The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Lorddave on September 21, 2012, 01:43:06 PM

Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 21, 2012, 01:43:06 PM
Levee, are you aware that it takes time for gasses to settle?  Put oil and water in a glass, mix it together, then let it sit.  Time how long it takes for them to separate.
Gases are much slower as they have less weight.  And unless our atmosphere is totally screwed up, you aren't going to have no wind in the upper atmosphere for long.

Also:
Why are you comparing a ball of gas and plasma burning at thousands of degrees Kelvin while it shoots out huge waves of matter streams out into space to Earth's atmosphere?
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 01:55:00 AM
The barometric pressure paradox does prove that our entire atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravitational law.


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.


For those who do not want to understand these straightforward facts of physics, they can go back to their fantasy world invented by LRS.



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.

Therefore, the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities, which is a contradiction of the law of gravitational attraction.



Here is Sir I. Newton himself telling us that there are two kinds of gravitational forces: terrestrial gravity, which is a force exerting pressure - and planetary/stellar gravity, a rotational type of force.


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'


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.

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.


Moreover, Newton DISMISSED the currently accepted view that gravity is attractive:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”




The assumption that the Sun evolves over time as a result of consuming itself in a central thermonuclear furnace is absolutely wrong.


This assumption was based on this: in the early 1960s, the physicist John Bahcall had calculated that, based on our understanding of solar physics, 30 million neutrinos should pass through every cubic inch of earth every second. If solar physicists had the correct models for the interior of the sun, then one neutrino encounter should be recorded every day in the chlorine tank beneath South Dakota.

To the shock of theorists and experimentalists alike, Homestake detected one neutrino encounter every three days. Somehow, two-thirds of the solar neutrinos were missing.


Larger neutrino observatories were constructed, using different methods to detect the elusive particles. Over the course of three decades, governments funded and physicists built five new observatories, including the Super Kamiokande (Super-K) in Japan and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Ontario. The results were always disappointing — still two-thirds short.

In 2001, scientists at SNO decided that perhaps they were looking for the wrong type of neutrino.



Here is a extraordinary analysis of the degree of deceit and lies offerred to the public by Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO):

http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm (http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm)



The sections of the article, especially Some Examples, Analysis of the Official Announcement, A sentence from the conclusion of the report, A logical analysis of the last above sentence, and the Summary show very clearly that:

Although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved.  And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.


Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 05:55:31 AM
Why is my post in the repository?

Also I repeat:
How long do you think it would take atoms of gas in a mixture to settle based on densities?
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 06:42:45 AM
You have become quite an expert in the kinetic theory of gases since you entered in this debate.

Let met turn the table around: why is the movement of the molecules of gases not affected by the law of attractive 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.



Did you know that our own heliocentric planetary system (together with the Sun) travels at some 20 km/s toward the star Vega?

This fact means you have to make a basic choice (no RE can escape this quandary): both Kepler's first law and the fact that the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix, cannot be true.


A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.


(http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg)

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg)


Therefore, Kepler's first law contradicts the accepted fact of current astronomy that the entire solar system moves toward the star Vega on a helical path.


The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.



Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 06:52:51 AM
And now there's nowhere to hide from this: the Jupiter IR anomalous radiation and the angular momentum of the Sun paradoxes:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55860.0.html#.UF3Cf7LiaUM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55860.0.html#.UF3Cf7LiaUM)


Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 07:07:42 AM
You are going to have to explain this too: the fact that no elements whatsoever could ever have formed out of a big bang scenario.

No clouds made up of gases could have formed either, not by any chance:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.0.html#.UF3F2rLiaUM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55861.0.html#.UF3F2rLiaUM)
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 07:40:32 AM
Please stick to one discussion topic. Going from barometric pressure to solar system formation isn't helping you.

Also you failed to answer my question. How long does it take a gas mixture to settle by density?
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 07:55:43 AM
There are scientific papers dedicated to this subject, gas mixture settling:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf (http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf)



You should be interested in the subjects I just brought up.


There is no way any elements could have formed out of a big bang explosion.

No gas clouds could have formed either.

You cannot explain the Jupiter IR anomalous radiation readings or the angular momentum of the sun paradox.

You have no answers for the barometric pressure paradox.

You choose to ignore the fact that the atmospheric gases do not separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities, which is a contradiction of the law of gravitational attraction.

You refrain from making a quite obvious choice between Kepler's first law and the geometrical shape of the movement of the solar system towards the star Vega must a be a helix.



Therefore, you find yourself at a loss to explain anything relating to the theory you hold dear: big bang scenario.


Next items on the list are the faint young sun paradox and the experiment carried out by G.B. Airy in 1871 (stationary earth/existence of aether).


Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 09:43:19 AM
Thank you for posting that article Levee.  I am pleased to accept your concession on the separation of gases in the atmosphere of Earth.

I am interested in those subjects, but I find it more difficult to debate with you when you attempt to debate several topics in the same post.  The posts tend to get overly long.  If you would like to discuss any other subject, please create a new thread in the science forum.  :)
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 09:59:45 AM
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that you have failed to address the points I made in my first message. Your mistaken assertion about the separation of the gases betrays, at best, confusion; at worst, it is a misconceived argument, a misrepresentation and a lack of intellectual penetration.


Your accepting of apparent successes where none can be found, is an escape hatch to avoid the very obvious facts: the gases in the atmosphere do indeed defy attractive gravity.




Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 10:07:20 AM
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that you have failed to address the points I made in my first message. Your mistaken assertion about the separation of the gases betrays, at best, confusion; at worst, it is a misconceived argument, a misrepresentation and a lack of intellectual penetration.


Your accepting of apparent successes where none can be found, is an escape hatch to avoid the very obvious facts: the gases in the atmosphere do indeed defy attractive gravity.
I could say the exact same thing about you.

Anyway, you posted the article which very clearly says on page 11...

Quote
Settling of small particles is a very slow process and many times
I'd consider oxygen molecules to be a small particle.  So I consider your article posting to be admission that you accept what that article says.
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2012, 10:53:16 AM
Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


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



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


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


You have failed to address any of the following points. That is why I called your message a misrepresentation.


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?



Do you understand the phrase: which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight?


Since gases in the upper atmosphere do not stay separated according to their specific weight (as they should given the attractive gravity hypothesis), it is an obvious contradiction of this same attractive gravity "law".


You have failed, for the upteenth time, to address the barometric pressure paradox:

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.
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
So oxygen and ozone aren't particles? And by falling by specific gravity you don't mean settling?

Oh and I found the answer to the ozone problem:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=340260 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=340260)

I find it curious that you think gases sink like stones. Are stones gases?


Finally:
If the Earth is being pushed up by an acceleration force creating air pressure, why isn't CO2 on the ground level?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 22, 2012, 07:31:41 PM
Who keeps moving this discussion?
And why? It's perfectly fine where it started and I hate having to search for my posts every day.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Ski on September 22, 2012, 08:22:46 PM
I moved everything after the original post out because the repository isn't the place for debate. I don't know who moved what the first time.
(Also, the "Show new replies to your posts" link up top, is a handy tool to find threads you have previously posted in)
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 05:30:41 AM
You have not read my messages: there is no UA acceleration, the Earth is completely stationary.


Terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure; see the Telluric Currents message in my alternative faq.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899)

Inexistence of UA acceleration, attractive gravity:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1363702.html#msg1363702 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1363702.html#msg1363702) (gyro drop experiment)


The people who debate the ozone layer paradox do not understand the crux of the matter.

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


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.


First off, higher densities don't sink. The atmosphere does not separate into by compounds.

But in fact they MUST, given the accepted law of universal gravitation (universal attraction); otherwise, we have a contradiction which denies/defies attractive gravity. Nowhere do they explain how or why the gases DO NOT stay separated according to their specific weights, given the permanent effect of the attractive gravitational law.

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


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


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

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

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

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




Let us now go back to the paper on gas mixture settling. The author does not seem to understand the implications of attractive gravity on gases or the fact that clouds simply defy gravity.


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

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

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.



You keep forgetting the gas molecules movement paradox.

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.


And we have again the barometric pressure paradox:

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.

A very clear violation/contradiction of the law of attractive gravity.

Our atmosphere does not obey at all such an attractive gravitational law.

Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 23, 2012, 06:05:59 AM
Wow. You really are a copy paste debater aren't you?
You post an article as evidence then dismiss the author's understanding of gravity. I think you don't understand gravity. Or pressure for that matter. Or fluid dynamics.

You keep insisting that gases move like solids in air. Why?  What math do you have to show? What experiment do you have to validate this claim?  Do you even know how to calculate terminal velocity?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 06:22:45 AM
The material I just posted was included for a very good reason: it debunks your fallacious belief that the permanent effect of attractive gravity does not affect gases in the atmosphere.


You complain about the length of the article and yet you have not been able to respond to any of the points I made:


-the fact that the movement of the gas molecules simply defy attractive gravity

-the barometric pressure paradox

-the fact that clouds and mist simply defy the same attractive gravity



I think I understand gravity better than anyone here, ld.


Did you read the telluric currents and gyro drop messages? Certainly you did not.



http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html)

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

The gyroscope, of total weight 7.23 lbs (rotor weight 4.75 lbs, case weight 2.48 lbs) was released to fall along its axis. Electrical leads supplying power to the 41/4" diameter rotor were disconnected just prior to release.


Conclusion: a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.

A flagrant violation of the law of attractive gravity.


Do you understand what is being debated here ld? You believe in attractive gravity, and YET you (and the scientists you quoted) do not want to see any effects of this force on the gases  in the atmosphere.


