The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: odes on September 09, 2013, 07:22:00 PM

Title: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 09, 2013, 07:22:00 PM
Occasionally, sandokahn states that the components of air do not seem to obey the law of gravity, because the different air elements do not sort themselves out by their specific gravities. I think that's not entirely mis-stated. What do you think of this notion?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 07:48:54 PM
Hot air balloons do a pretty good job of sorting themselves out.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2013, 07:58:04 PM
Learn it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 09, 2013, 08:04:52 PM
Is there a non-Einstein version of Brownian motion theory? When I hear "Einstein" my brain instantly turns off.

But my rapid glance suggests to me the following: that the individual and very lightweight particles are influenced by their respective energy charges, and so keep stirring and never sort out. Is that about right?

Not even over time?

Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2013, 08:14:16 PM
Is there a non-Einstein version of Brownian motion theory? When I hear "Einstein" my brain instantly turns off.
Maybe.
Quote
But my rapid glance suggests to me the following: that the individual and very lightweight particles are influenced by their respective energy charges, and so keep stirring and never sort out. Is that about right?
Pretty much.
Quote
Not even over time?
No for small particles. Bigger particles, usually over 1 micron, will settle out.
Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Junker on September 09, 2013, 08:14:35 PM
Learn it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion)

Only posting a link is considered low-content.  You know this.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 09, 2013, 08:17:32 PM
Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.

Why don't the particles lose energy as they bump into each other? I would guess that as they lose energy, they would then become more susceptible to the effects of gravity, as it is theorized, such that then they would settle out according to their specific masses (if that's the way to put it).

I think the sun imparting energy to them is a perfectly good way to sustain your theory. The photons collide with the particles in the air, and they use that energy to keep on bouncing into each other.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2013, 08:39:11 PM
Learn it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion)

Only posting a link is considered low-content.  You know this.
I care how much?

Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.

Why don't the particles lose energy as they bump into each other?
Where would it go? Particles do transfer energy to each other. That is why a hair dryer feels hot.

Quote
I would guess that as they lose energy, they would then become more susceptible to the effects of gravity, as it is theorized, such that then they would settle out according to their specific masses (if that's the way to put it).
Doesn't work that way for small particles.
Quote
I think the sun imparting energy to them is a perfectly good way to sustain your theory. The photons collide with the particles in the air, and they use that energy to keep on bouncing into each other.
The sun can energies particles but it doesn't have anything to do with it. Air doesn't separate at night.

As rusty said, sometimes air can separate. CO2 pooling kills people and babies every once in awhile. But that is a closed system under certain circumstances. Temperature changes can make air density gradients. But air by itself will never separate. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 10, 2013, 07:39:55 PM
Oh! Here is a thread where sandokahn outlines the general idea, which I noticed because rottingroom just replied to it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html)

Sandokahn observes that when winds subside the elements do not separate out. I'll just post his remarks here, because discussion should be here and not in the info repository.

Quote from: sandokahn
GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

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

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

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


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

Then rottingroom referred to the Ideal Gas Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 10, 2013, 07:43:42 PM
In this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg945934.html#msg945934), sandokahn gives some significance for the issue of gravity's effect on air (at least, I think this is the significance):

Quote from: sandokahn
I have shown that gravity is not attractive, therefore we are left with just two choices: a rotational type of gravity, and gravity caused by pressure. It is obvious that the force which is currently thought to be attractive gravity, is actually of a pressure type; but the force which keeps the planets/stars on their orbit is rotational, therefore there must a screen/dome between the earth and the planets (a large scale version of the Tesla Shield).
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 10, 2013, 08:11:02 PM
sandokahn never proves anything. It has already been explained.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 01:57:56 AM
Air molecules bumping into each other are pretty much elastic, otherwise a well sealed and insulated gas bottle would eventually be filled with liquid, all the gas would slow down and settle out. You would end up with a liquid and a vacuum. This doesn't happen without some outside effort.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 12, 2013, 05:57:27 PM
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html)

Example:

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

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2013, 06:08:40 PM
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html)

Example:

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

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.
If you ignore physics then, yes, ozone would go straight to the ground. If you don't ignore physics then, not it wouldn't and ozone can be at ground level and is a problem to people's health.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 07:38:21 PM
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html)

Example:

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

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.

You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2013, 07:51:17 PM
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html)

Example:

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

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.

You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Ozone at ground level is a problem. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-pollution.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-pollution.htm)
 Hydroxide ion amount in water is very low.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 12, 2013, 08:00:20 PM
The ozone concentration will exist where it is formed, and where it can persist. Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere, and can persist there, so there is a layer. If it lowers, it will dissipate, if it climbs it is destroyed by radiation.
Ozone can be formed in the lower atmosphere, but it will dissipate at a high rate compared to the Ozone layer.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2013, 01:07:34 AM
Once, long ago, someone wrote this:

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.


My response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

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?


A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

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

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

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


Brownian motion 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.


CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOXES


From Galileo was wrong:

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

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

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

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

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

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

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

More details here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143)
(boundary layer, angular momentum)


RESTORING FORCES PARADOX

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm)


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374)


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747)


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580)

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2013, 01:10:24 AM
The Earth does not rotate around its own axis.

There is no such thing as the axial precession phenomenon (gradual shift of the supposed axis of orientation).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947)

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD (the summary is from a writer who commented on the work done by G. Nosovsky, I also included commentaries from the chapter on new chronology penned by Nosovsky himself).


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

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

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

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

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

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

G. Nosovky:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

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


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

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


The conclusions are as follows:

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

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


THE MOST PRECISE AND PERFECT DEMONSTRATION: no axial precession whatsoever, not now, not ever in the past.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2013, 01:15:37 AM
INEXISTENCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, thus a clear confirmation of the Gases in the Atmosphere Paradox:

Dr. Bruce DePalma:

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.


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)

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:

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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2013, 01:36:04 AM
Let us return to the clouds antigravitational effect paradox.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

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

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

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


This is the common phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in science. The Russians are performing a weather experiment which should fail according to accepted theory. So the scientist complains that he has seen no concrete evidence published in a refereed journal. But the complaint reduces to a matter of belief. Scientists do not believe electrical power is input to weather systems. Referees who believe atmospheric electricity is an effect, rather than a cause of weather, would almost certainly find grounds for rejecting funding for, or publication of, such an experiment. The same applies to the publication of reports from credible eyewitnesses. For decades airline pilots witnessed strange lightning above storms but were discouraged from reporting it. The objection is unfair and unscientific. Advances come from challenging established beliefs.

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

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

BUT THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT DEFIES THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY, JUST LIKE THE SPINNING BALL IN THE DEPALMA EXPERIMENT.

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

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)

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)


T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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

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.

Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)

A normal electromagnetic wave is JUST A RIPPLE in the sea of ether waves, NOT a true ether wave.

Hertz discovered just these types of temporary ripples: it is exactly what Tesla told him and brought to his attention in Germany.

Your present understanding of radio wave theory is based SOLELY ON THE HERTZIAN RIPPLES.

THE ORIGINAL MAXWELL equations confirm everything posted here: scalar waves are ether waves - electromagnetic waves are just temporary hertzian ripples in the sea of ether waves.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!


Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

Tesla: true wireless vs. e/m waves

 "... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.
 
   "... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "


Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.


Tesla demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2013, 03:12:24 AM
PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.  The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights.   The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.

Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008.   Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:

Project Montgolfier:  http://projetmontgolfier.info/ (http://projetmontgolfier.info/)]http://projetmontgolfier.info/

The flying disc carousel experiment that the Montgolfier Project conducted in 1955 used 2-1/2 foot diameter discs (75 cm dia.) hung from 4 meter tethers suspended from the ends of a 3 meter arm.  Based on the description given, this seems to have been almost the same flying disc test that Brown gave to the Navy at Pearl Harbor a year or two earlier.

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-1-1024x730.jpg)
Left: Brown holding a flying disc tested in Project Montgolfier. Right: Close-up of disc showing outboard leading-edge wire. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-2-1024x494.jpg)
Left: Carrousel test rig. Right: Disc in flight. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

Brown had finished his collaboration with S.N.C.A.S.O. in 1956.  From a letter that Mr. Cornillon later wrote to a colleague, we learn that in October 1957 Brown was in the process of test flying 10 foot diameter discs energized at a voltage of 300 kV!  Here we see that Brown had followed the plan he had first set out in his 1952 Project Winterhaven proposal which was to eventually test fly a ten foot diameter disc powered by 500 kV (70% more voltage than he used in his 1957 test flight).   Hence we see that by this early date Brown had progressed beyond the toy model stage to flying small scale aircraft.  To reach this stage he must have been receiving substantial funding from either the military or from a major corporation.  More about Project Winterhaven and Brown’s research may be found in the book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

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

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 13, 2013, 05:19:55 AM
sandokhan,

Mmmm, pasta. Why do you say so much? The OP is just about one specific issue concerning a topic you've brought up before concerning Ozone. FE'rs will complain to newcomers of this forum not to ask so many questions in a thread and instead make a new topic for each issue. That way a proper discussion can take place. When someone wants to respond to you, it's just too much all over the place. It's just some honest criticism. The things you bring up are interesting but the manner in which it's brought up is perhaps a bit spastic.


Quote from: sandokhan
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.

Indeed they coalesce. These droplets are not .01 mm as you have stated. The liquid or solid particles have a diameter mostly smaller than 1 μm or so.

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

Clouds and mist are aerosols. An aerosol is a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or another gas and a colloid is a substance microscopically dispersed throughout another substance. As droplets are carried by the updrafts and downdrafts in a cloud, they collide and coalesce to form larger droplets. When the droplets become too large to be sustained on the air currents, they begin to fall as rain.

Quote from: sandokhan
In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

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

I have made the word dispersed above bold because it is significant here. You seem to mentally accumulate this entire cloud as some massive object that is all at once affected by gravity when it is instead the dispersed droplets that are in question here. As coalescence occurs the drops become bigger and heavier and what happens is exactly what is expected.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 13, 2013, 06:08:26 AM
Sandokahn. You discover extraordinary things, giving them some fantastic names....
May I play too?
This is an amazing anti-gravity device:

(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/wonder_of_flight/images/glider_hitech_500.jpg)

It floats in the air, without any kind of engine, for hours. Moreover, it can transport -or may I say teleport- up to 2 intrepid volunteers.  With favorable conditions, it can cover distances over several millions of millimeters, climb to the stratosphere, and is capable of flight durations of more than 2 days.

This kind of device, defying gravity is often called glider, less sexy name, but very common.
It floats DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, using CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH CLOUDS.
But maybe it's a hidden Tesla device ?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 13, 2013, 06:25:32 AM
And look at this too for that matter. Metal is heavier than water and yet it float!

(http://arabiangazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/oil-tanker.jpg)

A cloud or water vapour is to air as a ship is to water.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 13, 2013, 09:38:37 AM
I am sorry, but this thread is not the place to dump an essay on all of science. I will only respond to the relevant statements that I had time to read in less than 10 minutes:

Atomic oxygen becomes Ozone?
Sure, but where is the atomic oxygen in my reactions?
You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2013, 01:58:33 AM
Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

For someone who wrote that in order to reach the MAXIMUM amount of pressure, the same pressure has to get lower and  lower, you should be more considerate when offering advices here (to anybody).

As usual no homework from you...at all.

Go to any official science website: cloud droplets have 0.01 mm in diameter (some even mention a figure of 0.02 mm).

My bibliographical references are the very best that can be found.

However, your COPYPASTA is useless.

You went to the wikipedia site where you found this: The liquid or solid particles have diameter mostly smaller than 1 μm or so.

For your information, wikipedia articles are used rarely by PhD or even MS level scientists.

Aerosols' (as an example, sulfates, sea salt or ammonium salts) influence on clouds is called the “indirect effect”, and is a large source of uncertainty in projections of climate change.

Aerosols interact with clouds.

The quote you laxly accepted from the wikipedia source IS WRONG: do your homework, before having the nerve to post here - aerosols interact with clouds, and are not clouds; aerosol particles' diameter is smaller than cloud droplets' diameter, but my message stated the words "cloud droplets" very clearly.

The explanation accepted by official science cannot be true (that droplets simply "stick" to warmer air), and is constantly challenged by students everywhere.


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.

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


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

You have no knowledge of cloud atmospheric physicis, do you?

You wrote:

You seem to mentally accumulate this entire cloud as some massive object that is all at once affected by gravity when it is instead the dispersed droplets that are in question here.

Let us go again to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

That is why those scientists who no longer accept the official viewpoint write something like this:

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


Here is what someone else wrote:

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

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?


Another concerned scientist writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Another writer states:

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

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

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

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 14, 2013, 02:06:10 AM
Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

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

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

I think we can all agree that clouds experience extreme electrostatic forces, hence lightning. I thought you wanted to prove that gravity doesn't exist, because water is suspended in the air and is heavier. If static electricity holds it up, then gravity is saved. Yay!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2013, 02:37:39 AM
Attractive gravity does not exist.

Terrestrial gravity is a force due to the PRESSURE exerted by telluric currents.

The classical experiments carried out by Nipher, Brown, DePalma, Tesla, Kozyrev prove this fact very clearly.

Maxwell's original set of equations show that terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism are one and the same force: double helix theory of the magnetic field (telluric currents).


The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building.
 
The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.



Attractive gravity =  a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 14, 2013, 02:54:49 AM
Attractive gravity does not exist.

Terrestrial gravity is a force due to the PRESSURE exerted by telluric currents.

The classical experiments carried out by Nipher, Brown, DePalma, Tesla, Kozyrev prove this fact very clearly.

Maxwell's original set of equations show that terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism are one and the same force: double helix theory of the magnetic field (telluric currents).


The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building.
 
The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.



Attractive gravity =  a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven
I have never heard of these Telluric currents. You claim that gravity and magnetism are linked? Please, tell me the order of magnitude, and I will be happy to measure the effect. I propose placing a block of Alumina insulator in a magnetic field. I will measure the change in weight in the presence of a magnetic field. How strong of a field would you like? I can produce a few Tesla no problem. How about a high current? I have a jig that can produce 1 mega-amp. Please give me a model, and I will happily test it out to see if it is legit. I have to say, I am very skeptical of your proposed connection between weight and magnetism.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2013, 03:12:27 AM
Please access my messages on telluric currents.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714) (read this one carefully)

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310)

UNIFICATION of electricity and magnetism:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)

A magnetic field is made up of double helices of subquarks (see the first two links for the proofs).

Subquarks consist of bosons and antibosons.

Magnetism and electricity are a flow of bosons through these subquarks strings.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101) (existence of subquarks and bosons strings which make up a subquark)


TELLURIC CURRENTS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423468.html#msg1423468 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1423468.html#msg1423468)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424161.html#msg1424161 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424161.html#msg1424161)



ANVIL CLOUDS

Official science: Anvil clouds form in the tops of thunderstorms 5 to 10 miles high and consist mainly of ice.



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: ERTW on September 14, 2013, 03:38:06 AM
That is a very interesting and complex theory you got there. I admit, I am an experimental type, not a theorist. Does your theory make any predictions? Do you have any equations or models for your system? Also, from a theory perspective, what force is holding this four loop atom vortex together? There will be a constant force twisting it apart.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 14, 2013, 09:17:34 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

For someone who wrote that in order to reach the MAXIMUM amount of pressure, the same pressure has to get lower and  lower, you should be more considerate when offering advices here (to anybody).

Sandokhan, you really can believe what you want about whether I am in the profession that I say. I am an Aerographer's Mate in the Navy and we do spend every day dealing with weather. There are different levels of skill in this profession as there are in any field. In particular, I mostly deal with radar propagation and how models will effect the ability of those radars. I gave the best explanation I could about this problem and after taking a careful look I admit that this paradox is quite interesting.

I used NOAA to look at various weather station's and noticed that you were correct, the pressure seems to be doing something different than what we are taught about weather. Such details are insignificant when doing an actual forecast because the important thing to know is that in the the morning there is a minimum and then you can just base a forecast off of that. I took heed to our bickering conversation and actually brought the topic up with many of colleague's and supervisors and what spawned was an engaging conversation. Some were surprised and after much thought and consideration I was able to come up with an answer that I find satisfactory and that I hope you will too.

Semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure do not occur everywhere. As I looked at various weather stations to research your claim I didn't notice that the stations I was searching were all coastal, or at least were in areas where there was reasons for semidiurnal (as opposed to diurnal) changes to occur. These could be coastal areas, mountainous areas and areas with inversion among many other reasons. Nearly all of these spots (and there are many) have a common characteristic in the morning and that is cloud cover. Clouds form in the troposphere, and this generally happens when one or more lifting agents causes air containing water vapor to rise and cool to its dew point, the temperature at which the air becomes saturated. Depending on geography it is far more likely for cloud cover to exist in the morning. This is when a semidiurnal change in barometric pressure takes place.

In the morning, the sun does indeed warm the earths surface but at the same time the top layer of clouds, fog or marine layers are also heated and at a faster rate than that of the earths surface. As this happens the air beneath the layer of clouds can't expand and compression beneath the clouds will occur giving you a trend toward higher pressure (and of course that minimum at 4am). Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up. This allows the compressed heat to burst through and expand as it should and this gives us a maximum barometer reading as heating continues throughout the day and pressure is released, as expected.

As that explanation for semidiurnal changes in pressure was explained it occurred to us to consider, "What is an ideal environment where cloud cover is not likely in the morning?" Where could we find a place relatively flat, away from water and less likely to experience weather. That's right, the desert. It turns out that places like a desert exemplify exactly what we are taught by high school science in regards to pressure. I chose a random location (Twenty-Nine Palms, CA) to test this out and plotted my findings in MS Powerpoint to show you the relationship and that there is no paradox. All times and numbers used in the graph are taken from Sep 13th, 2013.

Here is a link where you can confirm that my graph uses the correct numbers:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)

On this graph the bottom axis is time while the left side is temperature and the right side is pressure. Notice the nearly perfect inverse relationship.

(https://googledrive.com/host/0BwWwYmdlMY6KbjVTVTFQOE1LWm8/Pressure.jpg)

This is not the semidiurnal relationship that you said exists everywhere. This is an expected diurnal relationship. Barometric pressure does what is expected in an ideal setting. The semidiurnal relationships that you mentioned only apply in situations where there is some weather related cause and even then the laws of pressure and gravity are obeyed.

You aren't really proving anything sandokhan. The atmosphere, the ocean and everything is just so much more complicated than you think it is.



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 14, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

WHAT? Do you know what a droplet is?

drop·let
ˈdräplit/
noun
noun: droplet; plural noun: droplets

    1.
    a very small drop of a liquid.

It's not a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. You can say it is but then you are ignoring the fact that a cloud is full of droplets. Not sure how this is difficult to understand so whatever.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 14, 2013, 02:56:53 PM
Quote from: sandokhan
The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

WHAT? Do you know what a droplet is?

drop·let
ˈdräplit/
noun
noun: droplet; plural noun: droplets

    1.
    a very small drop of a liquid.

It's not a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. You can say it is but then you are ignoring the fact that a cloud is full of droplets. Not sure how this is difficult to understand so whatever.

sandokahn doesn't understand what he posts. I tired to get him to paraphrase what he posts in his own words and he never can. If it confuses him or if it's over 100 years old, he believes in it. Nothing more.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 14, 2013, 03:17:45 PM
You know what's very similar to a cloud?


(http://www.4medapproved.com/hitanswers/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/clouds.jpg)
CLOUD

(http://kymkemp.com/media/old/2011/02/humboldt-fog-where-the-cheese-gets-its-name.jpg)
FOG

Fog is even technically classified as a type of cloud called stratus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratus_cloud).

Now, I don't know about you but after walking through one of these myself it is safe to say that it is not "AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY".
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 15, 2013, 05:17:26 AM
You still do not understand the physics involved here.

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

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

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


Now, the explanation offered by science is related to the water vapour argument, which is no longer accepted so easily:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.



Here is the official data on the semidiurnal changes in the barometer pressure.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:

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.

Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)


Your cloud cover argument is childish, as there are plenty of days in the year where your description does not apply at all. There are days where clouds persist THE WHOLE DAY, and yet the barometer pressure paradox exists, a clear violation of your deduction.

Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up.

Unfortunately, the clouds might clear up at 8:00 am, or 9:00 am, or even later, or not at all...

Therefore, you have explained nothing at all.


The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

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.


Your graph/bibliographical reference used the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, which IS NOT the actual local atmospheric pressure. Also the density of mercury will change with temperature, so a reading must be adjusted for the temperature of the instrument.

HERE IS THE LINK YOU POSTED: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)

National Weather Service right?

THE SAME WEBSITE SAYS THIS ABOUT THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/atmos/pressure.htm)




Dayton Miller proved long ago the existence of periodic waves of telluric currents (ether):

(http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLER/GraphA.jpg)
PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)


Dr. T. Henry Moray:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 15, 2013, 09:47:17 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
You still do not understand the physics involved here.

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

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

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

These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, the explanation offered by science is related to the water vapour argument, which is no longer accepted so easily:

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

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

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

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

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

It is totally plausible that electricity plays a large role. I don't see the mainstream making any claims on the contrary.  My only claim is that the causes are by a multitude of factors.

