence for a flat earth it would have to be seen every night.  You cannot counter this argument.

Quote
Here was the bombshell you promised to bring in front of us before:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984141#msg984141

And here is my response showing that you have no understanding of physics:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg984444#msg984444

The only thing you did was repeat yourself like a broken record.  You cannot break my argument down piece by piece like I do to you.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EnglshGentleman on June 30, 2010, 07:06:50 PM
Don't mess with Levee, he'll mess you up.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Lorddave on June 30, 2010, 07:08:03 PM
Don't mess with Levee, he'll mess you up.

With what?  The book he's writing in posts?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on June 30, 2010, 07:11:34 PM
Don't mess with Levee, he'll mess you up.

With what?  The book he's writing in posts?
More like ctrl v.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on July 01, 2010, 03:11:06 AM
eire...your discourse would make sense in front of an audience of primary school kids in need of such a thing. I studied fluid dynamics, in the context of nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos MUCH MORE than you have; you are trying to give the impression that you know something, but it doesn't work with me at all.

You have never studied, in your entire life, prior to our debate here, the real cause of gravity or the facts behind the space-time continuum.

You failed to mention the ozone-oxygen cycle, if that is what you were referring to. You wrote:

Its "shelf life" is very short, and the only way for it to exist in any

measurable quantity is for it to be constantly produced.

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

And that is the CRUX OF THE MATTER, which you FAILED to address (as usual).

You haven't STUDIED AT ALL this subject, have you eire? How dare you come here and try to debate with me, without getting your facts straight?

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

WHERE DID YOU STUDY PHYSICS EIREENGINEER? What the hell did you say? Ozone (O1) has half the weight of a
molecule of atmospheric oxygen (O2).
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

Now, we get back to what I told you before.

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

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

YOU, EIREENGINEER, DID NOT ADDRESS AT ALL THIS PRINCIPAL ISSUE: this is exactly what we are discussing here, not the ozone-oxygen cycle.

You have no answers to this undeniable fact: ozone is constatly produced, and does not obey any attractive gravity law.

You are telling me about buoyancy? You must be joking, of course. What you want eire, is an attractive kind of gravity, but without attractional properties, it doesn't work like that at all.

Your analogy between the gas inside a hot-air balloon and the concentration of gases in the atmosphere is completely wrong, the atmosphere IS NOT behaving like a closed-system, a hot-air balloon in your description.

My friend: I am trying to see if you actually understand what we are talking about here. IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS CRUCIAL ISSUE AT ALL; YOU WANT OR NOT TO HAVE AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AS AN EXPLANATION? If the answer is yes, then, please read the following:

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?

Again, eire, I am getting tired to bring you back to reality, to what are talking about here. Do you understand where you are, what we are discussing? You DID NOT ADDRESS AT ALL the fact that, given the attractive gravity law you believe in, gases SHOULD SEPARATE ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

Of course barometric pressure has to do with pressure and heat, this is EXACTLY the point I made earlier, and which you dodged quite nicely. You do not know ANYTHING ABOUT ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS, it is way out of your league.

You wrote:

The uneven heating of the earth (which you would have to contend with on a

flat earth as well) is what for the most part accounts for the variations.  Where air is

warm it will expand and be less dense, cold it will contract and be more dense. Using

experiments from the 1600s to try to prove your notion is really probably not the way to

eire, you DID NOT ADDRESS the issues I raised, exactly concerning the heat and the pressure: PLEASE READ AGAIN.

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.

THE SAME PARADOX IS AT WORK EVEN TODAY, EIRE; scientists do not know the cause of these variations.

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.

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.

SO FAR, EIRE, your attractive gravity is but a pipe dream. You HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE ISSUES INVOLVING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

You have the nerve to come here and talk about cloud formation?

You do not understand even the definition of a cloud: here it is for you.

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.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

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. 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.

You also wrote, in defiance of the actual physics involved:

Onto the gravity of a mountain experiment, which was horribly flawed in concept.  Trying to

use a plumb bob when the earths gravity is going to overwhelm any signal from the mountain

which is 1/1000th its size is ridiculous.

THE EXPERIMENTS INVOLVED IN MEASURING THE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE OF THE HIMALAYA RANGE WERE VERY CAREFULLY PERFORMED, and the anomalies which resulted quickly were explained by resorting to the isostasy theory, which is completely false, as we have seen.

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.

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.