Read again the barometric pressure paradox, it suffices to destroy any belief in attractive gravity. Read again the gas molecules movement paradox: it simply defies attractive gravity.


ps in case you did not realize, I posted the article NOT for any evidence, but in response to your query - a simple official science bibliographical item. The author, as we have seen, simply chooses to ignore the fact that clouds and mist defy attractive gravity, and you are doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 23, 2012, 07:10:35 AM
I will not be distracted by a poorly done and irrelevant experiment.  You can't fool me so easily.

The fact that you can't answer my question about how fast gases should move shows that you are stalling.
Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.


Oh and BTW: Please answer the tides paradox. 
If a variable pressure is pushing down on the Earth, why does water rise up and lower at various times during the day?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 08:18:02 AM
The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of engineers/scientists who worked with the late Dr. Bruce DePalma, PhD, researcher at MIT,  (read the link to see the perfect conditions for vacuum were complied with).

It was carefully performed, as we can see from the undeniable data:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html)

A flagrant violation of the law of attractive gravity.


Torsion physics defies attractive gravity: here are experiments performed by none other than N. Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century.



A.N. KOZYREV GYROSCOPE EXPERIMENTS - inexistence of attractive gravity, UA acceleration

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

The results were published in the work The Pendulum of the Universe.

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


Aether, time, Kozyrev torsion fields:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30 (http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30)]http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30



I only use the best bibliographical and experimental data, you should understand that by now.


If you really want to know what pressure gravity is, read here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899)


Please answer the tides paradox. 
If a variable pressure is pushing down on the Earth, why does water rise up and lower at various times during the day?


Now you are really beginning to use your brain, finally.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of attractive 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.



Here is Dr. T. Henry Moray explaining the influence of the telluric currents (ether) upon the sea tides:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space. By this time I was able to obtain enough power to light the old 16-candlepower carbon lamp for about one half capacity, and I did not seem to make any further improvement until the spring of 1925."

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge. The resultant oscillating power would be applied to industrial use.



You are the one stalling the discussion.

Here is a single paragraph of the barometric pressure paradox, it shows that there is no such thing as attractive gravity:

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.



Gases in the atmosphere, or at room temperature, COULD NOT behave the way they do, had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon.

Please read again.

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.


With attractive gravity, there would be NO Brownian motion, and a complete separation of the gases in the atmosphere according to their specific weights.



Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.

Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, I repeat, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.

Brownian motion is a defiance of attractive gravity; and so is the fact that the gases in the atmosphere do not separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

You seem not to understand what is going on: you are discovering for the first time, thanks to my messages, the defiance of attractive gravity by gases.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 23, 2012, 09:37:55 AM
Until you can tell me the time it takes for a molecule of nitrogen to rise through layers of CO2 and Oxygen (or really any combination of movement) then you have nothing to add to this discussion.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 11:11:31 AM
You can do the research yourself - I am not going to do your homework (again). If you are really interested in such calculations, there are plenty of references.


Here is the "law" of universal gravitation:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png)

The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


(As we have seen however, earlier, Newton dismissed such a law in no uncertain terms, moreover he believed terrestrial gravity is a force exerting pressure).


Therefore, ld, in a world which would be subject to attractive gravity, gases would separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.


This is one of the main points of the entire discussion.



By the way, you have failed again to address the barometric pressure paradox.


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.




And you have failed to take into consideration the very simple gas molecules movement paradox:

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.



There is no such thing as attractive gravity: I do not have to resort to photographs or videos to show/prove the surface of the Earth is flat.  The spherical earth theory is completely dead without attractive gravity. A pressure type of gravity (terrestrial gravity) is possible ONLY on a flat earth.


Please read again the helium flash (triple alpha process) paradox: there is no possible way the elements (any of them) could have formed in the big bang scenario.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 23, 2012, 02:19:48 PM
Good.
Now, what would be the force required for that molecule of oxygen to stay afloat?  Assuming gravity exists.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2012, 10:09:46 PM
Terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure exerted by the telluric currents (ether).


From Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity:

Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.

(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_tesla/tesla_fondo2.jpg)


Discovery of ether by Tesla:

http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/ (http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/)


Tesla's Colorado Springs Experiment (best documentation):

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla1.htm (http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla1.htm)

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla2.htm (http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla2.htm)

http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla3.htm (http://www.mentallandscape.com/Tesla3.htm)


How I Control Gravity de Dr. Townsend Brown:

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

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

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

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

Therefore, the mass of a body is an electrical variable! Mass is not directly related to the quantity of matter.


John W. Keely's forty laws of ether transmission (discovered by him after painstaking experiments):

http://www.svpvril.com/fortylaw.html (http://www.svpvril.com/fortylaw.html)

John W. Keely ether secrets, master index:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html (http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/sitemap.html)


Keely's theory of molecular structure:

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theory.html (http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theory.html)

http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theorycontinued.html (http://u2.lege.net/John_Keely/keelytech.com/theorycontinued.html)



Ball Lightning, the Paradox of Physics, Defiance of Gravity by P. Sagan:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=rM5YjjnmIYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ball+lightning+sagan&source=bl&ots=oVKN7oiEaa&sig=rG3AXiY9haD5x4oQS4WKzxwGBK8&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Pl4OUK-DB8SB4gS6vICgDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ball%20lightning%20sagan&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=rM5YjjnmIYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ball+lightning+sagan&source=bl&ots=oVKN7oiEaa&sig=rG3AXiY9haD5x4oQS4WKzxwGBK8&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Pl4OUK-DB8SB4gS6vICgDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ball%20lightning%20sagan&f=false)


ED LEEDSKALNIN MAGNETIC CURRENT THEORY

Magnetic current is the same as electric current. Current is a wrong expression.

Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed.


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



http://www.leedskalnin.com/ (http://www.leedskalnin.com/)
http://keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt (http://keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt)



Now, given all this information, it should be possible, for the first time, to really calculate the force required for a molecule of oxygen to stay afloat, in the ether/telluric currents/pressure gravity context.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 24, 2012, 03:40:11 AM
Why don't you do the math using both equations. Let me know what the results are in Newtons.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 25, 2012, 09:23:52 AM
Have you been able to determine the equation for determining the force needed to keep a molecule of oxygen aloft in an aether pressure/currents?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 10:56:14 AM
Certainly I would like to devote more time to work out the calculations...


Meantime, let me demonstrate again that a molecule of oxygen cannot stay afloat due to attractive gravity.


There is no such thing as attractive gravity.



http://web.archive.org/web/20071021071531/http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler/elot.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20071021071531/http://www.s-line.de/homepages/keppler/elot.htm)


(http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8813/lotxv.jpg)
2 plumb lines, which in a deep shaft below are 33 cm (13 in. ) farther apart than at the surface


Sometime prior to 1901, the French Government, wishing to determine more accurately the actual size of the Earth, so that they could revise and refine their calculations regarding the distance to the sun, hit on a way to measure the difference in distance apart at the top of two lines perpendicular to the surface of the Earth and the bottom of those same two lines. They wanted a pair of lines long enough to give them an appreciable measurement . Obviously they could not erect two parallel poles a mile high, but they did feel they could suspend two plumb bobs a mile deep into a mine shaft, and thus be able to measure the distance apart at the top and the distance apart at the bottom, which would be slightly less. They wanted to know exactly how much less.


The result of these tests was very strange. So strange that the French Geodetic scientists contacted the scientists of the American Geodetic Survey and conveyed their results to them, with the request that similar tests be conducted in this country. Officially, nothing was done for some years. But in 1901, one of the Geodetic surveyors happened to be working in the vicinity of the Tamarack mines near Calumet, Michigan. He contacted the chief engineer at Tamarack, and informed him of the information transmitted by the French government.


Two mine shafts were selected, and plumb lines exactly 4,250 feet long were suspended in each mine. At the end of these lines a sixty pound bob was hung. In order to prevent movement through a horizontal direction, each bob was suspended in a tank of oil placed at the bottom of the mine shafts.


In this way, it was reasoned, magnetic forces could not effect them. The lines used to suspend the bobs were No. 24 piano wires. For twenty-four hours the lines were allowed to hang, so that there would be no possibility of movement from putting them in place still remaining in the lines.


The measurements were begun.


It was then that it was discovered that the French Geodetic engineers had not made a mistake.
Careful re-checking proved that the lines, contrary to expectations, were farther apart at the bottom than at the top!


There can be only one implication to such strange result – the center of gravity is not, as previously believed, at the center of the Earth, but in fact, it must be above the surface of the Earth, somewhere in Space! If these two lines, formed by the suspended plumb lines, were to be extended upward, they would meet somewhere in the void away from the Earth, and that point, by all the rules of gravitational attraction, should be the center of gravity of this planet!


Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 25, 2012, 01:36:36 PM
I am glad you're looking at the calculations more closely.
I calculated the force using the gravitational equation in about 10 minutes.  I hope the other equation you're creating isn't giving you too much of an issue.

Though I am wondering: Why are you attempting to disprove gravity with anecdotes while simultaneously saying gravity exists in an impossible way?  You've said that gravity doesn't exist because oxygen would fall if it did yet oxygen doesn't get compressed with pressure.  You then show two plum bobs that are at an angle farther apart from each other yet Etheric pressure would cause them to be equal distance apart.

I think I need to know once and for all:
In your view, does gravity exist or is the Earth being pushed down at a constant acceleration with pressure?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2012, 09:12:54 PM
The discovery at the Tamarack mines is no anecdote.

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition.




Now, I have kept the best for the end: the most elegant proof that the "law" of universal gravitation is completely wrong.


BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

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

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)
http://www.libertyandlove.org/advanced-tech/bruce-depalma-n-machine.aspx (http://www.libertyandlove.org/advanced-tech/bruce-depalma-n-machine.aspx)


Throwing Experiments
DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:


Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


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


Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.