Quote from: sandokhan
Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.
[/i]

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.

...and when that coalescence causes the droplets density to exceed the density of the air around it we have rain. This particular part is very simple.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is the official data on the semidiurnal changes in the barometer pressure.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

For example, here is the data on the barometric pressure in Taiwan:


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

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.

as I've pointed out to you before, this is a useless broken link.

Quote from: sandokhan
Furthermore, and I quote:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. (National Weather Service)

Your cloud cover argument is childish, as there are plenty of days in the year where your description does not apply at all. There are days where clouds persist THE WHOLE DAY, and yet the barometer pressure paradox exists, a clear violation of your deduction.

Typically, around 10am the clouds (or other weather related phenomena) will clear up.

Unfortunately, the clouds might clear up at 8:00 am, or 9:00 am, or even later, or not at all...

Therefore, you have explained nothing at all.

Your attempt to provide a source using a broken link with an example of a semi-diurnal pressure change is not very convincing. Here is a link of some actual observations taken recently:

Coronado:
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)
I am in Coronado. Every morning here exists a deep marine layer and this means that there is a semi-diurnal relationship between pressure and temperature. Note that yesterday (14SEP) the maximum altimeter setting reached a maximum at 9am and not 10am as you suggest. Similarly, in the evening the maximum was reached at 9pm and not 10pm as you suggest.

And here is REAL data for TAIWAN and not your cherry-picked source:
http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html (http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html)
Note that last night pressure reached a maximum at 8pm and then this morning reached a minimum at 2am. Even your example of Taiwan does not use the exact 4am, 10am, 4pm, 10pm values that you say they do.

This is not to say that when a semi-diurnal relationship is happening that these effects do not typically happen at the suggested times, but it is not always spot on.

Your objection that cloud cover is a childish argument is unwarranted considering you've yet to show one official observation of semi-diurnal barometer readings. I have shown you that not only do the times in semi-diurnal changes not always happen at the same time but under perfect conditions it isn't semi-diurnal at all.

It isn't just clouds that cause unstable conditions where high or low pressure can be trapped as I have shown. Many factors go into this and specifically with terrain and coastal areas this can include but not limit: on and off shore flow, land breezes, sea breezes, thermal low circulations driving monsoon circulations, valley breezes and mountain breezes.

Some of these describe microscale events that happen every single day in places with these attributes and contribute to their tendency for cloud cover but even without the production of clouds their effects can effect heating and pressure. For example in the morning water next to land is being heated at a slower rate than that of the land in a place like Taiwan. This creates a pressure minimum over the land due to its relative warmth, and forces higher pressure and cooler air from the sea to move inland and replace that rising warm air. This is called a sea breeze.

Quote from: sandokhan
The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

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.


Your graph/bibliographical reference used the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, which IS NOT the actual local atmospheric pressure. Also the density of mercury will change with temperature, so a reading must be adjusted for the temperature of the instrument.

HERE IS THE LINK YOU POSTED: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)

National Weather Service right?

THE SAME WEBSITE SAYS THIS ABOUT THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.


You are incorrect. The references used show Sea Level Pressure, Station Pressure and Altimeter setting. My graph uses Altimeter setting which is obvious if you just look at the numbers. Did you even verify if I used the correct numbers? The relationship between pressure and temperature in a "perfect air" setting like Twenty-Nine Palms, CA is as expected. Your assessment that semi-diurnal barometric pressure paradox's occur everywhere, everyday is blatantly false. Only in such a setting where there is cloud cover (near coastal and mountainous areas) or consistent microscale events is there semi-diurnal changes. You seem to be in utter denial at this point.

Your assessment of what needs to be done to a mercury barometer is a laughable straw man. When observations taken with those barometers are taken then I'm sure the proper procedures are taken to produce an accurate result before it is submitted to NOAA. My experience on Naval ships is with Aneroid Barometers and the only adjustment to be made with those is a simple tap necessary in order to release sticktion.

My source for NOAA and its assessment of basic pressure change is perfectly correct with everything I have been saying. Heating from the sun on either the clouds, mountains, land, water and the atmosphere all contribute to what is usually a semi-diurnal temperature change. It is not NOT just air parcels expanding which contribute to these effects as I have shown. A cloud could trap that pressure, low pressure can move in due to a sea breeze and so on and those events are produced by heat from the sun.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 16, 2013, 01:40:39 AM
These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

This alone suggets you haven't passed Physics 101 at all.

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

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

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

The combined state of water (your wording) in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


End of story.

...and when that coalescence causes the droplets density to exceed the density of the air around it we have rain. This particular part is very simple.

Remember, this is the official explanation which cannot be true.

We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

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

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

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


The cloud droplets DEFY any attractive gravity - with a density of some 800 to 1000 times of air, the water droplets defy any simple minded explanation (like the one you so readily accept).


It is amazing how you react to some broken link, given the quality of your posts so far.

Rest assured that the information contained there was and is true, no cherry picking at all.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

My comment on the altimeter reading is very well based on real science, you simply haven't done your homework.

You continue to post links to SEA LEVEL PRESSURE and MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE measurements which are useless for our discussion.


THE SAME NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAYS THIS, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

Do you understand English?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

Lord Rayleigh tried to explain this phenomenon using your laughable explanations but he saw very quickly they do not work at all:

The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

So far, your bumbling assessments amount to nothing at all: you have no proper explanation for the barometer pressure paradox.

LET ME REMIND YOU AGAIN, this the official data from the National Weather Service, the very same database you quote over and over again, not realizing that the measurements there are SEA LEVEL PRESSURE numbers:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EVERY DAY.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 16, 2013, 01:57:23 AM
Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m3 so 0.5g/m3 is very small compared to that?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 16, 2013, 03:36:02 AM
Sandy,

My choice of the phrase "combined state of water" was used to point out how I believe YOU are interpreting the numbers you've posted over and over. I compared that phrase with what it actually is and that is the sum of water. These parts or droplets as we've agreed to describe them are not "a combined state" that is AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. Please, let that sink in.

Furthermore, as Cartesian has pointed out air is even more dense than that so there is that.

Onto barometric pressure,

I react grudgingly to your use of a broken link because it is the same broken link that you've posted before, which I also complained about already. You never fixed it then and apparently you are not fixing it now and just want me to "take you word for it". You've made it exceedingly difficult to expect you to exhibit anything resembling intellectual honesty so no, I won't just, take your word for it.

You then go on to say that I continue to post links for SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, but then I pointed out that those links (if you actually look at them) use Sea Level Pressure, Altimeter AND Station Pressure. They are all included in my links. Furthermore, all three pressure readings are proportional. So when Sea Level Pressure goes up or down then so too do Altimeter and Station Pressure. Therefore, for our purposes it is irrelevant. So stop trying to make this point.

and then finally, you've been caught pretty much lying. You have said this in another thread:

Quote from: sandokhan
What is most amazing about the Barometric Pressure Paradox is the fact that it occurs each and every day, at those precise points in time: 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.

However, you can see from my links showing REAL-TIME observations from NOAA, the most reputable and official source regarding oceanic and atmospheric information and observations, that this is not true. The statement you keep posting from NWS is a generalized statement about what is expected and I don't disagree with it as ON THE AVERAGE a semi-diurnal change occurs at 4AM, 10AM, 4PM and 10PM but I have shown you WITH REAL OBSERVATIONS submitted by trained weather observers that not only do these changes not always occur at precisely those times but sometimes it is not even semi-diurnal and is instead diurnal. You do understand the distinction don't you?

This is the crux of your argument and I have shown you with official observations that your assessment is FALSE.

To add further harm to your arguments I have not only shown you that REAL observations do not fit in with your generalization that it ALWAYS HAPPENS AT A PRECISE TIME, but I have also given you explanations as to what causes a semi-diurnal pressure change and under what simpler conditions we would get the diurnal change that basic science would expect. I have shown you how depending on the location, most places have topographical or coastal considerations that cause consistent cloud cover and/or micro-scale events that happen with fairly regular consistency and in my opinion, I have eloquently described how this works in a way that a child could understand it.

Your final statement is "THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EVERYDAY". -FALSE

You are welcome to say this all you want but when faced with links using an official source like NOAA that show data that is to the contrary then it is apparent that you are IN DENIAL.

 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: odes on September 16, 2013, 07:08:15 PM
Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 16, 2013, 07:56:35 PM
Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.

You mean like lightning man being in a fight with gravity man? Raiden vs Neo? Why are you so hell bent on not believing what is so obviously true? It's a round world.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 16, 2013, 07:58:20 PM
These numbers are not an assessment of a combined state of water in a cloud. It is just the sum of water. It is not some enormous "blob" of water as you seem to be suggesting.

This alone suggets you haven't passed Physics 101 at all.

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

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

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

The combined state of water (your wording) in any cloud, for a certain volume and density will have a certain weight.

For that volume, one billion meters, and a density of 1/2 g per cubic meter, there will be a weight of 1.1 million pounds.


End of story.

...
Fill a pot with water. Put it on your stove and bring it to a boil. There you go, water vapor floating away. End of story. You seem to be stuck on repeat and unable to think for yourself.
Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m3 so 0.5g/m3 is very small compared to that?

He keeps repeating himself because he can't elaborate since he doesn't understand what he is posting.

Since electricity is an important aspect of atmospheric behaviors, electricity can probably be used in some way to 'defeat' or override gravity.
That is not how science works. He keeps thinking that a Sharper Image Ionic Breeze is magic.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2013, 01:04:16 AM
Why do you keep repeating yourself? And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m3 so 0.5g/m3 is very small compared to that?

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Air = gaseous state of matter

Cloud droplets = LIQUID state of matter

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.


These parts or droplets as we've agreed to describe them are not "a combined state" that is AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY. Please, let that sink in.

Is this guy for real?

Does he even understand the most basic facts of physics?

OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

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

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

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


As I said, END OF STORY.


However, you can see from my links showing REAL-TIME observations from NOAA, the most reputable and official source regarding oceanic and atmospheric information and observations, that this is not true. The statement you keep posting from NWS is a generalized statement about what is expected and I don't disagree with it as ON THE AVERAGE a semi-diurnal change occurs at 4AM, 10AM, 4PM and 10PM but I have shown you WITH REAL OBSERVATIONS submitted by trained weather observers that not only do these changes not always occur at precisely those times but sometimes it is not even semi-diurnal and is instead diurnal.

You haven't shown anything.

Do you understand where we are and what we are discussing here?

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

Can you understand these basic facts of atmospheric physics?

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

As I said, do you understand what you are reading?

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.


Your links use the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE OR THE MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, that is why their data cannot be used for an absolute measurement of the pressure right on the spot - feel free to call/write to the National Weather Service and you will understand these issues much better.


Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.


I even managed to recover the link for you:

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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


It is the end of our discussion.

Modern science CANNOT explain at all the Barometer 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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2013, 01:17:39 AM
CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOX

The extraordinary timelapse photography/videos which show that the Earth is completely stationary, and not rotating around its own axis with 1600 km/hr (at the equator):

Clouds Time Lapse (http://#)
(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

Cloud Timelapse (http://#)
 (Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

We are constantly told that the Earth rotates from the west to the east.

If we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so?

The same scientists reply: it is friction.

But friction cannot explain at all the trajectories of the clouds which float in all direction possible: east to west, north to south...

From Galileo Was Wrong:

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

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

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

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

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

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

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

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


From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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

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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm)


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374)


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747)


Angular momentum/boundary layer issues:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143)


"This atmospheric rotation anomaly seems to depend on air that's schizophrenic - it's actually a non-viscous gas, but acts like a solid when surrounding the Earth! It's not mechanically coupled to the Earth, but rotates with it at basically every altitude, as though it were. It even moves fastest in the same direction as the (alleged) rotation (jet streams)! I have asked NASA, NOAA, JPL, the Australian weather forum, 2 US meteorologists and a host of internet weather 'gurus' to
explain the ARA, and get basically 3 answers:

1.. no response
2.. a description of the global circulation pattern that includes the
minor effect of the Coriolis force but ignores the primary and major effect
of the Earth's central surface speed of 1100 mph on the atmosphere.
3.. admission that they don't know, but no concern that they don't."

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2013, 01:36:30 AM
As I said, since there is no attractive gravity, THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION IS THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540153.html#msg1540153 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540153.html#msg1540153)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161)


Here is the best confirmation of all the above results: the defiance of attractive gravity in Dr. Bruce DePalma's classic experiment.

Dr. Bruce DePalma:

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.


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.

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:

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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, the barometer pressure paradox and the cloud weight paradox can ONLY be explained in the context of the existence of ether.


Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment confirms in an extraordinary manner everything we have discussed here in this thread: no attractive gravity = stationary earth with a flat surface
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 17, 2013, 05:38:43 AM
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.

So what? Water vapour rises because it is lighter than air. Once it reaches the condensation level altitude then you have two possibilities:
So if you see a cloud, it means that the condition is right for it to be formed and stay. As simple as that!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2013, 05:44:06 AM
sandokhan you can post all that and yet you can't comment on a pot of boiling water? You are afraid.

If anyone starts to think that sandokhan may be right, just boil water.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 17, 2013, 06:21:40 AM
He just keeps repeating the same things. Then when showed real observations of pressure he denies it. Keep pasting sandy.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2013, 02:24:03 PM
Maybe sandokhan can explain in his own words:
1. How the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT can explain Dr. Bruce DePalma experiment.
2. Explain how the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT explains the water vapor floating away from a pot of boiling water.
3. How the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT explains clouds.
4. Explain how the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT works when there is no power source or metal plates/blades present.

The key phrase being "EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS".
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 17, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
BTW sandokhan,

Do you realize that the link you provided points out other observations that are not at exactly 4am, 4pm, 10am and 10pm?

Do you also realize that that link also indicates that there are places with diurnal pressure changes and not just the semi-diurnal that you keep pointing out?

Are you ready to stop with your nonsense yet?

Even your own source is trying to tell you exactly what I've been saying.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 18, 2013, 02:09:05 AM
So what? Water vapour rises because it is lighter than air. Once it reaches the condensation level altitude then you have two possibilities:
If the condition is right (updraft, enough moisture and the droplets are relatively light) then you see the cloud formation.
If the condition is not right, then cloud doesn't form, it dissipates or precipitates in form of rain, snow or ice.
So if you see a cloud, it means that the condition is right for it to be formed and stay. As simple as that!


You still do not understand what is going on.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

Official science explanation: Clouds stay aloft for the same reason that dust motes floating around, also heavier than air: air drafts push them around.

But, just like the pseudo-explanation you came up with, this cannot be true.

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

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?

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity.

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

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

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


More details.

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

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

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


Do you realize that the link you provided points out other observations that are not at exactly 4am, 4pm, 10am and 10pm?

Do you also realize that that link also indicates that there are places with diurnal pressure changes and not just the semi-diurnal that you keep pointing out?



You haven't done your homework, just as usual.

How to properly calculate absolute barometer pressure measurements:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)

Remember, that your links provide information about the sea level and mean sea level pressure measurements.

This is much easier to perform than the actual absolute barometer pressure calculation.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

THIS HAPPENS EACH AND EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE.

Can you understand this much?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


That this is actually the case can be readily deduced from the very links you provided.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html (http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html)

Take a look at the ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA AT THE PRESSURE INCHES COLUMN.

MUCH OF THE SAME NUMBERS, REPEATED: 29.77 - 29.80 - 29.83 - 29.85

This means that we are dealing WITH SEA LEVEL PRESSURE CALCULATIONS, which, as I have said, are much easier to perform than actual absolute barometer measurements.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.


THE SAME ARTIFICIAL NUMBERS USED IN THE CORONADO LINK YOU PROVIDED.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.
This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LINKS, NOT THE ACTUAL BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE NUMBERS IN THE SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AND STATION PRESSURE DATA.



But what else could we expect from you? You come here without any idea of what is going on, not realizing the precise difference between sea level/mean sea level pressure measurements and ACTUAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.

If the work is properly done, then this is what you will get:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.


I ask you again, do you understand English?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


End of discussion. The daily semidiurnal changes in the barometric pressure readings, CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL:  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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 18, 2013, 02:35:36 AM
Sandokhan, can you please answer to this simple questions:

Before stating that some anti-gravity is involved, we may examine the facts, and  clarify the definition of clouds.
As you may know, there are 4 cloud families.

Firstly, lets see for the alleged upward motion
- Can you give some typical speed values of the atmospehric currents below and into a cumulus-type cloud ?
- Can you give the same data for Cirro, Alto and Strato ?

Now, for the downward motion
- What is the relationship between the water droplets size and their free fall speed ? Can you give some measured values ?

Please, try to be synthetic, I already have 8 copies of the Depalma Experiment, another 6 for Biefeld-Brown effect, and so on.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 18, 2013, 02:44:23 AM
If you desire this kind of specialized data, you are most welcome to search for it and bring it to everybody's attention.

However, it will not help you at all.

You still do not understand the physics involved here.


Read very carefully, it answers each and every one of your concerns.

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

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?

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity.

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

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

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


More details.

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

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

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


Again, please understand.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

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.

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.

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


No atmospheric current speed could account at all for these types of cloud weights: 5 million tons,  or 1 billion tons.

Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 18, 2013, 03:36:47 AM
Quote
If you desire this kind of specialized data, you are most welcome to search for it and bring it to everybody's attention.
However, it will not help you at all.
You still do not understand the physics involved here.
Of course it would help. Before claiming some out of the box theories, a real scientific approach is to face  the facts.
You do not know what is at least the magnitude of these values. Fair enough, but you cannot go further without them.

Quote
When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied: (..)
Be more specific. What aviators, what scientists, what gases? . Please give names, dates, places...

How do you explain this kind of phenomenon ?

Timelapse Video - UFO Shaped Lenticular Clouds (http://#ws)

And please refrain from posting the same text again...


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 18, 2013, 03:57:46 AM
I am starting to question myself whether sandokhan is real or just an automatic bot. He keeps posting the same things over and over regardless what we say.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 18, 2013, 04:27:55 AM
Sandokan,

Obviously, my findings show what is happening at the station. You are correct about the methods used to derive altimeter and SLP on a typical observation, even then the altimeter reading isn't a fake number. It is the altimeter reading at the surface and I have made no suggestion that it was at any specific height. Why are you hiding in the upper atmosphere? Where in this paragraph are we talking about anything other than what is happening at the surface?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


These paragraphs discuss pressure at weather stations!

I have shown you already that your assessment at weather stations showing an always semi-diurnal pressure variation as evidenced by the "perfect-air" at Twenty-Nine Palms, CA. I've also shown you that semi-diurnal pressure changes are not always precisely at the times you suggest. It is a new day and re-linking my same links and showing that today's observations are more in tune with your suggestions means nothing. My point was it isn't always like that and I have shown that for the days that I pointed out at the weather stations in question, you were incorrect.

So now you want to hide in the upper atmosphere? Seeing how the public think that typically weather stations don't have easy access to that information you probably expected me to not have anything to say about that sandokhan. I'd like to inform you that you are barking up the wrong tree. You should have maybe done your homework on who I am before you decided to change the argument. Your first hint was when I informed you that I specialize in AREPS.

As an Aerographer's Mate, especially one that specializes in Radar Propagation, upper air soundings are precisely what I do. I have access to weather models that provide specific information on temperature pressure and weather at every relevant height for all relevant stations to the United States all provided by round the clock balloon launches. I also have access to RA-OB codes and am fluent in decoding upper air soundings. I have over 1000 weather balloons in a storage locker just down the hall from where I currently sit with many 100's of models of Radiosonde's and Rawindsonde's. Do you really want to go down this route?

Seeing as how your original argument regarding pressure at weather stations had nothing to do with upper air sounding's I suggest you hold off on trying to shift your arguments to the upper air. Clearly, no part of that argument discussed upper air. Clearly, you are wrong about what happens at the surface and clearly, that's the point of the argument. If you want to talk about the upper air though, we can if you want. We can talk about a subject which you don't even have access to real data about. That should work out great for you.

I'll leave the arguments about droplets and clouds to other RE'rs since that is far more simple.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on September 18, 2013, 08:10:25 AM
"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."

Yes, when water is in one big giant pool, it is heavier than air.  But as you've repeated over and over, the weight of a cubic meter of cloud is only 0.5g, whereas the weight of a cubic meter of air is 1290g per cubic meter.  So when it's a cloud, the water is roughly 2500 times LIGHTER than the air below it.  It doesn't matter if it is a liquid or a solid or a gas.  Obviously you never floated a penny on a pool of mercury in your physics class.



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

It doesn't matter how heavy the cloud is.  What matters is the difference between what the cloud weighs and the weight of whatever is above and below the cloud.  So even though the cloud in the example weighs 550 tons, the air that it displaces weighs over a million tons.  Here is a quote and a link describing this:

“Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-clouds-float-when (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-clouds-float-when)



"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."

You do realize that the difference in weight between Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas is only two protons and a few neutrons, right?  Gravity is an extremely weak force so it isn't able to overcome the Brownian - diffusion caused by the energy present in the air because of things like solar radiation and ambient temperature.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Scintific Method on September 19, 2013, 12:11:47 AM
First up, I'll admit to not having read this thread thoroughly, so if I'm about to mention something that's already come up, I do apologise! I just couldn't get thru all the mind-numbing copy-pasta...