YOU ALSO WROTE, NOT ADDRESSING THE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY ISSUE WHICH IS THE CENTRAL POINT:

The sun does not really have an atmosphere per se, nor does it have a surface, , so you were

comparing apples and oranges.  However, the pressure of the gas in the photosphere is

indeed very low, but the reason why is obvious. Contrary to your assertion, the gravity

acting on any particular atom of gas is quite large, because gravity is cumulative, and the

distance is rather small. In addition, there is a tremendous amount of heat and energy, and

that tends to reduce the density and the pressure.

NO, EIRE, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, your words denote very clearly the difficult situation you are in, where you cannot explain the facts I present in front of your very eyes. It is not the temperature (which could not account for the differences) that was brought into question by scientists, but the pressure of light argument.

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.

GIVEN THE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE OF ROTATION, THE SUN COULD NOT HAVE A SPHERICAL SHAPE, GIVEN THE EXISTENCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY (THE CONCEPT YOU BELIEVE IN) AND VERY LOW ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE. THIS IS THE POINT WE DISCUSS HERE, AND WHICH LEFT YOU WORDLESS.

As for the surface of the sun, please think again:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/index.html

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sunquakes.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

about the fact that O. Manuel's article includes the wrong hypotheses, (imploding supernova), on:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

Astronomical myths of Mercury and the Sun:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2

eire, please go to your nearest public library, and do some serious studying; here YOU HAVE NO CHANCE WITH ME, not one in a billion.

I have demonstrated to you that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on July 01, 2010, 03:20:27 AM
eire, you FAILED TO ADDRESS THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM QUESTION.

HAVE YOU EVER STUDIED THE ORIGINS OF THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT?

It was H. Minkowsky who SIMLPLY REPLACED THE X4 VARIABLE IN G.F. RIEMANN'S MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACE (CREATED FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE ALTOGETHER) WITH T (TIME). SPACE AND TIME ARE ABSTRACT COORDINATE SYSTEMS, OR REFERENCE SYSTEMS, you cannot put space and time together to form any kind of a continuum.

eireengineer, what are we going to do with you? How can you mention mindlessly space-time, without having an understanding of what is going on?

There is no such thing as a space-time continuum.

Nikola Tesla on the space-time continuum invented by Minkowski:

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.'

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein's statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.

G.F. Riemann introduced (1854 - 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.

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., ...

'If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong' (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 106).

If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false.' {Quotation of A. Einstein from a letter to Erwin Finley-Freundlich: August 1913}

I have just demonstrated to you that there is no such thing as a space-time continuum.

bowler, you dropped you usual nice manners to write this piece of shit:

You are insane. The reason I say that is because to argue logically against insanity is itself insane. Its pretty clear to anyone who really knows what all those sciency sounding words means that its nothing but a collection of fancy sound words strung together in, as far as I can tell, no discernable order. If you don't know what they mean then it doesn't really matter if they're in a discernable order.

So far, in every direct debate with me, you have failed miserably to even attempt to rationally defend current quantum mechanics, astrophysics theories. Please do your homework before you DARE to enter into a debate with me.

lorddave wrote:

If there is a solid substance pushing on us, it would be even pressure meaning the upper atmosphere should be just as dense as the lower atmosphere.  It's not.

Did I ever mention a SOLID SUBSTANCE PUSHING ON US? No. Please read carefully what I posted much earlier. We are constantly showered with subquarks (tachyons), which Tesla called cosmic rays; these tachyons are the cause of the pushing type of gravity. And its pressure is not even at all, please read the subject of gravitational anomalies I presented earlier.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sandokhan on July 01, 2010, 03:35:13 AM
sokarul, you are the inspector Clouseau of this site.

You haven't read at all the Tunguksa explosion subject, have you?

You wrote:

They think it was from a metor hitting the atmoshpere, 5-10 km above ground.  Don't make the claim the explosion was on the ground and people saw it.

I mentioned from the very start these facts:

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

I calculated, using a mere 6000 km between London and Tunguska, the visual obstacle: 4333 KM

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS SUCKERUL?

Here are the actual newspaper accounts from the period July 1 - 4, 1908:

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

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 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

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.

THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.

I have just demonstrated to you the very best proof that there is no curvature between London and Tunguska.

NO BROKEN RECORD HERE AT ALL: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060

JUST A PERFECT DEMONSTRATION THAT OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, AND OVER THE LAKE MICHIGAN THERE IS NO POSSIBLE CURVATURE, your childhish efforts amounted to nothing at all.

Why do I have to put up with this kind of messages?