(http://www.evert.de/eft907a.jpg)


The experiment performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma (MIT/Harvard) is a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity. And so is the experiment done by his assistants, the gyro drop experiment:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html)

Conclusion: a fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



I think I need to know once and for all

I told you from day one read the telluric current message, you will discover the pressure ether gravity theory:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899)


yet Etheric pressure would cause them to be equal distance apart.

The experiment at the Tamarack mines does show that there is no such thing as attractive gravity; it also shows that the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves decreases as we descend deeper into the Earth.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on September 26, 2012, 05:34:45 AM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 03, 2012, 11:54:13 AM
There are scientific papers dedicated to this subject, gas mixture settling:

http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf (http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/bk3/c07/Mixture%20settling.pdf)

In this article, on page 13, vsed, the velocity of sedimentation, is calculated as 0 for atoms and molecules. This means that larger molecules, like oxygen, will not sediment under the smaller molecules, like nitrogen at any significant speed. Even a slight breeze is many orders of magnitude faster than this sedimentation speed.
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 03, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


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

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

The ozone is not kept in a stable layer. It is created in large quantities in the upper atmosphere, in exactly the same way as it is created in home water purifiers: by high voltage electrical discharges, or with ultraviolet light. It then slowly descends and mixes with the surrounding air by the action of the wind, but in a matter of days it decomposes into O2. There is nothing unusual going on. The only unusual property here is the relatively fast rate at which it is created and decomposed, before it reaches the lower atmosphere in large quantities.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on October 03, 2012, 03:39:38 PM
Why would anyone engage levee in a discussion.  Did you just want to read the contents of the internet Dave?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 03, 2012, 06:43:24 PM
Why would anyone engage levee in a discussion.  Did you just want to read the contents of the internet Dave?
I've debated with levee before and have not gone away with nothing. His strategy is (mis)information overload followed by topic creep. The key is to stick to one point and keep going until its concluded. As you can see I kept at him on the single point of why oxygen would sink down so rapidly. I've attempted multiple times to get a numerical answer.  As you can see, he hasn't yet replied with the requested math.

Just don't let yourself be drawn into the side points. It will make answering become tedious as the topics diverge. Levee has a wealth of prewritten paragraphs and posts to draw upon. You do not.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2012, 02:16:55 AM
lorddave, I have given you enough evidence so that you can understand that the notion of attractive gravity is completely wrong.

I did answer your specific point several times: in a world which would be subject to attractive gravity, gases would separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities.

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

That is why your formula is WORTHLESS: as there is no such thing as attractive gravity.



Let me remind you:

You have not been able to respond to any of the points I made:


-the fact that the movement of the gas molecules simply defy attractive gravity

-the barometric pressure paradox

-the fact that clouds and mist simply defy the same attractive gravity



You have not answered to the experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma: a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

Here is Dr. Bruce DePalma:

Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


lorddave, are you able to understand the physics? Let me explain again.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


It is the end of the attractive gravity delusion.


Now, you posted this website: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm)

The author does not understand that the anomalies discovered are an extraordinary proof of the existence of telluric currents: please read the following paragraphs carefully:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1255899.html#msg1255899)

In the same way, ring-laser gyroscopes are a proof that telluric currents do exist and cause the phenomenon.


Anomalies in the law of attractive gravity were discovered many times over, not only at Tamarack, that is why I invited you to read up:

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.



Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 03:19:11 AM
No, no you haven't.
You can't seem to tell me the force required to keep an atom of oxygen aloft in a gravity environment. Or the force required to keep it aloft with your pressure idea.

Also from Wikipedia:
Brownian motion or pedesis (from Greek: πήδησις Pɛɖeːsɪs "leaping") is the presumably random moving of particles suspended in a fluid (a liquid or a gas) resulting from their bombardment by the fast-moving atoms or molecules in the gas or liquid.

Yeah... Nothing about settling.
You really have no idea how little force is required to keep atoms of gasses mixed do you?
Allow me to applrximate it (I'm on my phone and don't have the math handy): 1.0 x10-24 newtons.

That means that if there is less force than that, oxygen will fall slowly. But if something is in the way like, say.... Other gasses, then it can't fall. And since other gases are constantly being put into the air even on a still day (See CO2) it's logical to assume that they have enough force or bouyancy to keep the oxygen and nitrogen from settling even if there is no wind.

Of course for there to be no wind would mean all gas molecules have slowed significantly. The temperature would have to be around 50K. (The temperature of liquid oxygen)
In fact, your mention of Brownian motion proves it. The dust particles more randomly, not down. This is because of other high motion particles pushing it around.

Now, if you don't give me the math on the pressure your aether pushes down while simultaneously allowing large particles (dust and water) to stay afloat I'm going to have to assume you never even did the math and thus your conclusion is based on personal feelings and is invalid.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2012, 04:43:38 AM
If Dr. Bruce DePalma uses these words to describe the new discovery that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity, namely: ...present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. you can imagine that to work out the math/physics of the pressure gravity of the telluric currents is no easy matter.

For example here are laws discovered by John W. Keely (excerpt): "Atoms are capable of vibrating within themselves at a pitch inversely as the Dyne (the local coefficient of Gravity), and as the atomic volume, directly as the atomic weight, producing the creative force (Electricity), whose transmissive force is propagated through atomolic solids, liquids, and gases, producing induction and the static effect of magnetism upon other atoms of attraction or repulsion, according to the Law of Harmonic Attraction and Repulsion." Imagine carrying out the experiments in a lab to work out the mathematics of a perfect law of pressure gravity...



It is obvious, ld, that you cannot answer anything relating to the facts I presented in my messages.


Please read the following texts carefully: the barometric pressure of the atmosphere and movement of gas molecules simply DEFY attractive gravity.

You have been avoiding these facts all along.


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.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity; your comments amount to nothing, unless you can explain the barometric pressure paradox.


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.


A simple demonstration that you do not understand gas dynamics in the context of the law of attractive gravity.

Brownian motion COULD NOT exist in the presence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

You try to shift the issue to mathematics, while avoiding all along the obvious facts from physics: under the law of attractive gravity, gases in the atmosphere must separate and stay apart according to their specific gravities. If you do not want to understand this basic fact, you are free to create your own fantasy world, ld, where gases stay separated in the atmosphere DESPITE the permanent effect of attractive gravity.


Again, let me present the spinning ball experiment of Dr. Bruce DePalma:

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


I ask for the third time ld: are you able to read english and understand the physics involved here?

Let me repeat: the ball spinning at 27,000 RPM travelled higher and weighed less (in absolute defiance of the law of attractive gravity) than its non-spinning counterpart.

Therefore, ld, we have a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: your analysis of the movement of gases is worthless, the law of attractive gravity is completely false.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Mau on October 05, 2012, 06:57:23 AM
Levee, sorry to interrupt the discussion, but I have a kind of a question for you.
First, I am not familiar with your explanations about gravity, so I will read some of the links you posted later, but It's been a time that I know that Newton was a evil man, a lier, and that his theory looked like bouchet, also that electricity and/or "spinning" has something to do  with gravity.
But my question is this: on Russia, if I am not mistake, there is a giant hole made with the years because of the mining of diamonds. This circular hole is really large, like a football field, and really deep (don't know how much).
The thing is that helicopters are forbidden of flying above it because, if someone try, the helicopter is pushed/pulled to the inside of it.
I remember I considered this strange on the past, but din't gave much atention, but now that I was reading this discussion, I thought that this seens compatible with the "pressure gravity" you are talking about. Like, sudenly without floor, the new level to achieve stability with the helicopter would be close to the floor of the hole, or if the pilot increase the motor potency to that of a high altitude.

Hum... and other question: what about the gravity below water? Would it be that it decreases the effect of the pressure gravity, so you weight less, but when you are really deep you began to weight more because of the pressure of the water?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Beorn on October 05, 2012, 07:34:20 AM


You're seriously going to respond to levee?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 09:13:57 AM


You're seriously going to respond to levee?
Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Beorn on October 05, 2012, 09:17:11 AM


You're seriously going to respond to levee?
Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.

Why would you do that?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 09:44:02 AM
Levee, I don't want to talk about the spinning gyroscope in this thread. Make a new one and I'll talk to you there. Here it's all about pressure.

What bothers me is that you say gravity can't be true in the atmosphere yet can't even explain how it stays up in your system. You can't claim something is true if you haven't even determined if it works yet.

You also keep saying that the gases should separate but you have failed to say how long it should take. If oil and water can take hours to separate, how long do you think two gases of similar density take to separate?

I believe that you don't really understand the mechanics of settling or density. This is my fault. I should have explained it sooner.


Density is a measure of how tightly packed matter is. It's mass/volume. So a 1kg block of 1m^3 matter has a density of 1.

When an object of more density sits atop an object of less density, gravity pulls the more dense object down with more force than it does the less dense object. This is called weight.

If the less dense object is unable to push back with an equal force, the more dense object goes through depending on the states of matter. For solids, the solid is usually crushed until its density is capable of supporting the heavier object. For liquids and gases the molecules of the less dense object are pushed away to allow the heavier object to move down.

With that in mind the movement down isn't always instant. Pushing through any liquid or gas requires effort and creates drag. A stone falling in a pond will fall slower than in the air because the water resists the stone and slows its descent.

If the force of resistance is great enough, an object of less density can hold up an object of greater density for long periods of time.

So for oxygen and nitrogen to settle requires the force down for the oxygen to be large enough to break through the force the nitrogen has up. This only occurs when no external forces are moving the atoms.

Since wind is always present and the temperature almost never drops below 50c, this never occurs in nature.
In a controlled environment, it can take days or more.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 05, 2012, 09:56:30 AM

Brownian motion, the slow settling of gases is possible ONLY in the absence of the permanent effect of attractive gravity.

Brownian motion is not the slow settling of gases. And Brownian motion works through forces that are many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational pull for gas molecules. You gave the article that made the calculations where a heavy gas molecule inside a lighter gas settles (sediments) to the bottom of the container, but does so at such a slow speed that it is essentially zero.