Has anyone ever seen a dam (or "ground tank"), of the type used for watering stock (cattle, sheep, etc)? Have you ever noticed that, despite particles of dirt being much more dense than water, and the water being very still, a muddy dam will stay muddy, and never really settle out? I've no idea what causes that myself, but I take it as being a similar effect to what keeps air mixed as it is.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 19, 2013, 01:22:07 AM
You are confusing muddy water with sandy water.  Sandy water would settle out.  Mud has organic material in it that is likely less dense than water and therefore tends to just float around.

Just my guess, though. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Scintific Method on September 19, 2013, 02:27:01 AM
You are confusing muddy water with sandy water.  Sandy water would settle out.  Mud has organic material in it that is likely less dense than water and therefore tends to just float around.

Just my guess, though.

Perhaps, but then why wouldn't the less dense organic material just rise to the top? It's the same problem, just reversed.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 19, 2013, 02:31:05 AM
Probably some of it is neutrally buoyant.  So, some floats to the top, some hangs around the middle, and some sinks to the bottom. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 19, 2013, 03:00:06 AM
In simple terms, water vapour rises to the air because it is lighter than air. Once it reaches an altitude of condensation level, it forms droplets. Droplets are kept in the air by updraft (vertical movement of air) the same way as hang gliders are lifted in the air. Without updraft, the cloud dissipates or doesn't form.

(http://daedelus.typepad.com/.a/6a0115702fe342970b014e8bff5fb9970d-800wi)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 19, 2013, 06:24:39 AM
Cartesian, I already responded re: water vapour, updrafts...you have not addressed ANY of the precise points I made there...your official copypasta amounts to nothing and is totally debunked here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1542538.html#msg1542538 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1542538.html#msg1542538)

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


No atmospheric current speed could account at all for these types of cloud weights: 5 million tons,  or 1 billion tons.

Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations (the ridiculous updraft explanation).


monkey...please do some research before posting in the upper forums.

It is embarrassing to write something like this:

You do realize that the difference in weight between Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas is only two protons and a few neutrons, right?  Gravity is an extremely weak force so it isn't able to overcome the Brownian - diffusion caused by the energy present in the air because of things like solar radiation and ambient temperature.


Let us access the OFFICIAL TEXTBOOK used by the RE:

In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface.


Do you understand what attractive gravity implies?

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.”

(antonio, the reference for the pockets of noxious gas is this: W.J. Humphreys, Physics of the Air, 1940, p.227 - Atmospheric Circulation, Winds Adverse to Aviation chapter)

As I said, those values cannot help your case at all: updrafts can be debunked immediately. Your requests are way beyond the scope of our discussion, an unnecessary diversion on your part which does not work with me. If you are really interested in this subject, please do the research yourself: remember, you have to prove that the updraft (upward moving air) LASTS FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDED TRAJECTORY OF THE CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, WEIGHING 1 BILLION TONS.

Reread the Cloud Trajectories Paradox: there is no way you can explain the restoring forces paradox.

As for your video (a very interesting cloud formation pattern), you must understand the cyclone/anticyclone paradox, which no heliocentrist (like yourself) can explain:

Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.

Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.

Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.


Remember the effect of the torsion of the telluric currents (ether) on the ring laser gyroscopes and much more...


The barometer pressure paradox defies any RE explanation: a clear and absolute proof that the atmosphere does not obey any kind of attractive gravity.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1542538.html#msg1542538 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1542538.html#msg1542538) (the difference between mean sea level measurements and absolute barometer pressure measurements)

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 19, 2013, 06:36:53 AM
Sandokhan I have shown you observations that contradict your statements about semi diurnal pressure variations. Please stop.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 19, 2013, 06:51:55 AM
Your observations are catastrophically wrong.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN SEA LEVEL OBSERVATIONS AND TRUE BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

Your stubborness is caused by your unwillingness to accept the definite proofs, AND NOT BY SCIENCE.

Here is what you wrote earlier, the same kind of complaint:

Do you realize that the link you provided points out other observations that are not at exactly 4am, 4pm, 10am and 10pm?

You haven't done your homework, just as usual.

How to properly calculate absolute barometer pressure measurements:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)

Remember, that your links provide information about the sea level and mean sea level pressure measurements.

This is much easier to perform than the actual absolute barometer pressure calculation.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

THIS HAPPENS EACH AND EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE.

Can you understand this much?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


That this is actually the case can be readily deduced from the very links you provided.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html (http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html)

Take a look at the ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA AT THE PRESSURE INCHES COLUMN.

MUCH OF THE SAME NUMBERS, REPEATED: 29.77 - 29.80 - 29.83 - 29.85

This means that we are dealing WITH SEA LEVEL PRESSURE CALCULATIONS, which, as I have said, are much easier to perform than actual absolute barometer measurements.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.


THE SAME ARTIFICIAL NUMBERS USED IN THE CORONADO LINK YOU PROVIDED.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.
This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LINKS, NOT THE ACTUAL BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE NUMBERS IN THE SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AND STATION PRESSURE DATA.



But what else could we expect from you? You come here without any idea of what is going on, not realizing the precise difference between sea level/mean sea level pressure measurements and ACTUAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.

If the work is properly done, then this is what you will get:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.


I ask you again, do you understand English?

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


End of discussion. The daily semidiurnal changes in the barometric pressure readings, CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL:  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.


I ask you again, do you understand English?

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html (http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html)

Take a look at the ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA AT THE PRESSURE INCHES COLUMN.

MUCH OF THE SAME NUMBERS, REPEATED: 29.77 - 29.80 - 29.83 - 29.85

This means that we are dealing WITH SEA LEVEL PRESSURE CALCULATIONS, which, as I have said, are much easier to perform than actual absolute barometer measurements.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.


THE SAME ARTIFICIAL NUMBERS USED IN THE CORONADO LINK YOU PROVIDED.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.
This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LINKS, NOT THE ACTUAL BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE NUMBERS IN THE SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AND STATION PRESSURE DATA.


You are trying to DENY THE OBSERVATIONS MADE FOR THE PAST TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

You are trying to deny the quote from the National Weather Service:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

THIS HAPPENS EACH AND EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE.

Can you understand this much?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Your links and pseudoexplanations have BEEN THOROUGHLY TRASHED AND DEBUNKED.

You have nothing left here, but to accept the truth.

Here it is for you.

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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 19, 2013, 07:38:26 AM
Do you know how many times you repeated the same thing over and over here?

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.
Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.
The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.
Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density
Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume
total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds
Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density
Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion m in volume
total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds
Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground.
Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.
Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


Did you at least read what I said?

And do you know that there is around 1300g of air per m3 so 0.5g/m3 is very small compared to that?

Or even what yourself has said?

NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.

If there is an updraft, it doesn't only lift the cloud above it but also the whole air that contains that cloud. And that air, sandokhan, is much heavier than your cloud!
To be honest I am fed up talking to someone that sounds like a broken record.

EDIT: Oh, one small question before I go, do you know why the rain falls to the ground? There is a force which attracts those drops of water to the ground and it's called ..... GRAVITY
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 19, 2013, 09:16:37 AM
So far the basis of your argument has all stemmed from this quote by Rayleigh which you have posted over and over:

In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: "The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory."

Notice the parts that I have bolded.

Your argument relies on this punchline:

"THIS HAPPENS EACH AND EVERY DAY, EVERYWHERE."

Do you see the contradiction here?

All that I have to do to win this debate is simply show you that it does not happen everywhere. Your very own copypasta which you have repasted OVER AND OVER implies that it DOES NOT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE.

So then I show you observations of pressure and you spout an accusation of error in my arguments.

This is from the link which you provided: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

"Because of this decrease in pressure with height, it makes it very hard to compare the air pressure at one location to another, especially when the elevations of each site differ. Therefore, to give meaning to the pressure values observed at each station, we need to convert the station air pressures reading to a value with a common dominator.

The common dominator we use is the sea-level. At observation stations around the world, through a series of calculations, the air pressure reading, regardless of the station elevation, is converted a value that would be observed if that instrument were located at sea level."

The station pressure is the true pressure at that station and mslp (for meteorolgy) and altimeter (for aircraft) are both calculated numbers using lapse rates.

The links I provided, at least some of them, provide all three numbers. I have told you this over and over again but really, it does not matter anyway. The thing to take away from these numbers is whether or not we get a change in pressure going the opposite direction of where it was going. In that case it doesn't matter what type of number is used.

Since I have shown you a place where that semidiurnal variation does not occur (something that even according to Lord Rayleigh is possible and happens at some places) then all that needs to be done is to determine what makes those places different than the places that do have a semidiurnal change.

I have already gone through what geography constitutes these differences. It is attributed to local weather, cloud cover and microscale events. When those are not happening we get a diurnal effect.

There is nothing more to say on this.

Your claim that this "paradox" happens everywhere all the time is shown to be incorrect and was incorrect all along as mentioned by Rayleigh himself.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 19, 2013, 11:34:48 AM
Quote
(antonio, the reference for the pockets of noxious gas is this: W.J. Humphreys, Physics of the Air, 1940, p.227 - Atmospheric Circulation, Winds Adverse to Aviation chapter)

As I said, those values cannot help your case at all: updrafts can be debunked immediately. Your requests are way beyond the scope of our discussion, an unnecessary diversion on your part which does not work with me. If you are really interested in this subject, please do the research yourself: remember, you have to prove that the updraft (upward moving air) LASTS FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDED TRAJECTORY OF THE CUMULONIMBUS CLOUD, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, WEIGHING 1 BILLION TONS.

Reread the Cloud Trajectories Paradox: there is no way you can explain the restoring forces paradox.

As for your video (a very interesting cloud formation pattern), you must understand the cyclone/anticyclone paradox, which no heliocentrist (like yourself) can explain:

There is no diversion, as before considering some extraordinary explanations, you should perhaps start with the basics You skipped this first step, and you are still avoiding my simple request.

We may go step by step, so before talking about cumulonimbus ( we'll come back on them) , I suggest to start with the cloud depicted in the video.
You are invoking cyclones and anticyclones, but they are involved in a much bigger scale. We are here at a kilometric scale, not thousands.
Please, can you explain with less than 200 characters  ;)  how this massive and heavy cloud can float and be absolutely still, obviously facing a strong wind? . What is your theory ?

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: 11cookeaw1 on September 19, 2013, 12:47:23 PM
Have you ever seen steam rise? That's water, the water you say shouldn't be able to form clouds. It's because the water while in a cloud is initially made up of individual molecules not connected together. These molecules are no denser then molecules in the air. Also, for tiny drops the surface area to mass ratio is very high, allowing wind to keep them up before the form drops to large.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 19, 2013, 03:20:58 PM
I'm going to simplify one of sandokhan, stop me if I'm wrong. Liquids separate by density because of gravity. Air doesn't separate by density. Therefore gravity doesn't exist.

No flaws at all.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 01:16:47 AM
cartesian...you have a crude and brutish approach to science.

There is no updraft that could explain how a cumulonimbus cloud, weighing at some 1 BILLION TONS, floats effortlessly in front of our eyes.

To claim that an updraft appears suddenly and carries each cloud along on its trajectory, no matter what weight, its direction, is ludicrous, to say the least.

You wrote, confirming your brutish approach to scientific thought:

EDIT: Oh, one small question before I go, do you know why the rain falls to the ground? There is a force which attracts those drops of water to the ground and it's called ..... GRAVITY

There is no such thing as attractive gravity: see the Bruce DePalma spinning ball experiment, the Barometer Pressure Paradox, and much more.

Drops of water (rain) fall to the ground because of the influence of PRESSURE GRAVITY (dextrorotatory telluric waves, proven to exist by the experiments carried out by Dr. Dayton Miller) on those very drops.

This could only happen on a flat surface of the Earth.

The Tunguska event proves clearly that the surface of the Earth is flat.


Let go back to the points I made, which you ignore completely each and every time.

Clouds ARE NOT water vapour: they are either water droplets or ice crystals.

Official science explanation: Clouds stay aloft for the same reason that dust motes floating around, also heavier than air: air drafts push them around.

But, just like the pseudo-explanation you came up with, this cannot be true.

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity.

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

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

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


More details.

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

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

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


antonio, you tried this kind of approach before...at the Moon Radio thread...it did not work then, it won't work now.

There is always a very good reason I mention something in my messages: the cyclones/anticyclones information is meant to increase your knowledge about atmospheric physics.

In the context of the round earth theory, YOUR VIDEO IS COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINABLE.

A lenticular cloud is formed by the action of the telluric currents (the vortices created by them).

Let me show just how little you know about this subject.

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

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

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

The very formation of a cloud, its effortless floating although its weight runs in the millions of tons, is explained by the fact that terrestrial gravity = electricity = magnetism, just as proved by the Biefeld-Brown effect.


Anvil clouds are even more mysterious.

(http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/image07/071217electriccloud.jpg)

Official science: Anvil clouds form in the tops of thunderstorms 5 to 10 miles high and consist mainly of ice.

Therefore, your own very video proves that cloud formation/trajectories are explainable only by taking into account the vortex theory of terrestrial gravity.


There is no diversion, as before considering some extraordinary explanations, you should perhaps start with the basics You skipped this first step, and you are still avoiding my simple request.

How many times do we really have to go through this? I have studied very carefully cloud droplet microphysics. There is nothing there that explains how a cumulonimbus cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float IN SPITE of attractive gravity.


rottingroundearththeory, you are the same person who wrote this:

At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min.

YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE VERY BASIC FACTS OF PHYSICS.

In the world in which you live, A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IS ACHIEVED BY A LOWERING THE SAME PRESSURE.

Brilliant.


You wrote further:

Clouds and mist are aerosols.

Again, no knowledge of atmospheric physics.

Aerosols INTERACT WITH CLOUDS, they are not clouds.


I ask you again, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

From the National Weather Service website:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS AND TRUE BAROMETER/ABSOLUTE MEASUREMENTS, DO YOU?

At observation stations around the world, through a series of calculations, the air pressure reading, regardless of the station elevation, is converted a value that would be observed if that instrument were located at sea level.

Can't you even understand something as basic as this?

The sea level pressure measurements cannot be used to study the semidiurnal patterns of the pressure of the barometer, as they are used for a very quick estimation of the pressure.

To scientifically study true/absolute barometer pressure, you calculations must be much more involved.


Have you really lost your mind?

You NEVER showed anything other than sea level pressure measurements, nothing else: you have never shown that the semidiurnal barometer changes do not actuall occur somewhere.


Let us go through the same routine again, this time maybe you will understand.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.

Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’

Most parts, that is, WHERE THE PHENOMENON WAS ACTUALLY STUDIED. In other parts, the measurements were simply not performed, that is what Lord Rayleigh meant.

You can find more of what actually Lord Rayleigh meant in his paper:

1890, On the vibrations of an atmosphere, Phil. Mag. (5), 29, pg. 173-180.


Now, the precise demonstration that the barometer pressure paradox DEFIES 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.

THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EACH AND EVERY DAY, as documented in the links I provided here so clearly.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

For example, here is the data 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation.


AGAIN, PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on September 20, 2013, 02:21:06 AM
Here goes the copy pasta again. And don't bring your Tunguska stuff here. I already showed that you were intentionally misleading poor readers in another thread.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2013, 05:37:58 AM
I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.
Explain it to show you understand.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 06:25:44 AM
He is misleading readers again. I'm done with his ignorance.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 06:41:48 AM
Let me demonstrate first that electricity = magnetism.

A brief description: the magnetic field consists of strings of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) which circulate between the two poles of the magnet (BOTH N-S and S-N, as we shall see). Through the subquarks we have a flow of bosons/antibosons.

In a conductor, which consists of the same subquark strings, these subquarks align themselves to allow the boson flow (what we actually call electricity).

The same phenomenon: one is a flow of bosons through subquarks outside a conductor, the other a flow of bosons inside a conductor.

The subquark strings are made up of two helices: a laevorotatory spin, and a dextrorotatory spin.

Terrestrial gravity is the DEXTROROTATORY SPIN SUBQUARK STRING; the laevorotatory offers the opposing force, the antigravitational energy needed to explain the DePalma, Kozyrev, and Brown experiments.


It is now time to see what an actual unit of electromagnetic radiation looks like.


http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf (http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf) (mapping of magnetic fields)


(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7055/87773492.jpg)

(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4750/ext1.jpg)

(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4940/ext2.jpg)

(http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/a_hojo-wire.jpg)

(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9060/fourmagnet.jpg)

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


Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm)


Therefore, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet has four vortices (actually two, but each one is composed of a receptive and an emissive part), and a center, out of which these vortices emerge. This magnetic field consists of magnetic monopoles which travel in both senses (north-south AND south-north), in contradiction to what we have been taught so far (only north-south direction).

NOW, WE PROVE THAT THE MAGNETIC MONOPOLES ARE ACTUALLY SUBQUARKS.


The correct atomic weights predicted for each element decades ahead of the discovery some of them, and the start of the modern quantum physics.

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science.


Now we will see that the magnetic monopoles discovered recently, and which do form a magnetic field, are actually subquarks.

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

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

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

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gi (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gi)

Seven possible shapes for the atoms:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif)

A baryon, or the fourth state of ether (groups of nine subquarks):

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif)

Mesons, third state of ether, groups of six subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif)

Quarks, second state of ether, groups of three subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif)


MAGNETIC MONOPOLES, SUBQUARKS, TACHYONS, PREONS, OMEGANS:

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

First state of ether

A magnetic monopole or subquark consists of strings of bosons and antibosons (boson = photon = neutrino).

The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as ‘an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick’.

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

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



To achieve a faster than light speed means to somehow increase the vibration of an ordinary atom (groups of 18 subquarks) to a higher level which approaches that of the fourth state of ether made up of 9 groups of subquarks.


BASIC LAW OF ETHER WAVES (which consist, as we have seen, of two strings which travel in double torsion, one laevorotatory, one dextrorotatory) specified by Nikola Tesla:

ETHER IS MADE RIGID BY APPLYING HIGH VOLTAGE, HIGH FREQUENCY ELECTRICITY

This rigidness can become, eventually, ball lightning: ether waves which no longer travel through aether, but which are "trapped" in a torsion torus.


The original set of Maxwell's equations prove the very same thing.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)


The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.

Referees who believe atmospheric electricity is an effect, rather than a cause of weather, would almost certainly find grounds for rejecting funding for, or publication of, such an experiment. The same applies to the publication of reports from credible eyewitnesses. For decades airline pilots witnessed strange lightning above storms but were discouraged from reporting it. The objection is unfair and unscientific. Advances come from challenging established beliefs.

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


The only possible explanation for the flow of clouds which weigh in excess of 1 BILLION TONS, is the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Just like in the DePalma experiment, the laevorotatory subquarks in the cloud/spinning ball receive energy from the laevorotatory subquarks in the telluric currents (by left-spin rotation, by applying electricity, or even by sound): thus the antigravitational effect.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540153.html#msg1540153 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540153.html#msg1540153)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161)



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 06:47:25 AM
You, rottingroom, have shown the UTMOST DISRESPECT FOR YOUR READERS HERE.

You have tried diligently to mislead them all the time.

I have never mislead anybody here, on the contrary, the proof that the barometer pressure paradox DEFIES ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY is very simple.


Here is how you tried to mislead your readers.

At night time the air is going to cool which will increase your barometric pressure. As heating occurs, pressure will lower to give you this "10am" maximum and then your minimum at "4pm".  At this time the offset occurs in which pressure starts to increase again giving you that minimum. It is merely heat transfer affecting the gas particles as each transition occurs and it is that transition that gives you the semidiurnal max and min.

YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE VERY BASIC FACTS OF PHYSICS.

In the world in which you live, A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF BAROMETRIC PRESSURE IS ACHIEVED BY A LOWERING THE SAME PRESSURE.

You wrote further:

Clouds and mist are aerosols.

Again, no knowledge of atmospheric physics.

Aerosols INTERACT WITH CLOUDS, they are not clouds.


You tried to mislead your readers by presenting SEA LEVEL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS AS ABSOLUTE BAROMETER PRESSURE DATA, a grievious mistake.



http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.

Now, the precise demonstration that the barometer pressure paradox DEFIES 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.

THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EACH AND EVERY DAY, as documented in the links I provided here so clearly.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)



AGAIN, PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 06:52:06 AM
I did not mislead readers. I made my own mistakes and admitted to them. You have mislead readers and have denied the explanations I've given by simply repasting the same thing over and over. I don't have time for you. Its too tedious and evidently pointless.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 07:00:26 AM
You have problems which cannot be cured/dealt with here.

No misleading on my part, ever.

You tried to mislead your readers by presenting SEA LEVEL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS AS ABSOLUTE BAROMETER PRESSURE DATA, a grievious mistake.



http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.

Now, the precise demonstration that the barometer pressure paradox DEFIES 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.

THIS HAPPENS EVERYWHERE, EACH AND EVERY DAY, as documented in the links I provided here so clearly.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)



AGAIN, PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

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.