I have done the experiment myself as many others have.  It fails every time. No aether. I don't know what you are trying to get at. People to this day are experimenting for general relativity. You can travel up 123 years any day now.
Principia is outdated.  Some things no longer apply.  Kind of like the Bohr atom model.

sokarul, you haven't done anything. 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=31007#p31007

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

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.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.

You wrote:

You mean the pictures I which I showed are correct for the round earth model.  How the city sits before the horizon.  You cannot and did not make a comeback for this.  Now post where the Lake Michigan stories come from. A website containing stories about mirages.

Are we to understand sokarul that you also have psychiatric problems in addition to the other ones?

The website about the Lake Michigan story IS ACTUALLY A NEWSPAPER FROM HOLLAND, NO MIRAGE AT ALL.

Here is the story again for you.

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'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

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.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

YOU COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM A 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE ITSELF.

NO LOOMING, OR ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION CAN HELP THE ROUND EARTH SUPPORTERS.

I EXPLAINED ALREADY WHY THE VIEW FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WAS SEEN SO SELDOM. The air and ether themselves have varying densities at the surface of the lake; when that density is just right, the view of the tallest buildings in Milwaukee and also Racine can be seen easily; the residents of Holland are not staring all of the time across the lake, it is a hobby, sometimes they can see that view, which WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EireEngineer on July 01, 2010, 10:21:19 AM
I am looking forward to the day when levee actually posts a reference from at least the twentieth century, instead of tendentiously cherry picking out of date science.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: bowler on July 01, 2010, 12:50:00 PM
Im known for my insanity so here goes. I will base my use special relativity to explain a number of everyday results to which i am unaware of another plausible explanation. I'm not going to derive the equations of special relativity it is an assumption of SR that the aether doesn't exist. I do not see how current results from large Perot interferometers can accommodate the classical aether theory. The quantum theory of fields, not SR, is, I would say the final nail in the classical aether coffin. So lets explore some of the results of special relativity and see where we end up. I should say at this point that there are modern aether theories, I quite like one where all particles are waves in the aether, I don't believe it but it is quite a cute theory.

The colour of gold. Anyone who has seen a variety of metals will know that they tend to be silver, or some variation on grey. There are some notable exceptions. Im sure most people will be aware that the colour of a metal is governed by the outer electron shells around the nucleus. In general classical physics with the Bohr model of the atom can approximately explain the reflection spectra of metals. One exception to this is gold, it should be white, whiter than silver, except it isn't. If we assume that special relativity is correct then we have a relativistic mass
m = m0sqrt(1-(v/c)2).

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.

This is a simple one which im sure is well known enough for someone to have cooked up an answer using some words from a sciency dictionary (something along the lines of the energy density metric of the muons wavefunction is such that it seems to decay quicker, see I can stick a pin in dictionary as well).  The decay of particles such as muons and pions seems to be a trivial proof of special relativity. Well ok not quite proof but about as good as an experiment is likely to provide.

The dirac equation. This is a good one a nice combination of fairly elementary QM and SR yielding a very powerful result. Ill do the proof later but now its quiz time. Ill skip straight to the bit where you combine SR and QM and get the most predictive equation ever. I've tried to avoid mocking the conspiracy with the coupling between gravitation and electromagnetism, because all though theres no conclusive science, or to be honest any plausible theories, theres enough odd events in the past century to make me hedge my bets.

Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on July 01, 2010, 06:57:15 PM
sokarul, you are the inspector Clouseau of this site.

You haven't read at all the Tunguksa explosion subject, have you?

You wrote:

They think it was from a metor hitting the atmoshpere, 5-10 km above ground.  Don't make the claim the explosion was on the ground and people saw it.

I mentioned from the very start these facts:

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

I calculated, using a mere 6000 km between London and Tunguska, the visual obstacle: 4333 KM
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS SUCKERUL?
Do you understand you are making things up?  Lets put something into perspective. You claim seeing lights across lake Michigan is impossible on a round earth. But on a flat earth is only happens 6 times in 30 years.  Now you are claiming the light from the explosion cannot be seen on a round earth.  That makes the light being seen on a flat earth just as improbable.  The probability according to you is 6/10957 or .05 percent. So according to you, even on a flat earth is shouldn't be seen.  But it was. One can either think the fake aether flux is just right, or simply your calculations are wrong and round earth physics is correct.  I'm likely to believe the round earth physics.
Quote
Here are the actual newspaper accounts from the period July 1 - 4, 1908:

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

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 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1 (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

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.