You are not helping anyone with this discussion. Whether the Earth is flat and finite, flat and infinite, round or square, the only thing that enters this calculation is the existence of acceleration of the molecule towards the floor of the container (which nobody, not even in this forum, denies) and the Brownian movement of the gas that fills the container.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 05, 2012, 11:23:16 AM


You're seriously going to respond to levee?
Yes I seriously did. And will continue to do so.

Why would you do that?
Because I enjoy it. It may be futile as levee is nuts but its a good refresher on basic physics.
Title: Re: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Solmyre on October 06, 2012, 09:28:38 PM
Your own post exemplifies my previous statement; the subterfuge of diverting the discussion to the settling of microscopic particles does not work with me.


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



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


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


Ozone is EXTREMELY reactive and breaks down rapidly.  It is predominantly formed in the stratosphere by the high intensity of oxygen free radicals thanks to the proportionally higher intensity of short-wave UV light.  So yeah...its miscule concentration is higher where it is formed and gets reduced quickly as you move away because it's approximate half life is trivial.

The suggestion about O2 being higher still is spot on, the area in the stratosphere that has a slight amount of ozone in it is still dominated by significantly more O2.  No rules are broken.

Additionally the comments on mixing in regard to gas and density levee suggest a fundamental lack of knowledge in basic gas behavior.  The idea that a gas molecules should loose momentum when impacting an insulator suggests that the molecules the insulator is made from do not vibrate, which is patently false.  All molecules that have any measurable "heat" vibrate relative to this.  Thus as a gas impacts the vibrating object energy is exchanged between them.  If the object is significantly colder, the gas molecules (as a whole) will in fact loose energy which directly impacts their density as they will effectively "take up less space due to not moving as fast".  But this is all on a molecular level. 

Regardless, gasses, all gasses, seek to fill available space.  This means gasses inherently mix and are extremely difficult to perfectly separate.  The comments on small particles are also spot on.  Get a fine enough particle in water and the time it would take to settle is long enough that the slightest disturbance to the water will prevent it from ever settling to any notable degree.  Take that, apply it to gasses along with thermal currents and fluid film layers due to earth's rotation among other things and you've got one seriously well mixed gas layer.

Your arugments about how gravity should separate things out suggests you have only the most rudimentary knowledge of physics as it applies to fluid dynamics and materials science.

Your arguments about ozone suggest you have little knowledge of chemistry or light based chemical reactions.

Bringing up a multitude of other subjects that have nothing to do with atmosphere conditions does not change this.

"realscientist" is spot on.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2012, 01:59:01 AM
Everybody with an IQ above room temperature is on to the con act of our media

Gore Vidal
What temperature scale? F, C or k?

In your case, it is obvious: C.


To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment is one of the best demonstrations that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



We also have the experiments with gyroscopes performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

N.A. Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.


The barometric pressure paradox, the subject of this thread, is also a clear proof that the gases in the atmosphere do not obey an attractive gravity law:

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.



Formulas based on a law of attractive gravity, which is inexistent, are worthless, as are any discussions on the density of gases/liquids, which do not take into account the real cause of gravity: pressure of the telluric currents.





For the other comments...I wrote very clearly from the beginning: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,39823.msg1005453.html#msg1005453 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,39823.msg1005453.html#msg1005453) (ozone layer paradox/mechanics)
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2012, 02:20:13 AM
For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html)

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan, for example, (at 25 degrees N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


A clear confirmation of the following paradox, which shows the current understanding of physics (especially that of our resident engineer, solmyre) is more than rudimentary: it is disastrous.


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.


It is the end of the attractive gravity delusion.


Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 08, 2012, 05:16:47 AM

To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

To invalidate a mathematical theorem it is only necessary to present a single counterexample. To invalidate a scientific theory you need a lot more. What you are saying is a pop culture claim that sounds good but has no substance.

Every scientific theory has a range of conditions for which it has been tested and a number of known experimental errors that are expected. A single experiment with currently unexplained results does not invalidate a whole theory. The experiment has to be repeated several times under different conditions and several steps have to be taken to look for sources of error before the theory is even acknowledged to have an anomaly. If it were not like this, every time a science student tries an experiment a theory would be invalidated.

This is the old logical argument that says that I can never say that all swans are white. Of course, from a logical perspective the argument is true. But from a scientific standpoint it is perfectly reasonable to say that swans are generally white, even though a few black swans were found somewhere in the far East.

If you were truly interested in the science of any of the three or four subjects you are showing you could repeat the experiments here, now, with a good scientist looking at the possible sources of error. Just like with Rowbotham, experiments that were supposedly done decades ago, with no analysis of experimental errors at all, are worth nothing.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 08, 2012, 05:29:31 AM
I like how levee assumes that the pressure of a single location can only change due to the temperature at that location.

It's like he assumes that wind doesn't exist. It's weird.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sokarul on October 08, 2012, 08:57:42 PM
...

To invalidate a theory, according to the accepted principles of science, it is necessary to present a single counterexample.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment is one of the best demonstrations that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



We also have the experiments with gyroscopes performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

N.A. Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.
...
You still keep posting this and it still proves nothing.  Once again, gyroscopes do not defy "attractive gravity". Didn't work the first 20 times you posted it and it's not going to to work the next 20 times.  Give it up. 



Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 09, 2012, 12:13:57 AM
sokarul, your ignorance is truly astounding.


Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.


Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).



http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


A clear proof that the law of attractive gravity IS COMPLETELY FAKE AND FALSE.

The ball spinning at 27,000 RPM had the SAME MASS, and was under the influence of the same supposed law of attractive gravity, however it weighed LESS, and travelled HIGHER than the non-rotating ball.


The greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev discovered the same thing.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.

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


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html)


The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.



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 periodic variation of the barometric pressure measurements defies attractive gravity: IT CONFIRMS THE RESULTS OBTAINED BY DR. T. HENRY MORAY, the periodic variations of the telluric currents.


There is no such thing as attractive gravity: terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of the telluric currents.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2012, 08:16:24 AM
The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.

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.

Did he take into account the gravitational influence of the sun and moon in those maxima and minima measurements?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 09, 2012, 09:51:52 AM
The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.

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.

Did he take into account the gravitational influence of the sun and moon in those maxima and minima measurements?
That would require a date and location. Levee has neither because he never checks other people's work if it agrees with him.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 09, 2012, 02:29:12 PM

To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).

You continue to play with your totally wrong claim. One counterexample would be a devastating blow for a theory if the corresponding experiment is verified to a scientific certainty. In the end, when scientific certainty is achieved a lot of independent experiments have been done. That includes a lot of hard work on all the possible sources of error, which your example has not shown. And it includes independent experiments that show that the anomaly is not just a weird phenomenon caused by poor experiment design. One experiment done by one person is a counterexample, but is not enough to invalidate anything.

But the claim that somebody did an experiment with unknown protocols to control error, and with no verification by peers, with no response to such simple questions as why the experiment was not done in a vacuum, is the same as nothing. There is not even some clarity as to whether the momentum of the rotating ball includes the rotational momentum or just the vertical and horizontal momentum.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 09, 2012, 02:35:28 PM
Flat Earth has been invalidated with multiple inconsistencies yet those aren't enough to convince levee they are false.

You can smell the hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 10, 2012, 12:04:34 AM
Both the DePalma and the Kozyrev experiments were performed in full vacuum; this is a basic requirement, which does not even need to be mentioned...

Both experiments were verified many times over, at MIT, over a period of several years, by Dr. DePalma and his team of scientists (see the links please), and over a period of three decades in the Soviet Union by dozens of researchers (see, again, the bibliography provided).

Both experiments prove clearly that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity: the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart, while weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.



In the official textbook on atmospheric physics only the Sun's heating of the atmosphere is taken into account.

Here is Rayleigh himself describing the situation:

‘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.'


Again, 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 periodic variation of the barometric pressure defies the law of attractive gravity.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 10, 2012, 03:40:59 AM
Levee, your experiment doesn't say what you think it does. According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time. See, he hypothesized that stars keep burning because they are spinning in such a way as to create a time imbalance between the past and future.
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/korotaev_force.pdf (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/korotaev_force.pdf)

So please stop usin that experiment as proof gravity doesn't exist when in reality it proves time like spinning objects.



Also:
If I can show you one instance where pressure changes due to non-temperature forces, will that solve your "paradox"?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 10, 2012, 08:13:07 AM
Both the DePalma and the Kozyrev experiments were performed in full vacuum; this is a basic requirement, which does not even need to be mentioned...

You claim that they are scientists, but that the basic parts of the equipment used, such as the huge vacuum chamber where the balls are thrown, are irrelevant? No wonder why all of the real scientists who are looking for real anomalies in the known Physics theories are looking elsewhere.

Since no such thing as full vacuum exists, and this experiment requires a very sophisticated and big vacuum chamber, the barometric pressure inside the chamber during the test is a critical parameter. A reasonable estimation of the experimental error due to the residual gases inside the chamber should be a central part of the presentation of the experiment to peers.

And the graph you are presenting shows that the two balls did not leave the device used to throw them at the same speed. Any half competent scientist sees this graph and immediately finds a lot of questions you have not answered.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 10, 2012, 10:40:59 AM
Quote from: levee
The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of engineers/scientists who worked with the late Dr. Bruce DePalma, PhD, researcher at MIT,  (read the link to see the perfect conditions for vacuum were complied with).

It was carefully performed, as we can see from the undeniable data:

http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (http://www.depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html)



This is the perfect example of the misunderstandings in Science for which I bother posting in this forum. The very bad science shown in this link should make any beginner or amateur scientist scream his head off. If you want to learn science you should look at these results and learn.