Lord Rayleigh, the National Weather Service, and all the foregoing references are not misleading anybody: THE EFFECT OF THE BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX HAPPENS EACH DAY AND IT CANNOT BE EXPLAINED, a clear defiance of the attractive gravity concept. End of story.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:01:26 AM
I'm responding from my phone so excuse the non-novel like responses.

You posting from Taiwan is only so relevant. To prove you wrong all I had to do is show any observation that contradicts that claim, and I did. I didn't just do that, I also explained what causes it to be semidiurnal vs what causes it to be diurnal.

Then, since you didn't like that you attacked mslp. Ignoring that my links provide station pressure which is the actual recorded pressure and while the mslp is a calculated number the only significant part of it is the change. That means that if station pressure goes up, then so does the mslp or altimeter and the same for if it goes down.

The mslp, if graphed will show the same changes as the station pressure. Thats all that matters, so you're argument about what pressure units are used is irrelevant.

So, I got nothing more to say. You clearly don't care about the information I've given you. If you did you would take a step back and consider that you are wrong.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 07:07:16 AM
You have lost any link to reality.

Remember, that your links provide information about the sea level and mean sea level pressure measurements.

This is much easier to perform than the actual absolute barometer pressure calculation.


That this is actually the case can be readily deduced from the very links you provided.

http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html (http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/RCSS.html)

Take a look at the ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA AT THE PRESSURE INCHES COLUMN.

MUCH OF THE SAME NUMBERS, REPEATED: 29.77 - 29.80 - 29.83 - 29.85

This means that we are dealing WITH SEA LEVEL PRESSURE CALCULATIONS, which, as I have said, are much easier to perform than actual absolute barometer measurements.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

My links provide the correct information about the maximums and minimums of the barometric pressure readings, as always.


THE SAME ARTIFICIAL NUMBERS USED IN THE CORONADO LINK YOU PROVIDED.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


Your links/information AMOUNT TO NOTHING, you have no idea what you are writing, what you are posting.

OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.
This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

THIS IS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR LINKS, NOT THE ACTUAL BAROMETER PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE NUMBERS IN THE SEA LEVEL PRESSURE AND STATION PRESSURE DATA.


If the work is properly done, then this is what you will get:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.


STATION PRESSURE AS RECORDED IN THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED IS THE MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, not the real measurements. To calculate the absolute barometer is more complicated, that is why you brought here links with the wrong data/information.

You still FAIL to understand this crucial point, even though I carefully explained the situation to you.

This means you have lost any link with reality.


HERE IS THE REAL WORLD.

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.


End of discussion. The daily semidiurnal changes in the barometric pressure readings, CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL:  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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:08:12 AM
I do these measurements myself, everyday. We use a barometer to get station pressure then from that we calculate the altimeter and mslp. The station pressure is true pressure at that station.Which I provided. The graphs will look slightly different if we graphed each but the changes in direction of pressure would be the same.

So that is not misleading. It is relevant to your argument about pressure changes. Which you are false about.

Please just respond to the specific points I make and don't repaste the same things.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:15:45 AM
Are you saying that if we take the example I provided at twenty nine palms which I showed to be diurnal and if I took the "real" pressure at the station then we would get a semi diurnal curve?

Care to show me that. Do it for twenty nine palms with today's observations from NOAA.

I bet you that it will show the same changes and it will be diurnal. Stop relying on one observation. Use any observation in a place with "perfect air" and you'll see a diurnal curve. Its just a fact.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 07:26:22 AM
He confused aerosols with clouds, he said that the maximum pressure is achieved by the continuous lowering of the same pressure...and now he cannot understand the difference between the station pressure and absolute barometer pressure measurements.


http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


ARE YOU ALL THERE ROTTINGROOM?


At observation stations around the world, through a series of calculations, the air pressure reading, regardless of the station elevation, is converted a value that would be observed if that instrument were located at sea level.

Can't you even understand something as basic as this?

To scientifically study true/absolute barometer pressure, your calculations must be much more involved.


Again, take a look at the very data you provided as truth:


http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


The station pressure data is just as artificial as are the sea level pressure measurements: there is a direct correlation between the two.


Again, here is the real world of barometer pressure measurements.



http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.

HERE IS THE REAL DATA ON 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Now, the precise demonstration that the barometer pressure paradox DEFIES 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.



The same National Weather Service website says this:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


A direct contradiction of the claims you have been making here: the Taiwan and Coronado data are sea level pressure and station pressure recordings which are correlated with each other.

Here is the real data on 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.

Can you understand English?


Are you saying that if we take the example I provided at twenty nine palms which I showed to be diurnal and if I took the "real" pressure at the station then we would get a semi diurnal curve?

Care to show me that. Do it for twenty nine palms with today's observations from NOAA.

I bet you that it will show the same changes and it will be diurnal. Stop relying on one observation. Use any observation in a place with "perfect air" and you'll see a diurnal curve. Its just a fact.


More nonsense from you.

You are completely divorced from reality.

You wrote:

Here is a link where you can confirm that my graph uses the correct numbers:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)

The same thing just as in Taiwan and Coronado:  the Taiwan and Coronado data are sea level pressure and station pressure recordings which are correlated with each other, here also.

If the measurements would be done correctly (calculated correctly) at Twenty Nine Palms, then you would record the proper data:


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.


Are you able to understand this?

How long do we have to go through this?


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE official information

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)



AGAIN, PLEASE UNDERSTAND.

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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:31:33 AM
You just repasted the same thing. Ignoring my points. This is crazy.

"STATION PRESSURE AS RECORDED IN THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED IS THE MEAN SEA LEVEL PRESSURE, not the real measurements. To calculate the absolute barometer is more complicated, that is why you brought here links with the wrong data/information."

Obviously incorrect. You think the mslp is obtained to calculate the station pressure? It works the other way around sandokhan. There is no sea level at a location above sea level! Station pressure is recorded and then mslp is derived from that. Obviously the only actual recordable pressure is that at the station.

Keep going with those ad hominem attacks though. Keep ignoring the relevant points that I make. Keep pasting.

Ignore. Paste. Ignore. Paste.

I ask again. Go to NOAA, search for twenty-nine palms and look at station pressure. Those are the numbers that come directly from the barometer. Station pressure.

Station Pressure.

Station Pressure.

Your point about mslp is irrelevant!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:36:41 AM
You can keep posting the same stuff. The statement that "the most basic change in pressure is yada yada" is not an observation. It's a statement about what usually occurs.

The keyword being usually.

Your claim is that it always happens. Not usually.

Actual observations indicate otherwise.

I am the only person that has shown actual observations. You have just shown statements that I don't even disagree with. We just interpret it differently. I say that semidiurnal variations are typical while you say they always happen. That is the disagreement.

So, my task is to show you ANY observation where it isn't semidiurnal.

I did that, so then you attack mslp.

Again, I showed links that show mslp AND station pressure.

Station pressure is the original recorded number direct from the barometer.

I didn't even mention MSLP in the first place!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 07:48:23 AM
I repeated the same data so you could see where you went wrong.

You still do not understand.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION


http://www.novalynx.com/manuals/bp-elevation-correction-tables.pdf (http://www.novalynx.com/manuals/bp-elevation-correction-tables.pdf)


Weather stations located at elevations above sea level often need adjustment to the barometer so
that sea level pressure is the indicated value. Sometimes the information necessary making for the
adjustment is unavailable or is difficult to obtain.


Barometer corrections to sea level pressure are most often associated with airports, television
reports, or National Weather Service offices. These organizations give sea level reduced pressure
readings. Some large organizations may have networks of weather stations spread over a large
region to measure lateral variations in pressure such as those produced by weather fronts.


Barometric pressure corrections can be obtained by contacting a local airport or National Weather
Service weather station operator and requesting the current local reading. The barometer in
question is then adjusted so that its reading matches that obtained from the airport or NWS. Some
error will be introduced using this method of adjustment, increasing with distance since lateral
pressure variations may increase with the horizontal distance from the reporting weather station.
The tables provided with this document are based upon the United States Standard Atmosphere
and can be used in situations where no reporting stations exist within the immediate area. The
tables give the correction factor that is added to the barometric pressure reading for a given station
elevation. The correction is given both in inches of mercury (inHg) and in millibars (mb). Values are
indicated for elevations expressed in feet above sea level.

For any station elevation, add the “deviation from zero” figure to the barometer’s current
barometric pressure reading.


As an example, consider a barometer located at an elevation of 4550 feet with a current reading
of 25.07 inHg. Using the tables, a value of 4.60 inHg should be added to the reading. The
barometer should be adjusted until it produces a reading of 29.67 inHg to report the equivalent sea
level pressure.


THIS IS EXACTLY THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE DATA IN YOUR LINKS (WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTRADICT THE VERY STATEMENT MADE BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WHICH SAYS CLEARLY: The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.).


Again, take a look at the very data you provided as truth:


http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


The station pressure data is just as artificial as are the sea level pressure measurements: there is a direct correlation between the two.


Obviously, YOU HAD NO IDEA OF THESE FACTS, NO REAL BAROMETER PRESSURER MEASUREMENTS WERE EVER PERFORMED BY YOU.


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


A direct contradiction of the claims you have been making here: the Taiwan and Coronado data are sea level pressure and station pressure recordings which are correlated with each other.

Here is the real data on 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


http://www.starpath.com/downloads/calibration_procedure.pd (http://www.starpath.com/downloads/calibration_procedure.pd)

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.


STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

This the reason for the ARTIFICIAL DATA YOU PROVIDED.

Please study meteorology and leave real science to others.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 07:54:31 AM
It does not matter. You could use a completely uncalibrated barometer and it would still record the correct CHANGES. It would show the wrong numbers but it would still correctly show WHEN the pressure changed direction.

This is the part you don't understand.

I could use a thermometer that is off by 30 degrees but if my only objective was to determine when the temperature started to get colder, then it wouldn't matter.

Do you understand this point?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 07:59:02 AM
The data you provided as truth (Taiwan, Coronado, Twenty Nine Palms) is the station pressure.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.


This the reason for the ARTIFICIAL DATA YOU PROVIDED WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTRADICT THE VERY STATEMENT MADE BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WHICH SAYS CLEARLY:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.


Proper measurements will lead to these results:

Here is the real data on 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 08:00:42 AM
Can you please answer the question:

Would an uncalibrated barometer at least show when pressure began to increase or decrease?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 20, 2013, 08:04:34 AM
Quote
antonio, you tried this kind of approach before...at the Moon Radio thread...it did not work then, it won't work now.
it did. You finally answered to a direct question, without dodging and diverting to totally unrelated comments.

Quote
There is always a very good reason I mention something in my messages: the cyclones/anticyclones information is meant to increase your knowledge about atmospheric physics.
I may thank Your Highness for this unvaluable gift ?

Quote
A lenticular cloud is formed by the action of the telluric currents (the vortices created by them).
Quote
In the context of the round earth theory, YOUR VIDEO IS COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINABLE.
(...)
Therefore, your own very video proves that cloud formation/trajectories are explainable only by taking into account the vortex theory of terrestrial gravity.
No way. A lenticular cloud is not a convective one. Anvil clouds are.

Facts :
Lenticular clouds need some unique conditions to exist:
- Steady and quite strong wind, with an altitude gradient of speed.
- A mountain or something else deflecting winds, at the proper angle.
- light or very low convective conditions.
- Adequate air moisture ratio

These conditions may result on a Stationary wave, exactly similar to those seen at the back of a speed boat. Some wikipedia stuff maybe? (I know you love it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_waves)

Lenticular clouds love surfing on stationary waves. They look like they are perfectly stationary and frozen in time. Of course, they are not.
These clouds appear stationary because the flow of moist air continually resupplies the cloud from the windward side even as water evaporates and vanishes from the leeward side.
Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.
What? no telluric stuff, no magnetohydrodynamics involved, just basic and old fashioned physics ?
No need to invoke your best friend Tesla, ancien Mayas, buddhist levitators or anything else to show how smart you are and how hard you study "unexplained" material.
This is how lenticular clouds "float".

Quote
Let me show just how little you know about this subject.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm)
I see, it's obvious. But I'm sorry to say again that you are talking about convective clouds. Lenticulars are not by any way convective clouds.


Quote
Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?
Maybe very strong convective currents and some wind shears?


Quote
In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.
Yep, a lot of people work on clouds. No one -but you- really understand what is going on ?


Quote
The very formation of a cloud, its effortless floating although its weight runs in the millions of tons, is explained by the fact that terrestrial gravity = electricity = magnetism, just as proved by the Biefeld-Brown effect.
This is a statement and your belief. Not enough to be the truth.


Quote
How many times do we really have to go through this? I have studied very carefully cloud droplet microphysics.
Really? I'm still waiting for values of free fall terminal velocities for typical water droplets and convective currents. Give your sources, give facts, not assumptions or fringe science. 

Quote
There is nothing there that explains how a cumulonimbus cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float IN SPITE of attractive gravity.
You may say instead that YOU don't know how. That's fine too.

Quote
I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.
Please give something else than your feeling.
Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:
Quote
Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 08:33:33 AM
So if an uncalibrated barometer would still show when pressure changes then does it matter to bring up these arguments about how mslp or altimeter are calculated. We don't care about those points in this discussion. All that matters is showing WHEN the changes take place. We can use any barometer, without calibration to show the part that matters to this discussion.

That is misleading the readers. That is derailment.

So the mslp, station pressure and altimeter are all useful to this discussion. It is in fact these numbers that are cited to help your arguments when you say "pressure recorded at stations show..."

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 08:36:32 AM
antonio, you are ignoring everything we have discussed here so far.

It does not matter whether a cloud is convective or not: the explanation you offer cannot be true.

Please reread the cloud weight paradox, which you have dodged so far.

The very formation of the lenticular cloud, as I have said, defies the official atmospheric physics.

Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.

HOW WILL THEY HOVER FOR DAYS AT A TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THEIR WEIGHT DEFIES COMMONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS?

Please read carefully.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

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

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


More details.

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

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

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


Your intervention at the Moon Radio showed you have no IDEA ABOUT THE INFORMATION YOUR OWN LINK PROVIDED: you failed to make any point there, as usual, don't kid yourself.


Only the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain the quote you provided:

Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses.

Your wording cannot but remind us of the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

Really? I'm still waiting for values of free fall terminal velocities for typical water droplets and convective currents. Give your sources, give facts, not assumptions or fringe science. 

You cannot even explain the cloud weight paradox: how then can you ask for free fall terminal velocities?

If you cannot explain how the cloud's weight DEFIES attractive gravity, it would be a waste of time to search for such specialized info.

There is nothing there that explains how a cumulonimbus cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float IN SPITE of attractive gravity.

Since the official explanation is completely wrong, and since the Biefeld Brown effect is well documented, I DO KNOW very clearly how a cumulonimbus cloud weighinig some 1 billion tons can float.


You haven't done your homework at all on Gunn and Kinzer.

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the eff ect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of di erent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suff ered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diff usivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)

As I said, Antonio, your messages are but a parturition of mountain and a birth of the mouse.


FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS

electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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


rottingroom, please call the National Weather Service to find out how the true barometer pressure measurement is made to achieve this result:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 08:42:17 AM
Please answer the question:

Can an uncalibrated barometer still be used to determine WHEN pressure begins to increase or decrease?

You know the answer is yes.

Therefore everything you have said about how mslp is derived is POINTLESS.

The numbers are still meaningful.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 20, 2013, 08:53:17 AM
The data you provided shows station pressure and sea level pressure measurements.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.

Obviously, YOU HAD NO IDEA OF THESE FACTS, NO REAL BAROMETER PRESSURER MEASUREMENTS WERE EVER PERFORMED BY YOU.


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


A direct contradiction of the claims you have been making here: the Taiwan and Coronado data are sea level pressure and station pressure recordings which are correlated with each other.

Here is the real data on 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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


The numbers cannot be meaningful as they are station pressure measurements, as can be so clearly seen.


Please call the National Weather Service to find out how the true barometer pressure measurement is made to achieve this result:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

You will find out exactly how it is done, that is, how their statement contradicts all of your messages here so far.

Please read the real Taiwan data again.

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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 08:58:29 AM
Please answer the question: will an uncalibrated barometer show when pressure begins to increase or decrease?

Quit dodging the question.

Just a yes or no will work here.

It will be amazing to see if you could provide such a short response. Please, surprise us with just a yes or a no.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 20, 2013, 09:09:18 AM
If you look at the table you provided you'll see it is not plus or minus. Its always adding a number greater than zero and it's always that same number for that station. The numbers will therefore be proportional and the same changes in direction will be seen on the pressure graph.

There is no corner to hide in now sandokhan. No more derails to find. All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

I repeat:

1. It does not matter if the barometer has been calibrated for the changes in pressure will still be readily visible.

2. The amount added to account for elevation to show the station pressure will be the same for every following observation at that station and does not effect the pressure graph. We will still see the same changes in pressure.

SO ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT BAROMETERS HAS BEEN POINTLESS. We DO NOT care about which type of pressure is used or how it was obtained. We just care about when pressure changes direction and all three: mslp, station pressure and altimeter all show this change just fine.

This was nothing more than a derailment.

Diurnal changes happen and semi-diurnal changes are not always at precisely at 4am, 10am, 4pm, and 10pm. They may usually occur at those times and most places may see that, but THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on September 20, 2013, 12:32:13 PM
What's actually embarrassing, sandokhan, is your apparent lack of overall knowledge.  When I said that gravity is extremely weak, I meant in respect to the other three forces, I was not referring to some differential based on altitude.  The weak nuclear force is 10^37 times stronger than gravity, the electromagnetic force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity and the strong nuclear force is 10^44 times stronger than gravity.  So, gravity in the RE model is by FAR the weakest force.

There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.  Do you know how much a proton or neutron weighs?  Do you know how diffusion works?  "Diffusion is a result of the kinetic properties of particles of matter. The particles will mix until they are evenly distributed."  The energy present in the air, simply due to it's temperature, is enough to keep the layers from forming.  And when the sun is shining on the air:  Party!  It's way more about energy than it is about weight differential at that scale.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2013, 02:22:27 PM
Let me demonstrate first that electricity = magnetism.
I'm going to disprove you as a whole in one simple picture. Somehow you did make some correct claims though.

(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/magnetic_detection__iron_filings.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/magnetic_detection__iron_filings.jpg.html)

Quote
It is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the Biefield-Brown Effect, where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometers above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.
Yet airplanes and skydivers feel no effect from it. Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 21, 2013, 02:42:16 AM
monkey...I realized very well what you meant by weak gravity in your previous quote...however, your analysis does not apply to the real world: the notions of strong/weak nuclear forces are just a mathematical pipe dream.

Here is the step by step correct description of the structure of the atom, from boson to baryon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)

Do your homework...and stop posting nonsense.

There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.  Do you know how much a proton or neutron weighs?  Do you know how diffusion works?

The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.

Nitrogen – 78 percent
Oxygen – 21 percent
Argon – 0.93 percent

That is why I reminded you of this very basic fact:

In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface.

As you can no longer use the commonly accepted notion of weak gravity (gravity is the dextrorotatory string of the telluric subquark currents, see page 4 here), we have the following paradox:

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?


Here is the official explanation: When objects are in orbit around each other, there is a strong pull of gravity between them. For example, we commonly say that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. However, the Moon pulls back on the Earth as well. This changes the Earth a little. One way we see this happening is the ocean tides.

If the Moon's gravity is assumed to have such an influence upon the Earth's tides, HOW THEN can you post something like this: There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.

You have no clear understading of the meaning of gravitational pull in relation to a specific weight, please do your homework.



rottingroom, the data you provided as truth (Taiwan, Coronado, Twenty Nine Palms) is the station pressure.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.


This the reason for the ARTIFICIAL DATA YOU PROVIDED WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTRADICT THE VERY STATEMENT MADE BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WHICH SAYS CLEARLY:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.



If you look at the table you provided you'll see it is not plus or minus. Its always adding a number greater than zero and it's always that same number for that station. The numbers will therefore be proportional and the same changes in direction will be seen on the pressure graph.

There is no corner to hide in now sandokhan. No more derails to find. All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

I repeat:

1. It does not matter if the barometer has been calibrated for the changes in pressure will still be readily visible.

2. The amount added to account for elevation to show the station pressure will be the same for every following observation at that station and does not effect the pressure graph. We will still see the same changes in pressure.



BUT IT DOES MATTER IF THE BAROMETER VALUES HAVE BEEN CALIBRATED TO CALCULATE THE STATION PRESSURE/SEA LEVEL PRESSURE.

IT WILL AFFECT THE PRESSURE GRAPH GREATLY.

Again, you have no idea what you are writing.


Take a look at the very data you provided as truth:


http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


Barometric pressure corrections can be obtained by contacting a local airport or National Weather
Service weather station operator and requesting the current local reading. The barometer in
question is then adjusted so that its reading matches that obtained from the airport or NWS. Some
error will be introduced using this method of adjustment, increasing with distance since lateral
pressure variations may increase with the horizontal distance from the reporting weather station.
The tables provided with this document are based upon the United States Standard Atmosphere
and can be used in situations where no reporting stations exist within the immediate area. The
tables give the correction factor that is added to the barometric pressure reading for a given station
elevation. The correction is given both in inches of mercury (inHg) and in millibars (mb). Values are
indicated for elevations expressed in feet above sea level.

http://www.starpath.com/downloads/calibration_procedure.pd (http://www.starpath.com/downloads/calibration_procedure.pd)


Please answer the question: will an uncalibrated barometer show when pressure begins to increase or decrease?