T
Quote
HIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.

Your 6 times in 30 years possible?

Quote
I have just demonstrated to you the very best proof that there is no curvature between London and Tunguska.

NO BROKEN RECORD HERE AT ALL: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39334.msg985060#msg985060
Whatever you "prove" I can easily disprove. You can't even use proper quote tags.
Quote
JUST A PERFECT DEMONSTRATION THAT OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, AND OVER THE LAKE MICHIGAN THERE IS NO POSSIBLE CURVATURE, your childhish efforts amounted to nothing at all.
The only thing childish is your logic. You just don't have the brain power to see your own errors.

Quote
Why do I have to put up with this kind of messages?
Because you never actually proved anything so you keep having to "prove" it over and over.

Quote
sokarul, you haven't done anything. 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=31007#p31007
I actually have, they have table top setups now.  You know, since it was originally done 123 years ago.
Posting a link to your own posts in not valid evidence.  At least not in this case.

Quote

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
All from the same person.  Who ever that is has as much credibility as you.  I will accept links to scientific journals though.

Quote
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
Doesn't work.
Quote
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
No idea what you are getting at.  We did Lorentz transformations in school. You aren't teaching me anything.
Quote
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm
I already know about the experiment and I already know the math, unlike you, on how it was supposed to show an aether.  It still never did.
Quote
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
He died in 1941.
T
Quote
hese 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.
Not forgotten, disproved.

Quote
You wrote:

You mean the pictures I which I showed are correct for the round earth model.  How the city sits before the horizon.  You cannot and did not make a comeback for this.  Now post where the Lake Michigan stories come from. A website containing stories about mirages.

Are we to understand sokarul that you also have psychiatric problems in addition to the other ones?

The website about the Lake Michigan story IS ACTUALLY A NEWSPAPER FROM HOLLAND, NO MIRAGE AT ALL.

Here is the story again for you.

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'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

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.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

YOU COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING FROM A 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM LAKESHORE DRIVE LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE ITSELF.

NO LOOMING, OR ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION CAN HELP THE ROUND EARTH SUPPORTERS.
I dare you to post one reply where you don't copy paste something you already posted.  No matter how many times you post something incorrect, it will not change it to being correct.  Mirage is the answer. For anyone playing the home game, the story is about mirages.  You will notice he will never post the source of the article. A few years ago I found the story.

Quote
I EXPLAINED ALREADY WHY THE VIEW FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WAS SEEN SO SELDOM. The air and ether themselves have varying densities at the surface of the lake; when that density is just right, the view of the tallest buildings in Milwaukee and also Racine can be seen easily;
When I strike out one word in your post I get the definition of a mirage.
Quote
the residents of Holland are not staring all of the time across the lake, it is a hobby, sometimes they can see that view, which WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE ON A ROUND EARTH.

Except of times there are mirages.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 01, 2010, 07:01:03 PM
Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on July 01, 2010, 07:05:59 PM
Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on July 01, 2010, 07:08:07 PM
Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum?
My hopes were too high  :(
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: sokarul on July 01, 2010, 07:11:52 PM
Can you address his points Sokarul instead of just always saying "you never proved anything!!!"

Can you post content in a content requiring forum?
My hopes were too high  :(
Should I argue like him and just copy what I said?  I addressed his points FAR more than he addressed mine.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EnglshGentleman on July 01, 2010, 08:10:04 PM
Is levee mentally challenged? Perhaps that is what makes him incapable of responding to specific points and causes him to resort to ad hominem to attempt to make points...

Are you suggesting that mentally challenged people have a tendency to insult people and use ad hominems?
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: bowler on July 02, 2010, 12:17:33 AM
This is why I never make sensible points. Why learn science to respond when you can make some benile comment to another benile comment. I guess its some kind of conservation of intelligence law, intelligence requires a local decrease in entropy which requires energy, so really its just a re-working of conservation of energy.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: EnglshGentleman on July 02, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
Is levee mentally challenged? Perhaps that is what makes him incapable of responding to specific points and causes him to resort to ad hominem to attempt to make points...

Are you suggesting that mentally challenged people have a tendency to insult people and use ad hominems?

Am I?

You certainly did. You asked if he was mentally challenged, then proceed to say if that were true, it would explain why he resorts to ad hominems to attempt to make points.
Title: Re: About light speed and ether
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on July 08, 2010, 08:55:37 PM
Leevee must be the king of tl;dr.

ok Leevee lets pay a game.
we're only going to address ONE point at a time.
#1