First, commercial gravimeters have a precision of some 10 microgals, which means a precision of about 0.01 parts per million. And this is a portable unit (Micro G LaCoste A-10), not even a state of the art non-portable unit! Even if you want to give yourself a good margin of error, you are measuring the acceleration of a ball falling through vacuum with an error of 0.1 parts per million. In this experiment the error is more than 3000 parts per million!

Your scientific knowledge should tell you immediately that this is a poorly implemented experiment. Four orders of magnitude worse than the commercially available gravimeter! Like measuring amoebas with your kid's ruler!

Now, look at the results in the table that shows all the 20 ball drops. All the results on the "rotating" column except for two are slower than the fastest result on the "non-rotating" column! Even a quick glance at this table should tell you that there is nothing compelling in these results, but the author tries to show them as the demise for known Physics!

I do not want to enter in a complex discussion on statistics, but I can tell you that the standard deviations shown here are a textbook example of the misuse of the Bell Curve and of the intent of standard deviations. The author has not even shown that the data follows a Bell Curve, and has not shown in the least that the calculated standard deviation is the phenomenon's deviation and not the sample's deviation!

As a simple example of the error in the standard deviation calculation, just think of this experiment:
 - I throw the ball twice on a roulette  with numbers from 1 to 40, and get the results 5 and 14.
 - I then calculate the average and standard deviation for my data, getting an average of 9.5 and a standard deviation of 6.4, so I declare that in this roulette a result of 40 is almost 5 standard deviations from the average, and it is an almost impossible result. But we know that 40 is exactly as probable as any other number. Standard deviations do not even have any significance in this case!

So, look at the table in the link given, and learn how bad science looks like.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sokarul on October 10, 2012, 09:03:42 PM
sokarul, your ignorance is truly astounding.

lol
Quote
Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.
What was the hypothesis of his experiment? What did he write about the non spinning ball? "Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.  If you would read what he said you would see he only makes the claim that spinning bodies act differently in a gravitational field. His own hypothesis claims that gravitation is real.  You are the only one making the claim that his experiment defies the law of "attractive gravity".   

Quote
Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Nope, you are just unable to comprehend the advanced physics required to answer why gyroscopes and other spinning objects act differently then non spinning objects.   
Quote
To invalidate the law of attractive gravity, we only need a single counterexample (fakescientist, do your homework...).
Still incorrect, no matter how many times you try to claim it.  He addressed this. 


Quote
http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


A clear proof that the law of attractive gravity IS COMPLETELY FAKE AND FALSE.
Why does the non spinning ball act normal?

Quote
The ball spinning at 27,000 RPM had the SAME MASS, and was under the influence of the same supposed law of attractive gravity, however it weighed LESS, and travelled HIGHER than the non-rotating ball.
Once again so maybe you answer it, why does the non spinning ball act normal?
Quote
The greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev discovered the same thing.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.

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


http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html (http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html)


The laevorotatory rotation of the gyroscopes violates the law of attractive gravity: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE WEIGHS LESS.
What calculations did you due to come up with this?

Now for everyone to see for themselves the nature of gyroscopes, here is a youtube video I posted in the past to address leeve's claim.
Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov (http://#)

Pretty neat video.  No physics were broken in the making of the video.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2012, 02:04:35 AM
rscientist, do not try to bullshit your way through this thread, it won't work with me.

And the graph you are presenting shows that the two balls did not leave the device used to throw them at the same speed. Any half competent scientist sees this graph and immediately finds a lot of questions you have not answered.

It is an error DUE TO THE GRAPHICS USED, not the experiment itself!

(http://www.evert.de/eft907a.jpg)

Here are the results of the experiment where better graphics were used:

(http://www.evert.de/eft907b.jpg)


It is devious for you to resort to this kind to trickery to try to fool the readers.


You have not addressed the essential feature of the DePalma experiment:


The spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.


This experiment alone is enough to show that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/ (http://www.brucedepalma.com/n-machine/spinning-ball-experiment/)

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



First, commercial gravimeters have a precision of some 10 microgals, which means a precision of about 0.01 parts per million. And this is a portable unit (Micro G LaCoste A-10), not even a state of the art non-portable unit! Even if you want to give yourself a good margin of error, you are measuring the acceleration of a ball falling through vacuum with an error of 0.1 parts per million. In this experiment the error is more than 3000 parts per million!



The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf (http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf)


The requirements for accuracy in absolute gravity measurements are much the same for the geodesist and the metrologist. An accuracy of one part in a million is critically needed and an accuracy of one or two parts in ten million would be most desirable.

http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/techreports/PDF/NBS107.pdf (http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/techreports/PDF/NBS107.pdf)

Therefore your statement is false and misleading; no real science, just bullshit on your part.


FURTHERMORE, the Micro-g LaCoste A-10 is a field stated industry standard, and has proved itself in environments as extreme as the high Arctic and the deserts of the Middle East.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/MgL_A10.pdf (http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/MgL_A10.pdf)

The A10 operates by using a free-fall method. An object is dropped inside a vacuum chamber and its position is monitored very accurately using a laser interferometer.  In 2004, the BIPM (Bureau International de Poids et Mesures) proclaimed the ballistic freefall method as an official primary method for measuring gravity.


The publicity material of the manufacturer shows examples where precision better than 1 μGal is reached (Micro-g LaCoste, Inc., 2010). The results of gravity measurements with the A10 gravimeter performed during last decade by different research teams show a steadily
improved performance (Liard and Gagnon; 2002; Duquenne et al, 2005; Schmerge and Francis, 2006; Kryński and Roguski, 2009; Bonvalot et al., 2009, Falk et al., 2009, Nielsen et al. 2010). Under laboratory conditions, the quality of the measurements is clearly better than that specifi ed by the manufacturer. Also the results of recent field measurements are very promising.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml)

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.


The gyro drop proves that the rotating gyroscope falls faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


Now, look at the results in the table that shows all the 20 ball drops. All the results on the "rotating" column except for two are slower than the fastest result on the "non-rotating" column! Even a quick glance at this table should tell you that there is nothing compelling in these results, but the author tries to show them as the demise for known Physics!

http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html)

(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)

Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


What did you say? Known Physics? Nowhere in the Principia does Newton mention attractive gravity; on the contrary, he dismisses this known law in no uncertain terms:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”


Newton calls your whimsical belief in the law of attractive gravity an absurdity, he tells that YOU have no competent faculty of thinking to believe in such a thing.

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

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'



sokarul...these are the upper forums; you need to go back to a junior forum.

"Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.

But he does.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2012, 02:24:30 AM
According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time

I SPECIFIED from the very first messages on gravity/ether, years ago, that Dr. N. Kozyrev discovered that our terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of telluric currents, more exactly, the DEXTROROTATORY WAVES/CURRENTS. For Kozyrev time = terrestrial gravity, this is his extrarordinary discovery. More details about the Kozyrev time theory in my message at the relativity thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new)
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 11, 2012, 03:36:03 AM
According to N.A.Kozyrev, the rotation is actually the force of time

I SPECIFIED from the very first messages on gravity/ether, years ago, that Dr. N. Kozyrev discovered that our terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of telluric currents, more exactly, the DEXTROROTATORY WAVES/CURRENTS. For Kozyrev time = terrestrial gravity, this is his extrarordinary discovery. More details about the Kozyrev time theory in my message at the relativity thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1399626.html#new)
Wow...

So let me make sure I understand you right.
A guy postuletes that spinning energy alters the flow of time and creates an imbalance between the past and future as a way to explain why stars burn so long.
You then tell me be found something else that you can't even explain, provide math for, or detect in any meaningful way. Especially since we have objects spinning at millions of rpm yet never do they float. And through all this, you can't possibly be wrong.

Am I right?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 11, 2012, 03:55:31 AM
Two follow up questions:
1. The rotating gyroscope would cause vibrations in the box it's in. Even minor vibrations could have caused the clasp mechanism to hold onto the metal box for a few instances longer. How was that accounted for or eliminated?

2. If it weighs less, why did he drop it and not just weigh it? Surely the scale would show it weighed less when running then not?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2012, 04:27:59 AM
The experiments carried out by both DePalma and Kozyrev and very simple and straightforward.

Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm)




KOZYREV, TIME, AETHER, TORSION:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30 (http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30)



The gyro drop was performed in the USA; I do not know yet of Kozyrev's gyro drop experiments, he used extensively the rotating gyroscope to prove the inexistence of attractive gravity.


KOZYREV ON TIME:

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt (http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt)



You have failed again to address the main points:

The spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart in Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics.



The weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation in Dr. N. Kozyrev's experiments; these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail and they have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.[
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2012, 04:46:45 AM
The gravitational acceleration on the Earth's surface is of order 980 Gal, measuring gravity to 1 microgal requires a resolution of approximately 1 part per billion; building a mechanical-optical-electronic instrument to operate reliably under field conditions with the required precision is clearly a technological challenge.

http://principles.ou.edu/grav_ex/absolute.html (http://principles.ou.edu/grav_ex/absolute.html)



The current instrumental accuracy estimate for the FG5 gravity meter is 1.1 microGal, or about one part per billion of the gravitational acceleration (g) at the Earth's surface.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GRAVITY/ABSG.html (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GRD/GRAVITY/ABSG.html)


http://www.bkg.bund.de/nn_149572/EN/FederalOffice/Geodesy/RefSys/NatRefGrav/Grav02__node.html__nnn=true (http://www.bkg.bund.de/nn_149572/EN/FederalOffice/Geodesy/RefSys/NatRefGrav/Grav02__node.html__nnn=true) (comparison of FG-5 and the LaCoste A-10 gravimeters)


http://books.google.ro/books?id=XwYWcXVIXGkC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=micro+g+gravimeter+fg5+lacoste+A-10&source=bl&ots=qC_SC5BLWT&sig=bVlKc0tATxOntdahOrod5etvLrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RbF2UILXLK6P4gTk0ICQCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=micro%20g%20gravimeter%20fg5%20lacoste%20A-10&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=XwYWcXVIXGkC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=micro+g+gravimeter+fg5+lacoste+A-10&source=bl&ots=qC_SC5BLWT&sig=bVlKc0tATxOntdahOrod5etvLrE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RbF2UILXLK6P4gTk0ICQCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=micro%20g%20gravimeter%20fg5%20lacoste%20A-10&f=false)


Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 11, 2012, 05:00:59 AM
If it was done thousands of times, why is there only one data table of 20 trials (13 and 7)? They aren't even the same number of trials for each condition.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 11, 2012, 05:58:20 AM

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf (http://www.microglacoste.com/pdf/A-10Manual.pdf)

... and a lot of more of the same ...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml)

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.