I already answered your question a long time ago.

But you do not understand how barometer pressure calculations are profesionally performed.

In ADDITION to the uncalibrated barometer values, there are complex calculations which must be done to achieve the proper results.

Here is a very good reference for you: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)


You had no idea that the station pressure is actually a MODIFIED, calibrated value, and not the TRUE VALUE.


Once the true value is taken into account, AND the proper calculations are done, you will get the CORRECT RESULTS, as follows:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.



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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

As I have demonstrated above, using your own very links, IT DOES MATTER, since then you will have MODIFIED VALUES, WHICH ARE NEVER USED TO STUDY THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE TRUE BAROMETER PRESSURE VALUES.


In your links, there is a direct CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SEA PRESSURE VALUES AND THE STATION PRESSURE VALUES, EXACTLY MY POINT.

OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

How can you still post your nonsense given these very clear and basic facts?

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 21, 2013, 03:34:54 AM
HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


A total confirmation of the data from the National Weather Service.

But, the explanation commonly accepted, as we can see above, is totally incorrect.

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 Lord Rayleigh response to the lunar gravitational influence on the atmospherric tide:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=fS_TJ63wdAYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=barometric+semidiurnal+changes+lunar+influence&source=bl&ots=g3ReY8cpIC&sig=rsTjBiL4A1AFr-AD32sbl7xnYOs&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=r3U9UoOgJKTh4QS6jYHIBg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=barometric%20semidiurnal%20changes%20lunar%20influence&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=fS_TJ63wdAYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=barometric+semidiurnal+changes+lunar+influence&source=bl&ots=g3ReY8cpIC&sig=rsTjBiL4A1AFr-AD32sbl7xnYOs&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=r3U9UoOgJKTh4QS6jYHIBg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=barometric%20semidiurnal%20changes%20lunar%20influence&f=false)



GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


A very simple demonstration that everything I have posted here was in fact correct.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on September 21, 2013, 07:18:50 AM
I can't talk to you sandokhan. You have ignored everything I wrote. I'm done.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 23, 2013, 12:19:01 AM
Quote
It does not matter whether a cloud is convective or not: the explanation you offer cannot be true.
Why not? give arguments. Real ones, not just denial. Sorry for the repetition, but convective clouds are totally different. They barely share the same colour with lenticular ones.
Quote
Please reread the cloud weight paradox, which you have dodged so far.
You are naming this a paradox. Real life is another story, but I can't help there.
Quote
The very formation of the lenticular cloud, as I have said, defies the official atmospheric physics
This falls short. I've given a very simple, factual explanation, of their formation. It's not my belief, it's a widely observed, measured and explained phenomenon. Please show us your rebuttal. Give some data now.
Quote
Quote
Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.
HOW WILL THEY HOVER FOR DAYS AT A TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THEIR WEIGHT DEFIES COMMONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS?
This is your essence: selective reading.
Please note the starting words "Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering". I repeat: "can look like". Got it ?
A plane flying at 60 kts against a 60kt wind can look like it is hovering. Does it really defy the accepted explanation? 
Quote
The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case.
Have you ever read what I wrote?

Quote
I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity
I think it's obvious you don't want to face simple facts. In fact you don't want any kind of evidence that does not fit your preconceived idea.   


Quote
There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.
I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.
Again that's your belief. Can you now give some real life facts or data, or should we stick with your statements ?

Quote
Your intervention at the Moon Radio showed you have no IDEA ABOUT THE INFORMATION YOUR OWN LINK PROVIDED: you failed to make any point there, as usual, don't kid yourself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, master. But, again, I cannot help you if you don't want to understand basic photography and generally speaking, basic real world physics. Try to disprove my ideas by facts, not by rants.


Quote
Only the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain the quote you provided
Please go further. Show HOW the Biefeld-Brown effect works on these lenticular clouds, and HOW it is not the result of standing waves and basic moisture behaviour. Your move.


Quote
You cannot even explain the cloud weight paradox: how then can you ask for free fall terminal velocities?
If you cannot explain how the cloud's weight DEFIES attractive gravity, it would be a waste of time to search for such specialized info.
Don't do that for me. Do it for wiser people, who eventually reads your theories. It may help to have some numbers somewhere. Are you saying that you don't have any idea of the falling speed of the droplets because you don't need it ?

Quote
Since the official explanation is completely wrong, and since the Biefeld Brown effect is well documented, I DO KNOW very clearly how a cumulonimbus cloud weighinig some

1 billion tons can float.
Your belief is irrelevant. A biased logic does not help here.


Quote
You haven't done your homework at all on Gunn and Kinzer.

(...) pasted text
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)
Thank you for this additional data. It gives some interesting clues, as I may conclude that you share the results of this study.
Let's focus on it then.
You may notice on page 136 that there is no data for droplets smaller than 0.5mm. I remember you saying:
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.
Repeated 8 times
So we are discussing about 0.01 mm droplets, because greater diameters may cause rain and stop the "cloud paradox"TM .
If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.
As this study shows identical results for 0.5mm droplets and nothing for smaller ones you may search deeper.

But let's go a little bit further and jump to the conclusions:
Quote
(...) This causes an increase in the cross sectional area of the charged drop exposed to the airflow which in turn increases the drag and thus decreases the terminal velocity of the drop (Dawson and Warrender 1973; Gay et al 1974; Chuang and Beard 1990; Coquillat and Chauzy 1993)
What? A big charged drop changes his shape and needs even less upward lift to stay at a given altitude ? Just plain aerodynamics ? nothing about deroto-detoro-ximato fields?.
Please note that never ever, in this whole study, you may find something about charged drops floating in the air by some mysterious antigravity phenomenons. I may remind you that a droplet catched in an anti gravitational field should exhibit a spherical pattern. This study shows obviously anything but this one.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2013, 01:39:18 AM
antonio...you came here as the godfather of free fall terminal velocity of droplets...and yet you have shown to everybody that you have NO IDEA about this subject.

Having done no research at all, using the same useless tactics as you did at the Moon Radio Distance thread (where if you do remember, you failed miserably to make any point at all), you picked at random this link, here is your own wording:

Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:

Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway

But those tests were NOT performed carefully at all, you simply assumed they were, and in the process made a fool of yourself.


Here is the real data on the catastrophic experiments carried out by Gunn and Kinzer:

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the eff ect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of di erent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suff ered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diff usivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.

Can it get any worse than it? Of course, just read your own messages.


You failed again to read CAREFULLY what is meant in the paper I quoted from, as a bibliographical reference.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)

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


Do you understand English, antonio?

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

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


Have you no shame whatsoever to come here and simply ignore this very basic conclusions of this remarkable paper?

MORE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE VERY SAME WORK.


For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.

If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.

But the radius of cloud droplet can reach at most some 0.2 mm, usually 0.1 mm. Again, you have no experience in dealing with scientific papers.

IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR THE G&K AND THE PRESENT STUDY.

LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE DIAGRAMS.

THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU. Please visit your local eye physician if you need glasses.

If you cannot read a simple graph, what are you doing here antonio?


Here again is the cloud weight paradox for you.

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

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

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


More details.

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

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

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


The official explanations cannot stand scrutiny for even a second: no one can explain how a cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float effortlessly in front of everyone, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.



Please note the starting words "Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering".

You haven't done your homework, as usual.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Cloud_Images_Lenticular_01.html (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Cloud_Images_Lenticular_01.html)

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Clouds/Lenticular14a.png)
(copyright Peter Michaud)

The 10 March 2008 was a day of interesting weather. It started fine and calm, the sky clear blue with nary a cloud. By midday lenticular clouds* had appeared as shown in the first photo above. These lenticular clouds or "lennies" as they are sometimes called, stayed through the day.

"At the high points in the wave, moisture in the air condenses out to form a cloud," Michaud explained. "In the photo you can see that the wave established this morning displayed two peaks. Actually there were four -- two more were downstream from Mauna Loa, but the other two were not as impressive as Mauna Kea's!"


(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Earth/Clouds/Lenticular17.jpg)
(copyright C. Picking)

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Lenticular clouds can be shaped like a saucer, and can fly in the sense that, like most clouds, they are composed of small water droplets that float on air.

Thus we arrive at the very cloud weight paradox (the official explanation of standing waves/moisture fails miserably).

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

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

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

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

BUT THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT DEFIES THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY, JUST LIKE THE SPINNING BALL IN THE DEPALMA EXPERIMENT.

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

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.


T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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

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.


BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN FULL VACUUM:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161)

A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.  This indicates that in the absence of the unbalanced forces exerted by ion clouds, the discs moved mainly on the basis of the electrogravitic field effect, always toward the positive (negative G) direction.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

THE CONCENTRATED FORCE OF SOME KIND WHICH DOES ACCUMULATE, antonio, IS THE VERY SAME FORCE OBSERVED BY DR. DEPALMA, DR. KOZYREV, DR. TESLA.

It is the effect of the laevorotatory string of the telluric currents.

Terrestrial gravity is a measure of the dextrorotatory string of the same telluric currents.

The Biefeld Brown effect is the PERFECT PROOF and explanation for the cloud weight paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and much more.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 23, 2013, 03:04:11 AM
antonio...you came here as the godfather of free fall terminal velocity of droplets...
(...)rant
(...)pasted text
(...)rant
(...) dodging
The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).
I've never claimed such a thing. YOU are coming here as the godfather of known and unknown physics, and still dodged this simple question time after time. I'm waiting for something else than beliefs here.

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.
Again, your thoughts are not science. Give facts and evidence, not anonymous pasted text as a reference.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.
(...) pasted text
(...) dodging
(...) rants
Thus we arrive at the very cloud weight paradox (the official explanation of standing waves/moisture fails miserably).
Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS.
(...)pasted text
(...) long pasted text
(...) very long irrelevant pasted test
The Biefeld Brown effect is the PERFECT PROOF and explanation for the cloud weight paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and much more.
That's all ? All this text to show another belief ?
Why are you still debating? You think obviously that you are dead right. Fair enough, but you are wasting your time with me, I don't buy it  ;)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 23, 2013, 03:33:10 AM
You came here with this ABSOLUTE statement, meant to show your knowledge of the very subject chosen here for debate by yourself:

Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:

Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway


Here is the real data on the catastrophic experiments carried out by Gunn and Kinzer:

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the eff ect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of di erent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suff ered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diff usivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.


Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.



But I did scientifically prove that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity and also the validity of the Biefeld Brown effect.

The visible behaviour of clouds (lenticular included) cannot be explained at all, in terms of the usual explanations offered by science (see my previous debates here, where I debunked the updraft and moisture arguments).

Here are the basic facts of science on clouds, again.

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.

Therefore, the water droplets may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft.

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


As we have seen (the arguments used here by the RE), there ARE NO physical processes which can explain the defiance of attractive gravity by fog and by clouds (either updrafts or moisture).

The argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).


Let me prove to you that terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, thus proving not only everything I have written here on the cloud weight paradox, but also the validity of the Biefeld Brown.


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


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

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

BUT THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT DEFIES THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY, JUST LIKE THE SPINNING BALL IN THE DEPALMA EXPERIMENT.

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


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.

Do you understand English antonio?

A clear violation of the basic law of attractive gravity.


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.


BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN FULL VACUUM:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161)

A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.  This indicates that in the absence of the unbalanced forces exerted by ion clouds, the discs moved mainly on the basis of the electrogravitic field effect, always toward the positive (negative G) direction.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

THE CONCENTRATED FORCE OF SOME KIND WHICH DOES ACCUMULATE, antonio, IS THE VERY SAME FORCE OBSERVED BY DR. DEPALMA, DR. KOZYREV, DR. TESLA.


Let me make it very clear to you.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

Therefore, we have a definite proof of the following fact:

Clouds defy attractive gravity because of the Biefeld-Brown effect. As in the charged vs. uncharged droplets experiment, the effect of the laevorotatory strings will be to SUSPEND the droplets in mid-air for some period of time (hours, days).


A complete proof of the statement made earlier:

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


antonio, you have continously dodged the BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT, carefully documented in the extraordinary references I have provided here.

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

BUT THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT DEFIES THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY, JUST LIKE THE SPINNING BALL IN THE DEPALMA EXPERIMENT.

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

Let me remind you of the very basic facts.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


This concentrated force which does accumulate is the same force documented by Francis Nipher, and is the same force observed in the charged vs. uncharged droplet experiment.

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that attractive gravity is but a myth, and that clouds which weigh at some 1 billion tons defy the same attractive gravity using the proven Biefeld Brown effect.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 23, 2013, 04:22:54 AM
You came here with this ABSOLUTE statement, meant to show your knowledge of the very subject chosen here for debate by yourself:
(...)pasted text
You may be in this kind of show, not me.

Quote
Quote
Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.
But I did scientifically prove that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity and also the validity of the Biefeld Brown effect.
I never asked you to disprove attractive gravity. I've asked you multiple times to disprove standing waves, and lenticular clouds formation, step by step. The work seems to be still in progress. Let me know when you have finished.

Quote
The visible behaviour of clouds (lenticular included) cannot be explained at all, in terms of the usual explanations offered by science (see my previous debates here, where I debunked the updraft and moisture arguments).
No debunk there, just denial. Please try to have a scientific approach, and learn a bit more about standing waves.
Quote
Here are the basic facts of science on clouds, again.
(...)very long repeated pasted text
Let me prove to you that terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, thus proving not only everything I have written here on the cloud weight paradox, but also the validity of the Biefeld Brown.
(...) very long repeated and unrelated pasted text
This is not by any ways a proof, that's only your own belief. Care to come back to the clouds subject now ?

Quote
Do you understand English antonio?
Not very well, some sentences are quite difficult for me to understand, and it takes me a long time to write answers, but I'm working hard to improve my level. Thank you for your help in this process.

Quote
A clear violation of the basic law of attractive gravity.

(...)pasted text
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.
(...) BB pasted text
Therefore, we have a definite proof of the following fact:

Clouds defy attractive gravity because of the Biefeld-Brown effect. As in the charged vs. uncharged droplets experiment, the effect of the laevorotatory strings will be to SUSPEND the droplets in mid-air for some period of time (hours, days).
It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that attractive gravity is but a myth, and that clouds which weigh at some 1 billion tons defy the same attractive gravity using the proven Biefeld Brown effect.
(...)pasted text
Let me summarize. The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.
That's quite short, isn't it ?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on September 23, 2013, 04:36:46 AM
"I realized very well what you meant by weak gravity in your previous quote"

You obviously didn't, because you then stated the same irrelavent fact that gravity still has 90% strength at an altatude of 250 miles.  If it's not strong enough to separate the gases at sea level, it doesn't matter how strong it is at any higher altitude.



You seem to always be giving the incorrect importance to either relative and absolute numbers.  You keep posting absolute numbers like the weight of the atmosphere or the weight of a cloud, when only the relative weights are important;  and you keep posting relative numbers like the strength of gravity at 250 miles, when the absolute number is important to the discussion.



As for the "Great differences in specific weight," let's turn this around on you, Sandokhan, and see if you can provide some relevant information to the discussion:

What is the "specific weight" of a molecule of nitrogen gas?
What is the "specific weight" of a molecule of Oxygen gas?
What is the "specific weight" of an Argon atom?

And we don't need another description of the nature of the atom or molecules.  Please provide a number for each molecule or atom, all in the same unit of measure.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2013, 12:39:14 AM
Your version of reality, which includes gravity as a weak force, simply does not exist. I thought these things were well understood, without any need for comments.

Therefore, I included the official figures for gravity (altitude/percentage) to keep the discussion going, even though you did not have this concept of gravity in mind, and had no idea that weak gravity is a baseless myth, which can be debunked immediately.

I told you to do your homework, to think things through, to listen.


Brownian motion 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.


The brownian motion of gases DEFIES attractive gravity, even at ground (laboratory) level.

Do you understand what attractive gravity in the context of heliocentricty implies?

Since the brownian motion of gases defies attractive gravity, and we are told that the Earth orbits the Sun at 29 km/s, there should be no force which could keep the gases in the atmosphere (in any proportion).


If it's not strong enough to separate the gases at sea level, it doesn't matter how strong it is at any higher altitude.

Perhaps what you mean is the presence of gases in a lab on a boat, not the hydrogen/oxygen in liquid water...then, the same attractive gravity could not keep those gases in a atmosphere which rotates at the same speed with the Earth (and here, of course, we will get into the cloud trajectories paradox).


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.”

Again, please read carefully.

...are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.

Argon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, simply DEFY attractive gravity, despite the great differences in specific weights (certainly you can do the homework and obtain the figures you seek).


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?

Gases in the atmosphere (and at ground level, given the brownian motion paradox) SIMPLY DEFY ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Next time we meet, we will debate the barometer pressure paradox.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2013, 01:33:08 AM
antonio, given the fact that you cannot even read a simple graph, your requests should be addressed in a different tone of voice.

Here is what you wrote earlier:

If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)

IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR THE G&K AND THE PRESENT STUDY.

LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE DIAGRAMS.

THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU.


If your "performance" is not due to poor eyesight, or the fact that you simply have no idea how to read a graph, then it means you deliberately tried to mislead your readers.


I understand very well the microphysics/atmospheric physics of lenticular clouds (including the standard standing wave theory).

Let us go the official line/textbook on lenticular clouds.

They form when a current of moist air is forced upwards as it travels over a mountain, causing the moisture to condense and form a cloud. Sometimes the air is forced into a wave pattern, generating what is known as a wave cloud.


Both the updraft/moist air arguments have been debunked here previously, that is why I asked you to do your homework.

Droplets are kept in the air by updraft (vertical movement of air) the same way as hang gliders are lifted in the air. Without updraft, the cloud dissipates or doesn't form.

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


No atmospheric current speed could account at all for these types of cloud weights: 5 million tons,  or 1 billion tons.

Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations (the ridiculous updraft explanation).


UPDRAFTS CANNOT EXPLAIN AT ALL THE DEFIANCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY BY CLOUDS.


Quite recently, antonio, scientists at the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center have discovered that cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

In fact, in a recent press release (Weizmann Institute/Goddard Space Flight Center), researchers announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.

The electromagnetic field beneath a thunderstorm increases (up to 10,000 volts per meter) because it acts like a capacitor, storing energy from the surrounding environment.


Let us return to the precise experiment about charged vs. uncharged droplets.

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

For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.


Therefore, we have a clear and definite proof that electricity DOES IN FACT contribute greatly to the whole cloud microphysics process.


Let us return to the famous Francis Nipher experiments.


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


Therefore, terrestrial gravity and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.

Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century, performed a series of even more famous experiments which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the link between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

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.

Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)



PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.  The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights.   The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.

Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008.   Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:

Project Montgolfier:  http://projetmontgolfier.info/ (http://projetmontgolfier.info/)]http://projetmontgolfier.info/

The flying disc carousel experiment that the Montgolfier Project conducted in 1955 used 2-1/2 foot diameter discs (75 cm dia.) hung from 4 meter tethers suspended from the ends of a 3 meter arm.  Based on the description given, this seems to have been almost the same flying disc test that Brown gave to the Navy at Pearl Harbor a year or two earlier.


http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-1-1024x730.jpg (http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-1-1024x730.jpg)
Left: Brown holding a flying disc tested in Project Montgolfier. Right: Close-up of disc showing outboard leading-edge wire. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-2-1024x494.jpg (http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-2-1024x494.jpg)
Left: Carrousel test rig. Right: Disc in flight. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg (http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

Therefore, clouds float effortlessly in the sky, not due to any updrafts (a ridiculous explanation), but because of the Biefeld-Brown effect.


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.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2013, 02:35:21 AM
Nikola Tesla, clouds, and stationary waves (telluric currents, ether strings), confirming the discoveries made by the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nikola Tesla, 'Tuned Lightening', 1907


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 24, 2013, 03:14:42 AM
Aether/ether and brownian motion

Since the aether is a fluid, one would expect that a particle moving through it would generate waves which could interact with other particles or objects in the aether and act back on the particle. This view is reasonable since this is just what one sees for objects moving through water or air. Hence, one would expect the Schrodinger Equation to be the
description of the motion of a particle through the aether. There are analogous problems in other fluids, such as the Brownian motion of small particles in a gas, or the motion of particles through a metal.

In this 'Push Gravity' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate, the particles being neutral and an order of size smaller than gross matter at the sub-atomic level, which is merely formations of energetic vortex swirls in the aether medium. It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion,

The longitudinal waves manifest itself like Brownian noise at the water surface and like the CMBR noise in the vacuum.


Therefore scientists are beginning to acknowledge that Brownian motion is the result of the vibrations of the telluric currents/ether strings (for which we have definite proofs of existence).



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 24, 2013, 03:38:15 AM
Sandokhan , you forgot the deal : Less rants, more facts....
Anyway

antonio, given the fact (...) rant
THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU.
(...)rant
I'm sorry but there, I can't help you.