Such a long description on how the acceptable errors in this field are, at worst, of one part per million. I agree with you. And you show us an experiment with actual, measured experimental error of about 3000 parts per million! That is one part in 300! The experiment is orders of magnitude too filled with error to be compared with the worst acceptable measurements in the field, and you still argue?

This is as if I asked you what the world record in 100 meters is, and you answer "somewhere around 5 to 15 seconds, because I measured it by singing and counting my words".

Anyone with even a passing interest in experimental Physics should look at the results of this experiment and laugh. They were not even capable of letting a ball drop and get a reasonably precise measurement of the time it took to fall.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 11, 2012, 06:09:11 AM
(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)

Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

This gem requires a post just for itself. For anyone interested in serious Science, pay attention:

    The above is called cherry picking, and will get you dismissed from any serious Science program at any serious university!

You do not get to choose the results you like and discard the rest. Ever. If you additionally hide the results you do not like and get caught, any career in Science is over.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2012, 02:23:37 AM
I told you that tricks do not work with me.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

The requirements for accuracy in absolute gravity measurements are much the same for the geodesist and the metrologist. An accuracy of one part in a million is critically needed and an accuracy of one or two parts in ten million would be most desirable.


The gravitational acceleration on the Earth's surface is of order 980 Gal, measuring gravity to 1 microgal requires a resolution of approximately 1 part per billion; building a mechanical-optical-electronic instrument to operate reliably under field conditions with the required precision is clearly a technological challenge.


CAN YOU MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE MILLION AND ONE BILLION?


Let me repeat: the FG-5 gravimeter has a precision of one micro-Gal (µGal) - which means a resolution of approximately 1 part per BILLION.

The worst case scenario for the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter is 10 µGal.

But, as we have seen, contrary to your mischevious statements, the publicity material of the manufacturer shows examples where precision better than 1 μGal is reached (Micro-g LaCoste, Inc., 2010). The results of gravity measurements with the A10 gravimeter performed during last decade by different research teams show a steadily
improved performance (Liard and Gagnon; 2002; Duquenne et al, 2005; Schmerge and Francis, 2006; Kryński and Roguski, 2009; Bonvalot et al., 2009, Falk et al., 2009, Nielsen et al. 2010). Under laboratory conditions, the quality of the measurements is clearly better than that specifi ed by the manufacturer. Also the results of recent field measurements are very promising.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml (http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/1995-2003/99144e.shtml)

J. M. Brown, T. M. Niebauer, B. Richter, F. J. Klopping, J. G. Valentine, and W. K. Buxton, “Miniaturized gravimeter may greatly improve measurements”: On the micro-g lacoste A-10 merits.


Even with the worst case scenario, of 10 µGal, WE ARE WELL WITHIN the accepted margin of 1 part per MILLION precision.


The experiment for the gyro drop was performed perfectly, using the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter (a field stated industry standard, which has proved itself in environments as extreme as the high Arctic and the deserts of the Middle East), using extremely precise clock measurements.


The runs from 3 to 7, the ones performed WITH THE ROTATING GYROSCOPE (remember that 13 runs were done with the non-rotating gyroscope, and SEVEN runs with the rotating gyroscope), here is a summary:

(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop2.jpg)

For the runs from 3 to 7 we have precise documentation, which does show that the rotating gyroscope does fall FASTER than the non-rotating gyroscope:

(http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop3.jpg)


These figures WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE had there been any attractive gravity in existence; they CONFIRM totally and absolutely what I. Newton declared in the previously mentioned statements: terrestrial gravity is caused by the pressure exerted by the telluric currents.



Dr. N. Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the 20th century, by far. In comparison to him, Einstein, Minkowsky, Rutherford, Born and the rest are just pikers.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/torsion/torsion2.htm)
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 12, 2012, 03:22:45 AM
Why are there 13 non-spinning trials and only 7 spinning trials? Why weren't they done with the same number of trials?

Also: why drop them if you can weigh them? Wouldn't that produce more accurate results?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 12, 2012, 03:44:53 AM
It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).



Now, a complete confirmation that the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter does provide accuracy to within 1 PART PER BILLION.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf (http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf) (Jennifer Hare from Micro-g LaCoste Inc.)

Other specialized instruments such as the INO sea-floor gravity meter, Gravilog
borehole gravity meter, and the rugged A-10 portable absolute gravity meter can acquire part per billion (microGal) resolution data in environments that were considered inaccessible as recently as ten years ago. 


Exactly what I have been saying in my last two messages proving that real(?!)scientist was playing with the numbers in order to falsify the data: the accuracy is ONE PART PER BILLION, and NOT one part per million.  Therefore we are well within the required/accepted margin of error.


Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 12, 2012, 05:03:15 AM
I told you that tricks do not work with me.

You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing that you do not know what experimental error is, but want to rant about experimental error none-the-less.

In this post I will talk only about the non-rotating balls that were thrown, because it is the easiest part.

In this experiment they throw a box of some kind and get differences of up to 0.0036 seconds in a 0.66 second drop. This means that, at the very least, we know that there is an experimental error of at least 0.0036/0.66 = 0.0055, or 0.55%!  And this is just what you see when you look at the differences between their own results. This does not include any error which may have affected all results equally. And 0.55% error is one part in 182, which I generously improved to one part in 300 in my last post by not using the worst results (which is not valid in real scientific papers).

Now we are getting a wall of blabber about how in the exact same experiment (throwing a ball and timing its fall to calculate the local gravitational pull) others get errors in the range from 1 part in a million to 1 part in a billion. The fact that others do the same measurement several orders of magnitude better should be enough to get de Palma and his people running and hiding in total embarrassment. It should also send levee into accepting that these results are worth nothing, but he just writes another wall of blabber.

Whoever wants to repeat de Palma's experiment is welcome to do so. But he must know that the quality of the results has to be orders of magnitude better than what you see here. Whatever the acceleration of a ball is in your location, that acceleration is constant to within small fractions of one part in a million. If your experiment shows some balls fall 0.55% faster than others, and those are just plain balls without rotating pieces inside, you are doing an astonishingly bad experiment.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 12, 2012, 06:10:02 AM
It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).



Now, a complete confirmation that the LaCoste A-10 gravimeter does provide accuracy to within 1 PART PER BILLION.

http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf (http://scintrexltd.com/dat/content/file/Gravity%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf) (Jennifer Hare from Micro-g LaCoste Inc.)

Other specialized instruments such as the INO sea-floor gravity meter, Gravilog
borehole gravity meter, and the rugged A-10 portable absolute gravity meter can acquire part per billion (microGal) resolution data in environments that were considered inaccessible as recently as ten years ago. 


Exactly what I have been saying in my last two messages proving that real(?!)scientist was playing with the numbers in order to falsify the data: the accuracy is ONE PART PER BILLION, and NOT one part per million.  Therefore we are well within the required/accepted margin of error.
This is absolutely hilarious. Let me separate it in small phrases so even levee understands his own logic:

Where did levee learn logic? Where did he learn that the specifications and performance of one machine can be assigned to another?

In reality, every explorer who uses gravimetry knows that measurements of "g" that jump up to 0.55% are impossible on Earth unless they are taken in the middle of an earthquake, so an experimental setup that gets that kind of result is severely damaged or has insanely poor design.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Solmyre on October 13, 2012, 02:55:38 AM
I told you that tricks do not work with me.

You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing that you do not know what experimental error is, but want to rant about experimental error none-the-less.


I do not mean to ride on your coat tails but its been a damn busy week and this sums up my own thoughts rather concisely.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 13, 2012, 08:02:05 AM
It seems those 7 trials runs were enough to show that the rotating gyroscope does fall faster than its non-rotating counterpart.
That's not how science works.  And with the values being as wild as they are, the extra 6 trails could have thrown the average off.
For example.  If you remove the last 6 trials in the non-rotating ball, you get an average of 0.6617 instead of 0.66203.  That's a 0.00033 second difference.  That changes things a lot doesn't it?

Also: I've taken the liberty of making you a new graph since yours makes no sense.  (the height changes when you drop it?)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Lord_dave/GyroscopeDrop.png)
It's kinda weird looking actually.  The first two trials proves you wrong then it goes down hill from there with the gap seemingly becoming wider yet nothing changing between trials.  How odd....

I found a video with this experiment and it's far more convincing than this.
Bruce DePalma gyroscope experiment test (http://#ws)


An interesting note:
A japanese team did the gyroscope drop and found the OPPOSITE effect.
http://www.josephnewman.com/Falling_Gyroscope_Experiment.html (http://www.josephnewman.com/Falling_Gyroscope_Experiment.html)

Quote
The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning
According to the DePalma experiment, it took less time to drop it, creating an INCREASE in gravitational force. 

Quote
I already explained that Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiments, while the research team of Dr. DePalma concentrated on the gyro drop experiment (in addition, of course to the superb Spinning Ball Experiment already discussed here).
Isn't that the same experiment?  The rotating gyroscope drop?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2012, 12:15:57 AM
rc, you have shown yourself to be a fraud: you had no idea that the A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of one part per billion, well within the accepted margin of error of one part per million.

Your "analysis" amounts to nothing, again, your calculations are wrong, you cannot divide the difference by the total amount, and then compare this to the one part per million/billion accuracy, you obviously HAVE NO IDEA what is going on, and are continuing the usual bullshit routine.


lorddave, Kozyrev performed the rotating gyroscope experiment.

Runs 3-7 could not have happened had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, that is how science works, no matter what you say.

Your link IS A JOKE, as the author cannot explain the fact that the Japanese researchers found the same anomaly, his pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 15, 2012, 01:59:48 AM
rc, you have shown yourself to be a fraud: you had no idea that the A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of one part per billion, well within the accepted margin of error of one part per million.

And how on Earth does the accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter help de Palma's people, who did not use one and instead made a dreadfully poor machine for the experiment? Your argument still is that de Palma's experiment is accurate because the A-10 is accurate. That is the same as saying that I am the world 100 meter dash champion because Usain Bolt is the accepted champion and I declare myself better.

You have shown for the umpteenth time that you do not know the first thing about calculating experimental error, or even the first thing about understanding a scientific article.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 15, 2012, 09:11:48 AM
Runs 3-7 could not have happened had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, that is how science works, no matter what you say.
Then explain why 28% of the data is contradictory.

Quote
Your link IS A JOKE, as the author cannot explain the fact that the Japanese researchers found the same anomaly, his pseudoexplanation amounts to nothing.
Actually it was the opposite. They found that it took LONGER to fall, not less time. Kozyrev showed that in 5 trials out of 7 that the spinning gyroscope took LESS time to fall.

Which one is right because they can't both be.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 01:49:38 AM
The A-10 gravimeter is the industry standard with an accuracy well within the accepted limit of one part per million. By the way, realscientist, why are you trying so hard to become trig's alt?


LORDDAVE, you do not pay attention to our discussion.

Nikolai Kozyrev performed the ROTATING gyroscope experiment, NOT the gyro drop experiment.


The gyro drop experiment was done by the team of Dr. Bruce DePalma.

You should be able to explain now, given what you have learned so far, why runs 3-7 defy attractive gravity: telluric currents (ether) increase their density around the gravimeter, the longer the experiment goes on.


Why do you not pay attention to your own links, lorddave?

In the London Sunday Telegraph of 21 Sept. 1997, Robert Matthews reports that "a team of Japanese scientists have spun up a gyroscope to 18000 rpm and dropped it through a distance of 63 inches in vacuo. The time taken to fall this distance was 1/25000 sec. longer than when the gyroscope was not spinning, corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part in 7000. The effect only occurred when the gyroscope was spinning anticlockwise.

Anticlockwise = dextrorotatory spin = an INCREASE in the dextrorotatory type of telluric currents, therefore, an increase in the pressure gravity exerted on the object; it confirms the findings of Dr. Kozyrev.


A LAEVOROTATORY spin means an increase of the antigravitational telluric currents with the same spin, therefore, a loss of weight.



Now, more proofs that there is no such thing as attractive gravity, read the following material very carefully.




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

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

Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.



BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

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

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.


Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

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


High voltage Biefeld-Brown experiments (very well documented):

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm)




http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown)

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html (http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html)


VIDEOS with the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect:


# (http://#) (antigravitational effect begins at about 1:33)


# (http://#)


Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 16, 2012, 03:26:30 AM
If an increase in spin means a loss in acceleration ( weight is irrelevant to drop speed) then why did depalma (I use rotating gyroscope to describe the rotating gyroscope drop) find that his rotating gyroscope took less time to fall than the Japanese?  According to you, a rotating gyroscope increases the currents which increases the acceleration down (gravity) which should cause it to fall faster with each trial.

The Japanese did not see this.



Also: nice videos of the Biefeld-Brown effect. They look fake but ill go with them.
But why do you think it's anti-gravity? Do you think magnets are anti-gravity? Superconductors?
Do you believe that a wire with an AC current going through it defies gravity when put between a horse-shoe magnet?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 04:17:10 AM
Those videos are not fakes: they exhibit the BIEFELD-BROWN effect - the link between electricity and terrestrial gravity.

A dextrorotatory gyroscope increases the weight (it attracts MORE dextrorotatory telluric currents); a laevorotatory gyroscope will lose a part of its weight because of the antigravitational effect of the same type of telluric currents.

The laevorotatory telluric currents can be attracted by using sound, electrical charge and laevorotatory rotation/spin.



If an increase in spin means a loss in acceleration

In the gyro drop experiment an increased acceleration was noticed in its rotating mode.



why did depalma (I use rotating gyroscope to describe the rotating gyroscope drop) find that his rotating gyroscope took less time to fall than the Japanese?

Dr. Bruce DePalma performed the SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT: A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and travelled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



I already explained why the rotating gyroscope drop (the experiment done by the team of Dr. Bruce DePalma) took less time to fall then in the experiment performed in Japan.

Anticlockwise = dextrorotatory spin = an INCREASE in the dextrorotatory type of telluric currents, therefore, an increase in the pressure gravity exerted on the object; it confirms the findings of Dr. Kozyrev.


A LAEVOROTATORY spin means an increase of the antigravitational telluric currents with the same spin, therefore, a loss of weight.





They did actually see exactly what you described: According to you, a rotating gyroscope increases the currents which increases the acceleration down (gravity) which should cause it to fall faster with each trial. (runs 3-7) - remember though that the influence of telluric currents depends also on other factors (see the message with Keely and the other experiments).



But why do you think it's anti-gravity? Do you think magnets are anti-gravity? Superconductors?
Do you believe that a wire with an AC current going through it defies gravity when put between a horse-shoe magnet?


A magnetic field is made up of the same type of waves/strings/currents as in the telluric currents.

Here are the correct diagrams for a magnetic field:

http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg (http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg)
http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif (http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif)


Notice TWO currents: laevorotatory and dextrorotatory double torsion strings at both N-S poles of the magnet.


The Biefeld-Brown is antigravitational because the flow/vibration of the laevorotatory subquark strings in the atoms of the disk/object used are increased to a certain degree. This causes in turn MORE telluric currents (especially laevorotatory) to be attracted to the disk/object forming a kind of tornado around the object itself - this is actually the antigravitational effect seen in the videos.



The Vril secret society (1936-1945) used the double torsion effect to maximum effect to power an UFO, and also observed certain superconducting features in their experiments.


“The Nazi Bell device consisted two of counter-rotating cylindrical containers. The containers, which were positioned one above the other measured approximately 1-meter diameter, and were filled with cryogenically cooled and frozen Mercury metal. There was a frozen core of a metallic paste, which served as a “high permeability material” for the EMG (electromagnetic-gravitational) field.”

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_antigravity01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_antigravity01.htm)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf)

In their terminology, XERUM = Mercury in fourth state of ether (for the classification of the ether states please see: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new)

Superconductivity means that the flow of the bosons/antibosons which make up the subquark vortices (and thus, in turn, the telluric currents) is greatly eased, as opposed to usual temperatures in conducting materials.



A horse-shoe magnet with a wire or capacitor is called the Linden Experiment please see:

http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/lindenexp.htm (http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/lindenexp.htm)

(http://www.wanttoknow.info/methernitatestatika_files/linden.gif)

http://www.testatika-berichte.richard-taube.de/ (http://www.testatika-berichte.richard-taube.de/)

Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 16, 2012, 05:11:54 AM
Now I understand. You're renaming magnetism and electric fields with aether currents. Ok that makes sense.

Still doesn't make it anti-gravity though. At least no more anti-gravity than a plane.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 05:32:32 AM
ANTIGRAVITY = any increase in the laevorotatory strings/waves being attracted by sound/electrical charge/torsion, which in turn will activate the laevorotatory subquarks (tachyons) of the atoms of the object being experimented upon.

This is how the Tibetans levitate those huge blocks of stones, not to mention the monolith at Baalbek, by increasing the vibration of the laevorotatory subquarks of the stones.


(http://c21553.r53.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/ballom.jpg)

(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_3.jpg)

Recently an even larger monolith was discovered at Baalbek:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Baalbek-_largest_stone.jpg/800px-Baalbek-_largest_stone.jpg)

(http://ancientmystery.info/Baalbek-old-photo.jpg)

(http://c21553.r53.cf1.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/batrilit.jpg)

(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_4.gif)

Three blocks, weight 1000 tons each


Seven blocks, each weighing 400 tons


Fourteen blocks, each weighing 300 tons


Hills slope away from where lifting apparatus would need to have been placed and no evidence has been found of a flat and structurally firm surface having been constructed (and then mysteriously removed after the lifting was done). Furthermore, not just one obelisk was erected but rather a series of giant stones were precisely put in place side-by-side. Due to the positioning of these stones, there is simply no conceivable place where a huge pulley apparatus could have been stationed. Archaeologists, unable to resolve the mysteries of the transportation and lifting of the great blocks, rarely have the intellectual honesty to admit their ignorance of the matter and therefore focus their attention solely on redundant measurements and discussions regarding the verifiable Roman-era temples at the site.

The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.


http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek6/baalbek6.html (http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek6/baalbek6.html)

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek7/baalbek7.html (http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of_the_World/Baalbek/Baalbek7/baalbek7.html)

Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 16, 2012, 01:43:50 PM
Laevorotatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextrorotation_and_levorotation) - The rotating (counter-clockwise) plane of polarized light.
Strings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) - The theory that sub-atomic particles like squarks are not 0 dimensional objects but 1 dimensional oscillating lines.  Strings are not waves.
Charges are not torsions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_%28pseudoscience%29).  Or did you mean torsions as in twisting.  In which case they're REALLY not the same. 
subquarks (Preons) aren't very well defined to begin with so I'm curious how a 0 dimensional item can be a laevorotatory. (ie. rotate a plane of light) considering lightwaves(and all EM waves) are much larger than these things.
Tachyons are theoretical particles, not Preons.