Quote
(...)
They form when a current of moist air is forced upwards as it travels over a mountain, causing the moisture to condense and form a cloud. Sometimes the air is forced into a wave pattern, generating what is known as a wave cloud.

Both the updraft/moist air arguments have been debunked here previously, that is why I asked you to do your homework.
I'm sorry to conclude that you are still confusing denial and debunking.
But let's go with the lenticular/wave clouds.
As you know very well standing waves physics and -I assume- the specific case of lee waves, we'll jump to cloud formation. Assuming there is an adequate wind speed, we may see this kind of phenomenon
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Vol_d%27onde.svg)

You can see the wind deflected by a mountain (A) , forming behind it a standing wave pattern (B). Please note that the following waves are not represented.
By nature, standing/lee waves remain at a constant position, as long as the wind's speed is roughly constant.

Yes lenticular clouds "form when a current of moist air is forced upwards". Pressure drops, temperature drops, so we may see some water condensing, forming the visible could.
You should note that this clouds may be visible not only when air "travels over a mountain" (A) , but also when it "travels over"  the standing waves ( B), so clouds can be visible without any kind of mountain directly below it.
As you have roughly calculated the weight of a cumulonimbus, can you please give a rough approximation for weight of  the air mass lifted by the mountain ?

You have ommited the second important step.
As the air is deflected first in an upward motion, it's immediately followed by a downward deflection (just after A and B). The same phenomenon is inverted. Air is forced downwards, gains pressure and temperature so condensed water, if any, will evaporate. The cloud's tail disappears.
The lenticular cloud, as you see it, is not a monolithic thing hovering and defying "attractive gravitation", it's just a marker showing a particular area where moisture condenses/vaporizes. As it is formed by standing/lee waves, this area is locked at a constant position.
Simple and very well known phenomenon.
I know that, as usual, you will dismiss this simple explanation by a single word  "no"  followed by some fringe science theories, the longer the better. Please stay on focus and admit this simple fact. Lenticular clouds follow very simple physics. No antigravitational fields, no BB effect, just a little help from a mountain and wind.

 

Droplets are kept in the air by updraft (vertical movement of air) the same way as hang gliders are lifted in the air. Without updraft, the cloud dissipates or doesn't form.
(...)pasted text
Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations (the ridiculous updraft explanation).
You have been shown that standing/lee waves are fixed in position, as long as the wind is constant. This situation may last for days, as the clouds

Quote
Quite recently, antonio, scientists at the Weizmann Institute
(...) pasted text
Let us return to the precise experiment about charged vs. uncharged droplets.
(...) pasted text
I'm happy to having directed you to some new material  ;). Can you please specify what is your last shot for the droplets diameter into a cloud ? You seem to be very versatile there.

Quote
Therefore, we have a clear and definite proof that electricity DOES IN FACT contribute greatly to the whole cloud microphysics process.
Really ? Don't stop now, start by giving some evidence that electricity surrounds every single cloud of any type.

Quote
Let us return to the famous Francis Nipher experiments.
(...) very long pasted text
Therefore, terrestrial gravity and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
This is your opinion, not a fact. May I conclude that you give some credit to the Cavendish experiment ?

Quote
The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.

Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century,
(...) very long pasted and repeated text
Therefore, clouds float effortlessly in the sky, not due to any updrafts (a ridiculous explanation), but because of the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Understood. The BB effect exists, therefore clouds float, you are paraphrasing me. Can you please give some real life links between the BB effect and atmospheric behaviour?



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on September 24, 2013, 04:45:18 AM
"Argon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, simply DEFY attractive gravity, despite the great differences in specific weights (certainly you can do the homework and obtain the figures you seek)."

The burden of proof is on YOU.  YOU are the one claiming that there is such a huge difference that they should become distinct layers.  As I have said, the difference between Nitrogen gas and Oxygen gas is two protons and a few neutrons. 



Also, I can't believe that you are using the aether as part of your argument.  Have you not heard of the The Michelson–Morley experiment that was performed in 1887 which proved that the aether did not exist?  I can't wait to see the seventeen pages you paste in to prove that experiment to be a hoax.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 24, 2013, 06:35:17 PM


Therefore scientists are beginning to acknowledge that Brownian motion is the result of the vibrations of the telluric currents/ether strings (for which we have definite proofs of existence).
No, they are not.

1. Biefeld-Brown Effect is used by the Ionic Breeze air purifier. No magic. Can't work in clouds like you say.
2. You keep talking about gases being found in the same ratio at all altitudes but you seem to always leave out that air pressure drops as you go up in altitude. A clear argument for gravitation. Also goes against the Biefeld-Brown Effect holding up clouds as air pressure would be higher above the clouds.
3. Tesla is still not a magician. My toothbrush still charges using the technique he used.
4. Here is a video showing how you can have separated gases.
Ship floating on nothing! :: Physikshow Uni Bonn (http://#)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2013, 06:52:31 AM
Also, I can't believe that you are using the aether as part of your argument.  Have you not heard of the The Michelson–Morley experiment that was performed in 1887 which proved that the aether did not exist?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the greatest experimental CATASTROPHE of the 19th century.

Dayton Miller ether drift results:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)

The unimaginable, colossal, grievious errors committed by both A. Michelson and E. Morley, the best presentation:

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm) (it starts with the History Revisited section and then to the end)


Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008)
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007)

Please read further:


http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm)

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

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.


COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF THE SPACE TIME CONCEPT/THEORY OF RELATIVITY:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58921.msg1509746.html#msg1509746 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58921.msg1509746.html#msg1509746)


The simplest way to prove the existence of ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540150.html#msg1540150 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540150.html#msg1540150)


Plenty of other proofs, please search in my messages.


The gases in the atmosphere paradox still remains to be addressed.

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.”

Again, please read carefully.

...are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.


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?



A promise is a promise.

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


References for the existence of the barometer pressure paradox.

Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.



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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)



---------------------

Precise formula to be used at the other thread (jumping while the earth is supposedly rotating)

(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7656/formula3a.jpg)

T = period of rotation, 24h x 3600x/h = 86,400 s

g = 32 ft/s^2

t = time spent in the air (the projectile)

cos@ (cosine of latitude of experiment)

(deflection of a vertically fired projectile: tennis ball, jump, etc.)

Geocentric Coriolis force:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on September 25, 2013, 07:57:07 AM
antonio, your effort to at least investigate the physics of the lenticular cloud is noted.

However, you dodged the entire file on the Nipher and Brown experiments.

You must remember that the barometer pressure paradox contradicts any official cloud microphysics information.

At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Thus, we have a clear indication that any official explanation about lenticular clouds (or any clouds) is mistaken.


As I said, you did research the topic, however, there is more to it than that.

The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.


As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.

We can easily estimate the weight of the lenticular clouds to be some 500 tons (some of them are much larger of course than 1 km in volume, this is a very conservative estimate, please see my earlier messages).

Therefore we right back at the cloud weight paradox.

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


How could an updraft sustain a weight of 500 tons of droplets of water which make up the lenticular cloud?

Now, antonio, things WILL GET MORE COMPLICATED.


The wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, TAKES US BACK RIGHT TO THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY PARADOX.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1541977.html#msg1541977 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1541977.html#msg1541977)

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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

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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


I am sorry, antonio, scientists no longer accept the updraft version of cloud physics.

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

"Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud ‘condenser’ is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud ‘condenser’ gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa." --- Wal Thornhill, 2004


The Tesla experiment from my previous message does prove the existence of telluric currents/strings energy which is sent forth from the cloud itself.

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

The Biefeld Brown effect does prove that attractive gravity does not exist, period.

Therefore, any official explanation for the clouds defiance of gravity is useless.

THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.

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

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

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

A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.

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




http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm) (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm) (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html) (about the errors in the Cavendish experiment)


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

For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)


The results from Tesla's experiment, the above cloud droplets experiments, and the findings of the Weizmann Institute/
Goddard Flight Space Center do prove that cloud microphysics is an electrical phenomenon.


Again, the Biefeld-Brown experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

Therefore the clouds' defiance of gravity can only be explained as follows.

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


Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century, performed a series of even more famous experiments which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the link between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

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.

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.

Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.


The Biefeld Brown effect debunks any official explanation for the physics of clouds (especially the clouds' defiance of gravity): terrestrial gravity is absolutely related to electricity.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on September 25, 2013, 05:45:33 PM
sandokhan why don't you post their actual papers. We have already seen how you take peoples experiments and change them to fit what you believe.
Or you can just keep ignoring me and I will go back to making a living doing what you say is impossible.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on September 27, 2013, 04:49:11 AM
antonio, your effort to at least investigate the physics of the lenticular cloud is noted.
I highly appreciate your delicate sense of humour, coming from someone who didn't have a clue about lenticular formation physics two days ago. However, I appreciate your compliment.

Quote
However, you dodged the entire file on the Nipher and Brown experiments.

There is nothing to dodge here, it's only pasted text about already discussed material. What did I miss ?
Remember, we are talking about clouds, not tiny balsa models flying over a table.

Quote
You must remember that the barometer pressure paradox contradicts any official cloud microphysics information.
At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (...) long repeted pasted text
Thus, we have a clear indication that any official explanation about lenticular clouds (or any clouds) is mistaken.
How can you assume there is every day at every place in the world a semi-diurnal pressure drop ? You are far from it.
Don't dismiss, go further: how the official explanation about lenticular clouds is mistaken ?
 
Quote
As I said, you did research the topic, however, there is more to it than that.
The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.


As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.
Yep, you are paraphrasing me, with a more educated style, I must confess. There is nothing more there, so what's the point here ?

Quote
We can easily estimate the weight of the lenticular clouds to be some 500 tons (some of them are much larger of course than 1 km in volume, this is a very conservative estimate, please see my earlier messages).
As usual, can you share the details of your estimation ?

Quote
Therefore we right back at the cloud weight paradox.
To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


How could an updraft sustain a weight of 500 tons of droplets of water which make up the lenticular cloud?
You are still considering a lenticular cloud as a monolithic mass of a tremendous weight. But as it has been previsouly explained, there is no mysterious hovering or floating mass, just water condensing and vaporizing. What step is confusing you?

Quote
Now, antonio, things WILL GET MORE COMPLICATED.
The wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, TAKES US BACK RIGHT TO THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY PARADOX.
(...) pasted thread.
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.
By nature, lee waves need a steady wind direction over a mountain range. As lee waves are observed, we can safely conclude that wind direction is ok. Furthermore, gliders flying nearby lenticular clouds experience this fact. Earth's shape and rotation is irrelevant there. Is this an effort to drift the debate ?

Quote
I am sorry, antonio, scientists no longer accept the updraft version of cloud physics.
(...) previous pasted text
The Tesla experiment from my previous message does prove the existence of telluric currents/strings energy which is sent forth from the cloud itself.
No it doesn't. It's your assumption, period

Quote
In a recent press release from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds: exactly the findings of the Tesla experiment.
Please give evidence that Tesla measured the same phenomenon.

Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect does prove that attractive gravity does not exist, period.
Therefore, any official explanation for the clouds defiance of gravity is useless.
As you failed to prove that lenticular clouds are defying gravity, we are still at the starting line there...
Are you saying that every single cloud is surrounded by poweful electric fields ?

Quote
THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.
A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.
Mr Nipher modifies the Cavendish experiment. He puts some electricity into the stuff and tada, it moves. As Nipher's is a modified Cavendish's => gravity = electricity. I'm sorry, but I cannot share your view there.


Quote
(...) relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops.
(...)So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.
Evaporation is related to droplet surface. Ok. What's the point ?

Quote
The results from Tesla's experiment, the above cloud droplets experiments, and the findings of the Weizmann Institute/
Goddard Flight Space Center do prove that cloud microphysics is an electrical phenomenon.
I'm sorry, you've just failed the peer review process there.

Quote
Again, the Biefeld-Brown experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.
Therefore the clouds' defiance of gravity can only be explained as follows.
(...) very long pasted (4 times) text
The Biefeld Brown effect debunks any official explanation for the physics of clouds (especially the clouds' defiance of gravity): terrestrial gravity is absolutely related to electricity.
Got it. I put a magnet over a nail. The nail levitates. Thence the magnet experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

The BB effect is proven so the clouds levitate. We already agreed before that this was a lovely logical fallacy. You don't need to repeat it again.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on September 27, 2013, 11:11:32 AM
Sandokahn,  If gravity is not an attractive force, please explain the results of the following experiment, performed by Henry Cavendish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2013, 01:54:36 AM
Biography of Professor Francis Nipher:

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

One of the most distinguished physicists of the 20th Century.


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


Nipher's experiment was proven to be true by the experiments performed just some decades later by Dr. Paul Biefeld and Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown.


F. Nipher:

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

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

A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.


The Biefeld Brown effect DEFIES attractive gravity:

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.

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.


A clear confirmation of Francis Nipher extraordinary experiment.


FULL VACUUM EXPERIMENT VERYFING THE BIEFELD BROWN EXPERIMENT.

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


THE BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT SHOWS THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS AN ELECTRICAL PHENOMENON, IN FACT IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO ELECTRICITY.



The latest findings about cloud physics:

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

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


The Biefeld Brown effect has been proven clearly and absolutely: it defies attractive gravity, it shows the direct relationship between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, clouds float effortlessly using the same antigravitational effect documented by Dr. Brown and witnesses by Nikola Tesla.


LET US CAREFULLY READ DR. TESLA OWN WORDS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF STATIONARY WAVES (SCALAR WAVES, TELLURIC CURRENTS, SUBQUARK STRINGS):

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

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

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

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

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


His recordings showed that energy was transmitted from the clouds via the stationary waves/telluric currents.


The Biefeld Brown effect proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

The Biefeld Brown effect proves that terrestrial gravity is an electrical phenomenon.

Clouds weighing a billion tons float because of the same Biefeld Brown effect.

An increased activity of the stationary waves' energy to and from the clouds (Tesla's experiment) prove that the clouds (including lenticular clouds) are able to use this energy in the form of the Biefeld Brown effect to defy terrestrial gravity.

 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2013, 02:30:53 AM
How can you assume there is every day at every place in the world a semi-diurnal pressure drop ? You are far from it.
Don't dismiss, go further: how the official explanation about lenticular clouds is mistaken ?


You don't have a clue about atmospheric physics, as usual.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


This happens everywhere at each point on the surface of the Earth.


In fact, let us suppose that a building would be constructed in a region where lenticular clouds are known to form.

Then a soil engineer will need to carefully consider the influence of the atmospheric semidiurnal tide's barometric pressure upon the soil to investigate any possible effects on the building that will be constructed.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


State of Florida Geological Survey:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Lenticular clouds need mountain waves in order to form.

MOUNTAIN WAVES PARADOX

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


By nature, lee waves need a steady wind direction over a mountain range. As lee waves are observed, we can safely conclude that wind direction is ok. Furthermore, gliders flying nearby lenticular clouds experience this fact. Earth's shape and rotation is irrelevant there. Is this an effort to drift the debate ?

NO RE CAN AVOID BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE ROTATING ATMOSPHERE AS RELATED TO THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAIN WAVES.


For starters, a basic fact about the computation of the rotational speed of the supposedly rotating Earth.

RS = COS L  x   S

RS = rotational speed

L = latitude (degrees)

S = 1670 km/hr (1070 mi/hr)

As an example, for the latitude of 51 degrees we obtain: 1051 km/hr (or 656.8 mi/hr)


Thus the lenticular clouds prove to be one of the most striking examples and beautiful proofs that the Earth is not rotating around its own axis: their very formation, requiring wind flow to be perpendicular to the range, DEFIES THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH.

Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway: the vertical updraft would have to fight in the incoming layers of atmospheric tides each rotating at a certain speed (100 miles to 300 miles for a mountain of some 2000 - 3000 ft in height) in the west to east direction.


Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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


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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


More information here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0)


The restoring vector field paradox DEFIES the very requirement needed for a lenticular cloud to form: mountain waves with wind flow perpendicular to the range.



My knowledge of cloud microphysics/physics allowed me immediately to apply this body of facts as exemplified in the quotes taken from advanced textbooks, and the debunking of the catastrophic Gunn and Kinzer experiment.

You, antonio, have proved that you cannot even read a basic graph, and have no idea what your own bibliographic references imply and mean.


The barometric pressure paradox DEFIES the lenticular cloud physics as described in the official textbook: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

The mountain wave paradox proves that these waves could not possibly form on a rotating Earth.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 01, 2013, 03:29:50 AM
GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf) (PG. 211)



A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


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: it debunks every laughable assertion on the physics of (lenticular) clouds.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on October 01, 2013, 04:31:36 AM
Sandokahn, so by pasting in the same stuff you posted a dozen times before and not addressing the issue directly or even at all, you are essentially saying that you can't explain Henry Cavendish's results.  The experiment showed that the lead balls do in fact attract each other, causing the arm to rotate, thereby showing and measuring the force of attractive gravity.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 01, 2013, 04:54:30 AM
I already refuted his whole barometric pressure thing. He just won't admit it.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on October 01, 2013, 04:56:54 AM
Quote
Biography of Professor Francis Nipher:
(...) very longrepeated pasted text.
Nipher, Biefeld and Brown are nice guys. They do some cool experiments. Ok

Quote
(...)clouds float effortlessly using the same antigravitational effect documented by Dr. Brown and witnesses by Nikola Tesla.
Give the facts, you have an experiment, you have now to link it to clouds. You failed to give anything about it. Anything else that 'It does" please.
And again, please give evidence for electric fields surrounding every cloud.You have dodged this question twice.


Quote
LET US CAREFULLY READ DR. TESLA OWN WORDS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF STATIONARY WAVES
This observation is not enough documented and cannot be used as a global explanation of any kind of atmospheric phenomenon.


Quote
His recordings showed that energy was transmitted from the clouds via the stationary waves/telluric currents.
No, this is your own personal conclusion, and it's a bad one.

Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.
The Biefeld Brown effect proves that terrestrial gravity is an electrical phenomenon.
Clouds weighing a billion tons float because of the same Biefeld Brown effect.
This litany is not scientific work, that's just a wish.


Quote
An increased activity of the stationary waves' energy to and from the clouds (Tesla's experiment) prove that the clouds (including lenticular clouds) are able to use this energy in the form of the Biefeld Brown effect to defy terrestrial gravity.
You are constantly mixing some scientists words with yours. You are trying to give some existence to your own theories by this way. This is not enough. Go ahead, explain how the clouds "are able to use this energy".

Quote
You don't have a clue about atmospheric physics, as usual.
(...)
The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.
this happens everywhere at each point on the surface of the Earth.
Falling into rants when you feel cornered ?
Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.


Quote
MOUNTAIN WAVES PARADOX(...)
NO RE CAN AVOID BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE ROTATING ATMOSPHERE AS RELATED TO THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAIN WAVES.
This is a confirmed effort to drift the debate, as it has been discussed in others threads, please stay focused.

Quote
Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway
Nothing "sustains" the weight of the cloud. What part of the simple previous explanation did you miss?

Quote
My knowledge of cloud microphysics/physics allowed me immediately to apply this body of facts as exemplified in the quotes taken from advanced textbooks, and the debunking of the catastrophic Gunn and Kinzer experiment.
Your debunking is inexistent. That's just denial. Show something more scientific please.

Quote
The barometric pressure paradox DEFIES the lenticular cloud physics as described in the official textbook
Again, just a stance. Explain why.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 04, 2013, 02:31:33 AM
and not addressing the issue directly or even at all, you are essentially saying that you can't explain Henry Cavendish's results.

I anticipated a long time ago (in fact, right here in this thread) your concern for the Cavendish "experiment".

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1545696.html#msg1545696 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1545696.html#msg1545696)


http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm) (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm) (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (http://milesmathis.com/caven.html) (about the  horrendous and shocking errors in the Cavendish experiment)


If you do believe that gravity is attractive, then here is Newton himself telling you that you are delusional:

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

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.”

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.

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'

Read Newton's quotes: he understood that there are TWO gravitational forces at work.

One of them is the terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure exerted by the ether waves.

The other one is of a rotational type.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 04, 2013, 02:53:34 AM
rottingroom wrote:

I'm done.

Your vow of abstinence did not last very long, did it?


One would think that you took some time off to meditate, to really think things through...no such thing happened.


Now, you are even more delusional then before:

I already refuted his whole barometric pressure thing.


antonio wrote also:

Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.


According to the Bulletin of Applied Physical Sciences it does happen EVERYWHERE:

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)


Your request is of the same caliber as your inability to read a simple graph.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf) (PG. 211)

HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


The best official sources tell you that this phenomeon happens every day, every night, absolutely everywhere.


Again, just a stance. Explain why.

No stance at all.

I have already explained why in great detail.

Here we go again, so pay attention.


At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.

Therefore, a different explanation must be offerred to account for the fact that clouds weighing some 1 billion tons float effortlessly in front of everyone's eyes.



Nothing "sustains" the weight of the cloud. What part of the simple previous explanation did you miss?

Your bumbling wikipedia type of research explains nothing.

Until the air will evaporate, the entire weight of a lenticular cloud will be at least 500 tons (see my earlier calculations).

In fact, for the entire process of forming of the visible cloud, no explanation exists which can account for the levitation effect of the cloud.