You've just had a massive quantum mechanical fail.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 16, 2012, 07:14:33 PM
The A-10 gravimeter is the industry standard with an accuracy well within the accepted limit of one part per million. By the way, realscientist, why are you trying so hard to become trig's alt?

For the fifth time or so I am agreeing with you that the A-10 gravimeter is well within one part per million in error. And for about the fifth time I am saying the same myself. Nobody is disagreeing with you in this fact, which also nobody cares to challenge.

The question continues to be: why did De Palma and his people not use an A-10 or similar gravimeter but instead made one by themselves which has an astounding 1 part in 300 minimum demonstrated error? It is as if I offered you a state of the art chronometer to time a race and you decided to use a sand clock instead.

And then you want to make some other kind of twisted appeal to authority? Because I seem to you like some other guy/gal you assign your trouble understanding basic experimental error to whatever you do not like about someone who is not even in this discussion?

If you want to rant about experimental error, rant against lorddave. He has shown your elemental mistakes in understanding experimental error as much as I have.

And the other readers of this thread, take this opportunity to learn a little bit about experimental error. Never mind whether the Earth is round, square or cubic. You will get a very simple lesson on one of the most important subjects in Science.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2012, 11:50:18 PM
The A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of approximately one part per BILLION, thus well within the margin of error of one part per million.

Your calculations are wrong, I repeat: you cannot divide the difference by the total (units of time) and compare this to the one part per million figure, please try to understand this.


lorddave, please read up on strings/waves/torsion physics (I included links to the detection of subquarks/preons, all you have to do is read):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new)
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 17, 2012, 02:34:02 AM

Your calculations are wrong, I repeat: you cannot divide the difference by the total (units of time) and compare this to the one part per million figure, please try to understand this.

Of course you can, and should take the difference and divide it by the total in this case. We know that the gravitational pull does not change more than a few parts per million on any given location on Earth. In fact, the differences of 0.55% shown in these measurements are not even possible if some of the measurements were taken in Mexico City and some in Oslo. You can check here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth) to see that Mexico City and Oslo are among the ones with lowest and highest gravitational pull, respectively.

This is Experimental Physics 101: If you measure something that is constant in your experiment and some of the measurements you make are changing by 0.55%, your experimental error is at least 0.55%, and maybe a lot more!

If the gravitational pull really changed by 0.55% in your home, you should be able to weigh a 5 kg bag of salt with any digital kitchen scale and see differences of 27 grams between measurements! An ordinary digital kitchen scale would be enough to see differences in gravitational pull in my very own home!
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 17, 2012, 02:50:34 AM
lorddave, please read up on strings/waves/torsion physics (I included links to the detection of subquarks/preons, all you have to do is read):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401109.html#new)
I have a working knowledge of physics levee. And you are not any kind of expert on the subject (obvious by your gross misuse of terms). Why would I read anything you wrote in that post and think its accurate?  It would be like me explaining Swahili to you.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: markjo on October 17, 2012, 05:27:39 AM
The A-10 gravimeter has an accuracy of approximately one part per BILLION, thus well within the margin of error of one part per million.

That's nice Levee, now can you show us where they actually used an A-10 gravimeter in the experiments?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: randomism on October 17, 2012, 07:32:21 AM
Repeatability is a lower bound for accuracy (relative or absolute). I'm amazed that someone would actually argue against this. How can a result be accurate if you can't get the same result repeatedly? Usually short term repeatability of a measuring device is much better than its absolute or even relative accuracy.

When trying new measurement strategies at work repeatability is the first thing we look for - if the repeatability error is much worse than the expected error of the existing method (and we can't figure out a way to reduce it) then it's automatically thrown out.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 17, 2012, 08:25:05 AM
Repeatability is a lower bound for accuracy (relative or absolute). I'm amazed that someone would actually argue against this. How can a result be accurate if you can't get the same result repeatedly? Usually short term repeatability of a measuring device is much better than its absolute or even relative accuracy.

When trying new measurement strategies at work repeatability is the first thing we look for - if the repeatability error is much worse than the expected error of the existing method (and we can't figure out a way to reduce it) then it's automatically thrown out.
It is actually very nice to see more people understanding experimental error. A very common way to see what you are saying is when you have an un-calibrated measuring apparatus. Even when all the measurements are more or less repeatable, they are all off. But if you measure, for example, a new battery with a voltmeter and the measurement can't be repeated, you immediately know that either the voltmeter or the battery are damaged.

In this case, when the non-rotating falling times were all over the place, they should have thrown out the experiment's design, just as you say. They should have known that their equipment, which relies on a ball passing through a light beam, is already some decades obsolete. If you do not use interferometry, just as in the A-10 gravimeter, you will never be even close to acceptable precision.

Now that some people have shown that they understand at least the basics of experimental error, it would be nice to discuss how incredibly wrong the statistical analysis of the data from the experiment was. To say that the standard deviation is this much and therefore the probability of a correct result was, in this experiment, of more than 97%, is enough subject for an entirely new thread.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 18, 2012, 12:05:51 AM
markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.


rs, you cannot divide a difference in a time interval by the total (units of time) and COMPARE this to another unit of measure being used.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

You cannot compare units of time (seconds) with units of gravity measurement (micro-gals).


lorddave, must I remind you of the facts?

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups.

But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case.
Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.
  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.



The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always
occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.


The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.  No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.


http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf)



Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 18, 2012, 03:11:36 AM
markjo, read this thread again: the RE want an A-10 gravimeter.


rs, you cannot divide a difference in a time interval by the total (units of time) and COMPARE this to another unit of measure being used.

The nominal gravity is given as 980cm/s^2 = 980Gal.  Gravity measurements are often given in units of micro-gals:  1 μGal = 10^-6Gal.  One micro-Gal (µGal) precision requires a measurement of the earth’s field with a precision of 1 part in 10^9(1 part/billion).

You cannot compare units of time (seconds) with units of gravity measurement (micro-gals).

You just don't know when to stop showing your ignorance. The way in which the experiment is designed, where an object's final part of its fall is measured with a light beam at the start of this final run and another at the end, essentially measures the final speed of the object. Therefore the experiment's results, shown in seconds, are the inverse of final speed. And since the objects are thrown from the same height, and since acceleration is the derivative of speed, acceleration is proportional to final speed.

You would have some reason to your argument if we were comparing two very similar estimations of error, since the exact positions of the light beams could require us to insert a small correction, up to a factor of two. But you have not even started to understand the humongous error in de Palma's experiment. One part in 300 in the observed error in an experiment that could be done with one part per million?

And why are you using bold letters to emphasize what we already know, and which only demolishes your argument? When de Palma or his people repeat their experiment with a repeat ability comparable with a micro-Gal, we can talk again.

I cannot understand your message to markjo. I can only guess you no longer can back up your argument with complete sentences.
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 18, 2012, 03:13:50 AM
Levee, your attempts to distract me from the topic won't work. You have proven yourself to be a fraud. I have seen through your ruse. If you can't stick to the topic of the thread, perhaps you should give up?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: sandokhan on October 19, 2012, 12:05:06 AM
There is no one part in 300 error; your calculations are wrong. You cannot compare units of time with units of gravity measurements, unless you have lost your mind.

The accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter is one part per billion, no other comments are needed here.


ld, the antigravitational effects seen and measured precisely by Dr. DePalma and Dr. Kozyrev are DIRECTLY RELATED to the precise and correct structure of the atom: you have not been able, so far, to bring any meaningful arguments to prove anything useful relating to our topic here.

Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.


Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".



In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.



Exactly the findings mentioned by none other than Sir Isaac Newton:

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

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'

Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 19, 2012, 01:30:13 AM
There is no one part in 300 error; your calculations are wrong. You cannot compare units of time with units of gravity measurements, unless you have lost your mind.

The accuracy of the A-10 gravimeter is one part per billion, no other comments are needed here.
Levee can only repeat "your calculations are wrong" (of course, without showing why or doing your own calculations of error) because he is talking about a subject he does not understand.

The problem is as simple as this, and everyone except levee has understood it: if you cannot let an object fall and measure its time to fall a given distance with an error of less than, say, one part per million, you should not be doing experiments related to gravitational pull on Earth. We know that the changes in the local gravitational pull are minuscule (less than one part per million on any given day) so the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance is also constant to less than one part per million or so. If your experiment tells you otherwise, as this one does, you know that the experiment is flawed.

I have achieved my goal, and that is that some people saw science in action (in this case, science demolishing a poorly executed experiment). Levee has shown, yet again, his total lack of understanding of science, doing what pseudo-scientists do all the time: changing the subject every time they feel cornered, throwing a complete barrage of claims at any one who cares to try to answer, so that it is impossible to keep up with the deluge of claims. In this case, we have been jumping from claim to claim and forgotten the OP, as lorddave has tried to remember us. We even got to anti-gravity, how more pseudo-scientific can we get?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: Lorddave on October 19, 2012, 03:01:38 AM
Quote
Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.
We are on a debate forum discussing barometric pressure of the atmosphere at a date and place you have yet to identify.
What are you discussing?
Title: Re: Barometric pressure and gases in the atmosphere paradoxes
Post by: RealScientist on October 19, 2012, 03:57:48 AM
Quote
Let me remind you where you are and what is being discussed in this thread.
We are on a debate forum discussing barometric pressure of the atmosphere at a date and place you have yet to identify.
What are you discussing?
As I said, he is trying to make the subject of the discussion a moving target, so he can dance his way out of every corner.