You clearly have no scientific experience in researching and explaining this things.

No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.


I went to more advanced textbooks, which even throw a shadow of a doubt on the updraft explanation itself.

The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.



This is a confirmed effort to drift the debate, as it has been discussed in others threads, please stay focused.

These cheap tricks do not work with me antonio.

YOU cannot dodge the mountain wave paradox at all.

We are discussing here the RE view of the world, not the FE (where the Earth is absolutely fixed and not rotating).


No drifting of the debate, just a direct challenge to the very physics of mountain wave formation.


Let me remind you of the basic facts.

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


Lenticular clouds need mountain waves in order to even form/exist.


Since you cannot explain the mountain wave paradox, you are forced to resort to word games and other tricks to dodge the issue.

It won't work with me.

Your inability to explain how it is possible for mountain waves to form, despite the inexistence of a restoring vector field means you have no idea how lenticular clouds actually form ON A ROUND EARTH.

Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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


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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


More information here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0)


The restoring vector field paradox DEFIES the very requirement needed for a lenticular cloud to form: mountain waves with wind flow perpendicular to the range.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 04, 2013, 03:18:55 AM
Nipher, Biefeld and Brown are nice guys. They do some cool experiments. Ok

Give the facts, you have an experiment, you have now to link it to clouds. You failed to give anything about it. Anything else that 'It does" please.
And again, please give evidence for electric fields surrounding every cloud.You have dodged this question twice.

This observation is not enough documented and cannot be used as a global explanation of any kind of atmospheric phenomenon.

This litany is not scientific work, that's just a wish.



The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.


First the conclusions of the experiments carried out by Dr. Brown in full vacuum:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Please read carefully.

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.


You cannot dodge this issue anymore.


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.



Brown’s first experiments consisted of two lead spheres connected by a nonconductive glass rod, like a dumbell. One sphere was charged positive, the other negative, with a total of 120 kilovolts between them. This formed a large electric dipole. When suspended, the system moved toward the positive pole, arcing upwards and staying there against the force of gravity tugging downward. This showed that electric dipoles generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole. This experiment was repeated in oil, in a grounded tank, proving that ion wind was not responsible.

Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown’s British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a “cellular gravitator” consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.

Later, Brown experimented with saucer-shaped disks with positive and negative electrodes on opposite sides. This created an open-air high voltage capacitor that combined the electrogravitational effect with ion wind phenomena for propulsion. They worked well in air, and they worked well in vacuum.


Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)


The Biefeld Brown effect: complete DEFIANCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Experiment carried out at the Ariel University:

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)


BIEFELD BROWN EXPERIMENT CARRIED OUT IN FULL VACUUM

"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.  The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights.   The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.

Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008.   Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:

Project Montgolfier:  http://projetmontgolfier.info/ (http://projetmontgolfier.info/)]http://projetmontgolfier.info/

The flying disc carousel experiment that the Montgolfier Project conducted in 1955 used 2-1/2 foot diameter discs (75 cm dia.) hung from 4 meter tethers suspended from the ends of a 3 meter arm.  Based on the description given, this seems to have been almost the same flying disc test that Brown gave to the Navy at Pearl Harbor a year or two earlier.


(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-1-1024x730.jpg)

Left: Brown holding a flying disc tested in Project Montgolfier. Right: Close-up of disc showing outboard leading-edge wire. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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

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

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

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


Let us remember the conclusions stated by Dr. Bruce DePalma:

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.


Double helix theory of magnetism:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551)


Let us return to the conclusions:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.

Tesla was able to prove that clouds do emit and receive scalar waves.
Here are his very own words:

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

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

Stationary waves = scalar waves = telluric currents = ether


Here are the absolute proofs (and confirmation of Tesla's experiment) carried by Dr. Dayton Miller: ether does exist.

(http://www.orgonelab.org/graphics/MILLER/GraphA.jpg)

PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 04, 2013, 04:27:58 AM
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

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.”

This is the second time I caught you deceiving and misleading your readers again sandokhan. Only because I bothered to read your post this time. If you quote something, you need to quote it in its entirety and not just the parts that you can twist into a lie. Why didn't you quote the entire letter sandokhan? Why did you stop quoting just before the sentence in bold below?

If you had quoted the entire letter then the readers could have seen that Newton never said that he didn't believe in gravity. Contrary to your misleading claim, Newton believed in gravity, he just didn't know what caused it.

Quote
It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and effect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me a great absurdity, and I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my reader.

Try not to lie again in the future sandokhan.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 04, 2013, 07:40:28 AM
I said I am done because it is impossible to debate with someone like you. I presented an argument showing that the barometric paradox is not always true and an explanation for why. Your rebuttals included select observations that support your argument, an attack on calibration and an attack on standard deviation. The former is irrelevant because it does not represent all stations and the last two are fallacious because neither affect the times when pressure is shown to go up or down. You simply dropped my refutations and carry on using your original arguments. You are ignorant beyond belief.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2013, 07:43:20 AM
cartesian, as I said before: you have a crude and brutish approach to science.

You are an embarrassment to the entire RE movement.

I never said that Newton (actually the group of people who wrote his works) did NOT believe in gravity.


Newton clearly specifies that the concept of ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY is pure nonsense.

Let us read his words again.

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and effect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me a great absurdity, and I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my reader.


A very certain dismissal of the very concept of attractive gravity, as it is taught to students everywhere.

In fact Leibnitz (again, official history) opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason: Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent, a defiance of space.


Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity


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'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

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

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


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 05, 2013, 07:50:49 AM
I never said that Newton (actually the group of people who wrote his works) did NOT believe in gravity.

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2013, 08:20:05 AM
rottingroom, your arguments, such as they were, amount to nothing at all.

Everybody was able to see that you are no meteorologist, and that you have a junior high school level of understanding of science.

Your explanations were ridiculous, to say the least: you could not understand the difference between sea level pressure measurements and station pressure readings.

For the last time, let me prove to you not only the fallacies in your arguments, but also the correctness of a very basic fact of atmospheric physics: the semidiurnal variations of the barometer pressure.


The National Weather Service webpages included a very obvious error: the person who wrote the computer code for the graphics and tables used the data from the sea pressure level measurements to directly compute the station pressure measurements.

We can see how this was done very clearly.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)

Take a look at the sea pressure numbers: they are DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE STATION PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.


Now, the corrrect station pressure data would indicate immediately the two maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and the two minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am in the semidiurnal barometric pressure readings.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.


But, each value is directly related to the station pressure numbers: as I said, the person who wrote the computer code make a mistake, not having the knowledge required to understand the difference between sea level pressure and station pressure measurements.


For each increment in the numbers in the sea level pressure column, there is a corresponding change in the station pressure numbers, a clear mistake which should be corrected by the National Weather Service website.


For each set of measurements in the sea level pressure column, there will be a corresponding change in the station pressure column (using the same numbers).


For example, the sea level pressure increses from 1011.1 to 1011.9: the station pressure column will reflect this change linearly: 29.844 to 29.874.

The sea level pressure increases from 1013.4 to 1013.9: the station pressure column will read 29.914 to 29.924.


You, rottingroom, based your entire faulty analysis on this kind of mistakes, even though I pointed them out to you at each and every step.


Each and every weather station in the world does record the correct values as exemplified in the best bibliographical references that could be found.


These values show a daily SEMIDIURNAL VARIATION IN THE READINGS OF THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.


Your denying means that you have no knowledge of atmospheric physics.


First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)


Do you understand English, rottingroom?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf) (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


Do you understand English rottingroom?

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

Do you understand English rottingroom?

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


Seventh reference.


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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Have you then lost your mind to come here and say that you "proved" anything relating to the barometer pressure paradox?

YOU ARE TRULY DELUSIONAL.


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: it debunks your laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.

Therefore, a different explanation must be offerred to account for the fact that clouds weighing some 1 billion tons float effortlessly in front of everyone's eyes.


End of discussion.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2013, 08:51:51 AM
Now, let me bring another extraordinary proof to our discussion.

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


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

GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT


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.

(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.


Let us now return to the conclusions of the DePalma spinning ball 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 -- 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.


Conclusions of the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments:

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 Biefeld Brown experiment effect conclusions:

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.”


Clear and absolute proofs that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551)

Magnetism = electricity = double flow/torsion of subquark helices/monopoles


The dextrorotatory string/helix is called electrogravity or terrestrial gravity.

The laevorotatory string/helix is responsible for the antigravitational effects in the Gyro Drop, Kozyrev, DePalma and Brown experiments.



THESE SUBQUARK STRINGS (ETHER) WERE ALSO DISCOVERED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT BY DR. DAYTON MILLER.

Dayton Miller ether drift results


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)]http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930)


"Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated the ether waves by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell's original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference "return" from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a "standing columnar wave," and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West."


Conclusions drawn from the Biefeld Brown effect experiments:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 05, 2013, 09:14:06 AM
Maybe your post is interesting. Maybe it is not. If you hadn't lied so much, I probably would have read your post. You lost your credibility sandokhan.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 05, 2013, 09:49:03 AM
You tried this kind of approach before. It doesn't work with me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129)

Since you have no valid or credible arguments at all at your disposal, by default there's only one option left for you: to baffle your opponents with bs.


Here is how you tried before this kind of crap:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543)


My response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115)

It takes less than 30 seconds to totally demolish any message you might come up with.

Your junior high school level of understanding of science belongs to the complete nonsense section, not here.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 05, 2013, 09:58:07 AM
Your understanding of how standard deviation is applied is incorrect. It is always the same for any given station no matter what. It is a number that comes from elevation which is obviously the same for every observation from that station seeing as how stations don't magically change elevation. For instance on my ship our station was 70 ft above sea level and a standard deviation of .09 (if I remember correctly) was applied for every observation. This number never changed.

I don't feel the need to hunt down more observations to show you examples of semi diurnal observations not taking place. I've already done it and you simply deny it. Calibration and standard deviation have no affect on the moments when changes are shown to occur in observations from any station. I conceded that semi diurnal observations do usually occur and explained why this is expected. It has to do with microscale events that depend on the location. In places where microscale events are of no consequence it doesn't happen. End of story.

Sandokhan, the master of red herrings.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 06, 2013, 03:36:25 AM
You tried this kind of approach before. It doesn't work with me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129)

Since you have no valid or credible arguments at all at your disposal, by default there's only one option left for you: to baffle your opponents with bs.


Here is how you tried before this kind of crap:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543)


My response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115)

It takes less than 30 seconds to totally demolish any message you might come up with.

Your junior high school level of understanding of science belongs to the complete nonsense section, not here.

Are you trying to use Tunguska event to prove that the earth is flat again? Look ... there is a thread about it in this section dedicated for you made by one of your colleagues. Prove yourself worthy there. Oh would you find some evidence that there was light above Tunguska on the days/nights following the blast before posting anything there, because without that evidence your words are worth nothing.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2013, 12:27:46 AM
Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf)


Tenth reference.

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7028/5ou6.jpg)

U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am


Let us now go back to the previous list of references.

First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf) (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


Seventh reference.


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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



To deny this body of very clear evidence means to leave the realm of science and enter the field of psychiatry.


I have already explained why the wrong station pressure figures were used (most probably by the programmer who had no experience in meteorology) at the National Weather Service website:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1550022.html#msg1550022 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1550022.html#msg1550022)


The facts from atmospheric physics (atmospheric tides) needed to understand how to correctly read/use surface barometer pressure data:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.


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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2013, 12:56:09 AM
(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/ttower2.jpg)

Tesla Wardenclyffe Tower, Scalar Wave Amplifier

(http://blog.world-mysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Tesla_fig14.jpg)

Dr. Nikola Tesla, 1915:

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732


The path of the ball lightning created by Tesla, Siberia (Tunguska), 1908, ten minutes PRIOR to the explosion (7:15 am):

(http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:

'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' ’Certainly not’, I replied, ’these are radiations.’... "I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression.
 
The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only truly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly express his confidence in its success." N. Tesla



"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.
 
   "... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "



Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.
 
Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.
 
The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.
 
In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.


Thus, Tesla's formidable experiments prove the absolute existence of ether waves (scalar/stationary waves, telluric currents, subquark/monopole strings).


Ether waves = inexistence of attractive gravity = existence of electrogravity (see the proofs from the Biefeld Brown experiments/effect) = terrestrial gravity as pressure gravity

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2013, 01:57:37 AM
Eleventh reference.

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9360/gr7f.jpg)

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm (http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 08, 2013, 08:29:41 AM
sandokhan, each reference you post describes these as variations. None of them imply that it always happens at the same time nor do they imply that they always happen SEMI diurnally.

I showed you real observations that contradict your claims and you continue to just ignore it. Furthermore, you attempted to derail my points by bringing up calibration and standard deviation issues, fallaciously as they don't affect WHEN these changes begin.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 08, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: sandokhan
Thus, Tesla's formidable experiments prove the absolute existence of ether waves (scalar/stationary waves, telluric currents, subquark/monopole strings).
Not even close.  His research sure does make a good electric toothbrush charging system though.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 09, 2013, 01:54:08 AM
rottingroom, your incursion into delusion seems to have no end.

Your observations have already been debunked very carefully, they are an indication of your ignorance on the subject.

Let us go through the routine once more.


The National Weather Service webpages included a very obvious error: the person who wrote the computer code for the graphics and tables used the data from the sea pressure level measurements to directly compute the station pressure measurements.

We can see how this was done very clearly.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0)



Take a look at the sea pressure numbers: they are DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE STATION PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.


Now, the corrrect station pressure data would indicate immediately the two maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and the two minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am in the semidiurnal barometric pressure readings.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.


But, each value is directly related to the station pressure numbers: as I said, the person who wrote the computer code make a mistake, not having the knowledge required to understand the difference between sea level pressure and station pressure measurements.


For each increment in the numbers in the sea level pressure column, there is a corresponding change in the station pressure numbers, a clear mistake which should be corrected by the National Weather Service website.


For each set of measurements in the sea level pressure column, there will be a corresponding change in the station pressure column (using the same numbers).


For example, the sea level pressure increses from 1011.1 to 1011.9: the station pressure column will reflect this change linearly: 29.844 to 29.874.

The sea level pressure increases from 1013.4 to 1013.9: the station pressure column will read 29.914 to 29.924.

Same thing happened here:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)

The very same direct correlation between the sea pressure level measurements and the station pressure data.


You, rottingroom, based your entire faulty analysis on this kind of mistakes, even though I pointed them out to you at each and every step.




Now, here is the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf) (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF (http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF)


Seventh reference.


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 (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false)

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



To deny this body of very clear evidence means to leave the realm of science and enter the field of psychiatry.


Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf)


Tenth reference.

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7028/5ou6.jpg)

U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am


Eleventh reference.

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9360/gr7f.jpg)

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm (http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm)


Your amateurish incursion into meteorology has been thoroughly debunked, and now you have at your disposal the real station pressure data needed to understand your atrocious mistakes and errors.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


The facts from atmospheric physics (atmospheric tides) needed to understand how to correctly read/use surface barometer pressure data:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L)


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: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 09, 2013, 03:32:02 AM
Why did you write all that same shit again? Its still just as irrelevant as ever. Notice in your examples of when mslp goes up, station pressure also goes up. It is not as if they go in opposite directions. I'm starting to think you're just a lunatic.

By your logic every pressure reading recorded everywhere is irrelevant. Everyone is just using irrelevant numbers. So then what is there to argue on either side then? If the numbers are wrong (which they aren't) then this whole conversation is irrelevant. The point is that I have used a barometer and despite the alterations done to the numbers before they hit the ob sheet, one thing that doesn't change is when pressure begins to change
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on October 09, 2013, 03:51:26 AM
(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/ttower2.jpg)
Your enthusiasm is compelling but please refrain yourself from posting obviously faked pictures as a reference for your "work"
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 09, 2013, 03:54:11 AM
First reference...
Second reference...
Third reference...
Fourth reference...
Fifth reference...
Sixth reference...
Seventh reference...
Eighth reference...
Ninth reference...
Tenth reference...
Eleventh reference...

So, what exactly are you trying to prove/disprove sandokhan? That the gravity changes with time? Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time? I don't want your air pressure stuffs. I want you to show that the weight of a solid object varies with time. If you cannot show this kind of more direct evidence, then you are also talking nonsense like in your Tunguska BS.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on October 09, 2013, 10:20:36 AM
Sorry, Sandokhan.  Your posted links do nothing to cast doubt on Henry Cavendish's experiment and do everything to cast doubt on their authors' understanding of science.  The Cavendish experiment stands as proof that attractive gravity exists in very much the same way that the Michelson-Morley experiment stands as proof that the aether doesn't exist.  The experiments have been repeated and verified.  End of story.

Also, Isaac Newton quotes aren't generally good for much other than showing what Isaac Newton thought at that particular time.  He spent a lot of his life obsessed with alchemy, but that doesn't prove that chemical reactions can be used to turn lead or other metals to gold, it only proves that Newton thought it was possible.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Antonio on October 09, 2013, 11:31:10 PM
Quote
Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.
Your request is of the same caliber as your inability to read a simple graph.
(...)
The best official sources tell you that this phenomeon happens every day, every night, absolutely everywhere.
Again with rants...You have already proved that you are smarter than everyone here on earth. You do not need do repeat it everytime. And your assertion is still unproven:  pressure variations are not only semi-diurnal. You fail to admit this very basic level.

Quote
At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:
(...)
A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.
(...)
Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.
I may quote you: this is a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven

Quote
Your bumbling wikipedia type of research explains nothing.
Until the air will evaporate, the entire weight of a lenticular cloud will be at least 500 tons (see my earlier calculations).
In fact, for the entire process of forming of the visible cloud, no explanation exists which can account for the levitation effect of the cloud.
You clearly have no scientific experience in researching and explaining this things.
No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.
You are again showing a total lack of basic understanding in clouds formation. I afraid, I cannot help you.

Quote
I went to more advanced textbooks, which even throw a shadow of a doubt on the updraft explanation itself.
The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.
For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.
As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.
Here is an illustration of your poor understanding. The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud or a lenticular cloud is not always seen at the stronger updraft position. This does not , by far, disprove the explanation.

Quote
We are discussing here the RE view of the world, not the FE (where the Earth is absolutely fixed and not rotating).
No drifting of the debate, just a direct challenge to the very physics of mountain wave formation.
Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.
This "paradox" only exists in your mind. Writing it down does not give it some reality. And as lee waves are a well obeserved phenomenon, you are just denying reality.

Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.
The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?

Quote
First the conclusions of the experiments carried out by Dr. Brown in full vacuum:
-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.
-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.
Again. These are YOUR conclusions. Nothing backs up them. nothing. A magnet can levitate a nail. This does not defy at all universal attraction.

Quote
Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.
As asked multiple times. SHOW IT

Quote
Tesla was able to prove that clouds do emit and receive scalar waves.
No. the related text does not prove such thing. Read it again.

Let's face the facts. You constantly fail to disprove the mainstream explanation and to give a credible alternative explanation. You can paste again and again texts from your favourite readings, this is not by far a scientific demonstration.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 10, 2013, 02:54:48 AM
Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.
The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?
BB effect "levitates" an object by thrusting ion (actually hazardous ozone) downward, creating downdraft of ozone below the "levitating" object. If this is what sandokhan claims to happen with every cloud then why gliders look for clouds for a lift. sandokhan's claim is completely rubbish!

(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/nature/thermals/thermals3.jpg)

And if sandokhan is trying to prove that BB effect creates anti gravity, then watch this video that debunks this absurdity. BB effect does not work in vacuum. LOL!

Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2 (http://#)
sandokhan is good at lying. He's the master of deception!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 01:26:07 AM
cartesian, the video you presented is the intellectual equivalent of a drugstore nostrum, or even worse, of a high school bull session with delusions of gradeur.

Dr. Thomas T. Brown, rare clips, vacuum chamber experiments, 1958-1960 Bahnson Labs:

T.T. Brown Electrogravity Vacuum Experiments (http://#)


NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/)


More information here:

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


Why was there no effect in the video presented by cartesian?

Because the most important aspect of the Biefeld Brown was not taken into consideration: THE DIELECTRIC USED.

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.

Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

(http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg)
Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


ORIGINAL PAPER SUBMITTED BY DR. TOWNSEND BROWN, IN 1955, VACUUM CHAMBER EXPERIMENTS:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html (http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html)

(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_1.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_2.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_3.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_4.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_5.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_6.jpg)
(http://projetmontgolfier.info/images/ttb_proposal_7.jpg)

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/TTB_Proposal_Blueprints_1-3.pdf (http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/TTB_Proposal_Blueprints_1-3.pdf)

PROJECT MONTGOLFIER PRESIDENT JACQUES CORNILLION:

It was decided that the next step was to make tests in a big vacuum chamber. Dr. Brown again sent us designs for the construction of a large vacuum chamber and test apparatus.



As this phase of the project was undertaken my company was merged into another company. During this turbulent period of the merger we were able, with difficulty, to continue and complete the construction of the large vacuum chamber, though moved to a less hospitable location. The president of my company, now the president of the new merged company, Sud-Aviation, decided not to continue the experiments but to pass them along to another company S.N.E.C.M.A. (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) that was more specialized in this type of research.


The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf)

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


FULL VACUUM SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, DR. BRUCE DEPALMA:

 Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


FULL VACUUM GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT:


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

GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT


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.

(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.


cartesian, antonio and mb...do your bloody homework, and stop posting nonsense here.

Again. These are YOUR conclusions. Nothing backs up them. nothing. A magnet can levitate a nail. This does not defy at all universal attraction.

Not my conclusions: here you have the best proofs (full vacuum chamber experiments) that the spinning ball, the rotating falling gyroscope and the capacitor (Biefeld Brown effect) do DEFY THE ACCEPTED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

Moreoever, the Biefeld Brown effect does prove that terrestrial gravity is definitely linked to electricity.


Double helix theory of magnetism, subquark monopole theory (why a nail will levitate):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551)


The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?


But the question IS ABOUT THE BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT.

It does DEFY attractive gravity, and does show that terrestrial gravity is definetely linked to electricity.


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

"Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud ‘condenser’ is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud ‘condenser’ gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa." --- Wal Thornhill, 2004


You dummy.

There is no restoring vector field paradox in the FLAT EARTH CONTEXT.

This paradox exists ONLY IN THE RE SCENARIO.


One of the basic laws discovered by Tesla: ether will behave as a fluid to a solid, and as a solid to a fluid.

Effect of ether on water/liquids:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1510960.html#msg1510960 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1510960.html#msg1510960)


OFFICIAL CLOUD MICROPHYSICS INFORMATION:

A body of density ρ1 and volume V falling through still air of density ρ.

The downward force acting on the body due to gravity is ρ1 x V x g.
The upward buoyancy force on the body, due to the mass of air displaced by the body, is ρ x V x g (by Archimedes’ Principle).

In addition, the air exerts a drag force Fdrag on the body, which acts upwards.
The body will attain a steady terminal fall speed when these three forces are in balance:

ρ1 x V x g = ρ x V x g + Fdrag

v ={2 x [g(ρ1 − ρ)r2}/[9 x η]

Also taken into consideration is the Stokes drag forces for spheres with radius ≤ 20 µm.

If ρ1 >>  ρ, then a different equation is used.

The terminal fall speeds of 10 and 20 µm radius water droplets in air at 1013 hPa and 20C are 0.3 and 1.2 cm s-1 respectively.

Let us return to the precise experiment about charged vs. uncharged droplets.

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

For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.


Therefore, we have a clear and definite proof that electricity DOES IN FACT contribute greatly to the whole cloud microphysics process.


http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf (http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 01:43:22 AM
rottingroom and cartesian...can you handle a SINGLE GRAPH?

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7028/5ou6.jpg)

U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am

Normal station pressure data will lead to the correct results.


Now here is what you posted.

https://googledrive.com/host/0BwWwYmdlMY6KbjVTVTFQOE1LWm8/Pressure.jpg (https://googledrive.com/host/0BwWwYmdlMY6KbjVTVTFQOE1LWm8/Pressure.jpg)

You wrote:

Here is a link where you can confirm that my graph uses the correct numbers:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0 (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0)]


But those ARE NOT THE CORRECT NUMBERS.

As I explained earlier, the programmer who wrote the computer code used the wrong formula to calculate the station pressure data.

For each value of the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE DATA, there will a direct correlation to the station pressure number, which is an indication of the mistake present there. BY DEFINITION, STATION PRESSURE NUMBERS AND SEA LEVEL PRESSURE NUMBERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY DIFFERENT.

For SLP at 1010.4 we will have a SP data of 27.783. Whenever the figure of 1010.4 is repeated we will also have a value of 27.783, a clear indication that the wrong formula was used.



OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.



Now, here the absolute proof that I am correct: semidiurnal barometer value changes with maximums and minimums are recorded each and every day, everywhere, at each latitude.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm)

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Remember, this is the data from the National Weather Service itself.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt (http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt)
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


The correct data from the Bulletin of Applied Physical Science.


The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001 (http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001)


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).



Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf)



Is this ok with you rottingroom? Can you live with this?

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm (http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm)


Now, here is the SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETER VALUE PARADOX ITSELF:

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.


antonio, I have just proven to you, using the the best references available, that the semidiurnal barometer pressure paradox DOES OCCUR ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE.

Please read: at all latitudes, a universal phenomenon.


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.

At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.

Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 02:08:09 AM
antonio wrote:

Here is an illustration of your poor understanding. The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud or a lenticular cloud is not always seen at the stronger updraft position. This does not , by far, disprove the explanation.

I told you that tricks and word games do not work with me.

Here is the best proof that you do not understand the physics of lenticular clouds.

THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE:

The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud

In fact, lenticular clouds ARE GENERATED BY MOUNTAIN WAVES, this is the very definition of lenticular cloud.

How can you then write that a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular clouds forms?




Here is the original quote:

The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.


The author is telling us that A LENTICULAR CLOUD'S PRESENCE IS NOT AN INDICATION OF THE STRENGTH OF UPDRAFTS IN A MOUNTAIN WAVE.

Furthermore:

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

Therefore, for high altitudes lenticulars, which weigh as much or even more than low altitude clouds, there will not be a strong enough wave lift (as in the lower altitude) to explain their presence.


Here is what YOU wrote:

As the air is deflected first in an upward motion, it's immediately followed by a downward deflection (just after A and B).

There are no updrafts that can sustain a 500 ton lenticular cloud (a very conservative estimate), especially at high altitudes.


Exactly what I wrote:

No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.



And as lee waves are a well obeserved phenomenon, you are just denying reality.

Mountain waves can only exist on a fixed flat earth.

The restoring forces paradox shows that mountain waves COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM ON A SPHERICAL ROTATING EARTH.


This is the second time you dodged the issue.

You are showing to everybody that you cannot explain the formation of mountain waves in the rotating earth context.


To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


But this requirement cannot be met in a rotating earth scenario.


Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway: the vertical updraft would have to fight in the incoming layers of atmospheric tides each rotating at a certain speed (100 miles to 300 miles for a mountain of some 2000 - 3000 ft in height) in the west to east direction.


Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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


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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


And I haven't even mentioned the Airy Experiment which does prove that the Earth is not rotating around its own axis.


Here is the task before you antonio.

Please explain how the atmosphere itself rotates at the same speed as that of the rotating earth.

Then we arrive at the restoring forces paradox.

The restoring vector field must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).


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


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


Please explain how the basic requirement of a mountain wave formation, wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular, can be fulfilled given  the restoring vector field paradox, in the rotating earth scenario.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 02:18:15 AM
Which part of your video shows BB effect actually works in vacuum? I can't see it. The closest thing to a proof that I saw in that video is at position 3:40 (below). This video only shows a group of people drinking champagne and nothing more. I can make a video showing me drinking a lot more than that and will it prove anything to you?  :P

(http://i41.tinypic.com/2uejkls.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 02:32:15 AM
antonio...you have just made your biggest mistake so far.

Here is what you wrote:

No. the related text does not prove such thing. Read it again.

Of course, you know what this means.

A full discussion of the Tunguska event, which does prove that Tesla's results were correct.

I will then return to the Tesla cloud experiment to show you that it did reveal the correct measurements.


Dr. Nikola Tesla, 1915:

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war."


The path of the ball lightning created by Tesla, Siberia (Tunguska), 1908, ten minutes PRIOR to the explosion (7:15 am):

(http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.

Tesla was always fascinated with the concept of wireless propagation, and he was known to work on projected wave energy processes that could create microscopic, invisible particles of concentrated energy that could be beamed great distances... often resulting in electric fireballs, spherical plasmoids, or ball lightning.

How did Tesla transmit the enormous energy necessary for the formation of the ball lightning?


During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by the Herman von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'

'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."


Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.
 
Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.
 
The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.
 
In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.



"Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated the ether waves by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell's original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference "return" from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a "standing columnar wave," and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West."


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

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

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


I WAS OBSERVING STATIONARY WAVES.



Let us now reduce the distance from London to Tunguska to just 5000 km.


Then the curvature will measure: 483.7 km


(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km


Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.


To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370)

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 02:35:29 AM
You still haven't answered my re: air pressure question too. Can you explain using less than 100 words for my simple question below?

So, what exactly are you trying to prove/disprove sandokhan? That the gravity changes with time? Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time? I don't want your air pressure stuffs. I want you to show that the weight of a solid object varies with time. If you cannot show this kind of more direct evidence, then you are also talking nonsense like in your Tunguska BS.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 02:36:52 AM
sandokhan, your Tunguska nonsense is completely debunked!

Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,60042.0.html)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 02:39:14 AM
Re: BB effect in vacuum

Which part of your video shows BB effect actually works in vacuum? I can't see it. The closest thing to a proof that I saw in that video is at position 3:40 (below). This video only shows a group of people drinking champagne and nothing more. I can make a video showing me drinking a lot more than that and will it prove anything to you?  :P

(http://i41.tinypic.com/2uejkls.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 02:51:42 AM
cartesian...your link to the tunguska thread is not even a joke.

NOTHING AT ALL WAS DEBUNKED THERE.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km


Have you then lost your mind to say that anything was debunked at all?


Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.


To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370)

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785)


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



That the gravity changes with time?

Don't play dumb cartesian.

Cheap tricks like this do not work with me.


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.


Can you understand English?

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.



Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time?

Sure.

FULL VACUUM SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, DR. BRUCE DEPALMA:

 Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.



The video with Dr. Brown was shown to prove that the vacuum chamber experiments did take place.

NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/)


FULL VIDEO, VACUUM CHAMBER BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT:

Click here to Download the full video ( 11 Mb )

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv)


Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

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

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

The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf)

PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 02:55:53 AM
More vacuum experiments:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/)

TESTS RESULTS :

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 02:58:16 AM
More vacuum experiments:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/)

TESTS RESULTS :

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.
Failed. The wire may be in the vacuum but the lifter is definitely not.

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/images/liftube5.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 03:00:18 AM
Re: Tunguska

There was not any single local eyewitness reporting seeing light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast. They only saw it during the blast. You failed! Again.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2013, 03:41:04 AM
The wire may be in the vacuum but the lifter is definitely not.

More of your high school pranks?

The purpose of this test is to remove the corona effect and the ionic wind produced by the wire placed above the Lifter. The wire used here is the thin tungsten wire placed in the 38 mm diameter vacuum tube of a tubular incandescent light bulb. I have used the same unlinked Lifter previously tested on February 20, 2003. I have used three tubes connected electrically together in triangle and the connection are carefully insulated so as to avoid any leakage current. The wire apparatus has been completly mecanically unlinked from the main aluminum armature. The thin wire, connected to the HV generator, is handled by myself and the aluminum armature, connected to the ground, is able to go upwards freely like a common Lifter.

The aluminum armature of the Lifter, connected to the ground, is free to move upwards
The height of the hovering is limited by three thin nylon wires fastened to the base.

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/images/liftube1.jpg)


More tests here.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/inthebox/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/inthebox/index.htm)


No ionic wind could explain the antigravitational effect.


NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/)


FULL VIDEO, VACUUM CHAMBER BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT:

Click here to Download the full video ( 11 Mb )

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv)


There was not any single local eyewitness reporting seeing light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast. They only saw it during the blast.

The telluric currents were activated at some distance from the area of the blast itself.

You dodged the entire debate.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km




Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


You dodged the initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

You dodged the fact this path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska.



You dodged the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

You dodged the fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.



Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 03:42:57 AM
Re: BB effect

Is this what you call vacuum? You must be joking right?  :P

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/inthebox/images/inabox3.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 11, 2013, 03:44:53 AM
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast. Without that, you failed. Completely!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 11, 2013, 06:55:09 AM
Great, I just wrote sandokan this long argument and this website failed. Oh well. I don't really think I need to keep repeating my unaddressed arguments.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: MonkeyButz on October 11, 2013, 08:04:55 AM
Sandokahn,  the existence of attractive gravity and the non-existence of the Aether are not our opinions.  They are logic conclusions based on the data from several different repeatable (and often repeated) experiments.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 11, 2013, 06:21:51 PM
Re: BB effect

Is this what you call vacuum? You must be joking right?  :P

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/inthebox/images/inabox3.jpg)
It seems like the person doing the experiment thinks air can't move in a closed box.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2013, 05:37:42 AM
Mean Sea Level Pressure formula:

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/ric/material/1_Lecture_Notes/CP5-Pressure.pdf (http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/ric/material/1_Lecture_Notes/CP5-Pressure.pdf)

It is a nonlinear formula, thus confirming what we already know:

OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.



PROJECT MONTGOLFIER PRESIDENT JACQUES CORNILLION:

It was decided that the next step was to make tests in a big vacuum chamber. Dr. Brown again sent us designs for the construction of a large vacuum chamber and test apparatus.



As this phase of the project was undertaken my company was merged into another company. During this turbulent period of the merger we were able, with difficulty, to continue and complete the construction of the large vacuum chamber, though moved to a less hospitable location. The president of my company, now the president of the new merged company, Sud-Aviation, decided not to continue the experiments but to pass them along to another company S.N.E.C.M.A. (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) that was more specialized in this type of research.


The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf)

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


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm)

NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.


Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


VIDEO OF BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv)


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/)



I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast.

The tricks you used at the other thread do not work with me.

The existence of the telluric currents which run between the North Pole (receptive end) and the South Pole (emissive end) in a double helix figure explains why and how the glow was seen for days in northern Europe.

The glow was also seen all over northern Russia and Asia.

Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow

 Watson, Nigel. The Tunguska Event". History Today 58.1 (July 2008): 7. MAS Ultra-School Edition. EBSCO. February 10, 2009


This means that the input of energy from the ball lightning (fireball) launched and maneuvered by Nikola Tesla was carried away to the North Pole and lasted for days (activation of the laevorotatory strings of the double helix telluric currents).


YOU CANNOT DODGE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ANYMORE.


1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.



2. Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


3. The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km

The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.

The best and most perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is flat: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska for a distance of 5000 km.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 13, 2013, 08:47:40 AM


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


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm)


What page would that be? While it is in French, none of the pictures show the same apparatus as the ones used outside of a vacuum.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 14, 2013, 03:16:29 AM
Re: Project Montgolfier

Interesting material but unfortunately it's entirely in French and scanned, making any effort to translate it to English a lot harder. In summary, page 26 says that only when plexiglass was used as dielectric material that they could observe very weak movement. Other materials didn't reveal any movement. This doesn't prove that "ion wind" was not produced at all. Ion wind could have been produced in a small amount by the plexiglass itself (a normal lifter uses air as dielectric material between the two poles). Why did they need any dielectric material in a vacuum anyway?

So fail again.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 14, 2013, 03:22:01 AM
Re: Tunguska

You should have highlighted this part sandokhan:
Quote
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

It was a phenomena that was going on continuously. Not just one off like a blast. It was also an eyewitness from the UK, not Tunguska. So fail again
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2013, 07:50:06 AM
In summary, page 26 says that only when plexiglass was used as dielectric material that they could observe very weak movement

Please learn some French.

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf) (page 26)

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


And I offered in the previous paragraph (my previous message) the proper translation:

 The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.


Plexiglass used by Dr. Brown:

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




I was able to find the references on Tunguska.


Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm (http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm)


Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).

Over the next few days, "white nights" and unusual silvery clouds were seen over tha vast territory from Siberia to Europe's western borders.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html (http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html)


In many countries of Europe as well as western Siberia, the darkness of night was replaced by an unusual illumination.

(bibliotecapleyades archive)


Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

Starting point: 12 o'clock midnight
End point: 12:15 a.m.

That is the period of time mentioned by the lady in the letter to the Times: she did not remember when it first appeared during those 15 minutes.


As usual you failed to address the three issues I mentioned in my previous message.

1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.



2. Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


3. The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km

The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.

The best and most perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is flat: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska for a distance of 5000 km.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 15, 2013, 11:40:44 AM
Re: BB effect

Please learn some French.

I am not here to learn French, if you want to use that document to support your claim then arrange to provide the translated version. This is an English forum. We'd like to know the methodology how the experiment was done and its result. What's the difference between torsion and continuous experiment?

As far as I am concerned, BB effect produces thrust, it does not violate any of the Newton laws.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast, not local.

Quote
Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravit
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.


You failed again.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 16, 2013, 12:36:07 AM
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast, not local.

Quote
Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravit
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.


You failed again.

You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Scintific Method on October 16, 2013, 12:53:44 AM
You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument.

I think the whole point is that, without a witness to the conditions at the location of the event in the days following it, the light seen in other locations during that time cannot be used as proof of anything.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 01:49:01 AM
You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument.

You do realize that there were many local eyewitnesses who reported seeing the blast or even feeling the impact of the blast, right? None of them reported seeing any light after the blast.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2013, 02:44:11 AM
jroa, cartesian's trolling is pretty obvious.


As far as I am concerned, BB effect produces thrust, it does not violate any of the Newton laws.

Is this guy for real?

The Biefeld Brown effect IMMEDIATELY AND TOTALLY CONTRADICTS the accepted law of attractive gravity.

For the same mass, and for the same suppposed law of gravity, the capacitor will WEIGH LESS in full vacuum experiments.

Terrestrial gravity is ABSOLUTELY LINKED TO electricity.

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown’s British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a “cellular gravitator” consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.

Later, Brown experimented with saucer-shaped disks with positive and negative electrodes on opposite sides. This created an open-air high voltage capacitor that combined the electrogravitational effect with ion wind phenomena for propulsion. They worked well in air, and they worked well in vacuum.


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.

TOTAL, ABSOLUTE VIOLATION OF THE ACCEPTED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY!


Same effect noticed in 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 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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.



The were reports all over Siberia mentioning the colorful glowing clouds (for days after the event).


Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm (http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm)



Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).

Over the next few days, "white nights" and unusual silvery clouds were seen over tha vast territory from Siberia to Europe's western borders.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html (http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html)


In many countries of Europe as well as western Siberia, the darkness of night was replaced by an unusual illumination.

(bibliotecapleyades archive)


The specific eyewitness accounts are in Russian (the Kulik expedition) and at such very difficult to locate.


I was able to locate two accounts of photographs being taken at Orlov province (Oka river), and at Kazan.

Photos of the glowing night sky were also taken in Orlov province, Russia, on the nights of June 30 and July 1.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=18&num=5&id=55 (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=18&num=5&id=55)

Russia, 300 miles east of Moscow. Midnight. A student from Kazan University took street photographs at midnight.
Sky-glow and shining clouds: drawing from a photograph taken in Russia on the night of 30 June - 1 July, 1908

(http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/files/dscf3603.jpg)

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html (http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html)


ORIGINAL RUSSIAN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

http://books.google.ro/books?id=Gpwgm022ltMC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=tunguska+Busch+1908+Zotkin+1961+Vasilyev++1965&source=bl&ots=YK3JsD1NYO&sig=Ws792tUQo_b3iei68XTsvS2oU_A&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=oF1eUoLwLMGo4ASb8YGQDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20Busch%201908%20Zotkin%201961%20Vasilyev%20%201965&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=Gpwgm022ltMC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=tunguska+Busch+1908+Zotkin+1961+Vasilyev++1965&source=bl&ots=YK3JsD1NYO&sig=Ws792tUQo_b3iei68XTsvS2oU_A&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=oF1eUoLwLMGo4ASb8YGQDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20Busch%201908%20Zotkin%201961%20Vasilyev%20%201965&f=false)

Zotkin (1961) carefully studied the glowing clouds phenomenon at 100 points in Europe and Asia.

Vasilyev lists 159 cases in Russia alone.


Light nights were produced in Eastern Siberia and all throughout Middle Asia.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SE6cII7-vU4J:www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/earth/Tunguska.htm+&cd=3&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SE6cII7-vU4J:www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions/earth/Tunguska.htm+&cd=3&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro)




However, the RE still fail to address the following three points which do prove that the Earth is actually flat.

1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.



2. Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


NO ONE FROM LAKE BAIKAL OR NIZSHNE COULD HAVE SEEN THE EXPLOSION ON A ROUND EARTH.


3. The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km

The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2013, 02:54:48 AM
MORE REPORTS FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false)

pg. 79

The sky over Siberia radiated an unusual glow well into the evening.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2013, 03:01:18 AM
FINAL REPORT FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 03:38:17 AM
I only comment on each new point you bring in. I am ignoring old points regardless how many times you copy paste it.

MORE REPORTS FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false)

pg. 79

The sky over Siberia radiated an unusual glow well into the evening.
Where is the eyewitness report itself? Where in Russia was this eyewitness from? Where does it say that it lasted days/nights after the blast? Have you ever questioned yourself why all glow could only be observed west of Tunguska? Why don't we see any report from any eyewitness east of Tunguska?



FINAL REPORT FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.

Where is the eyewitness report itself? Why did you not carry on reading? Did you forget to include the sentence that follows; this light was being reflected by a stream of dust particles that were ripped off a comet as it entered the atmosphere before colliding with the Earth's surface ? Have you ever questioned yourself why all glow could only be observed west of Tunguska? Why don't we see any report from any eyewitness east of Tunguska?


Until you can produce a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast, your point doesn't stand at all. And also any light from Tunguska on a flat earth should have been visible from any direction. Not only west. Maybe I should also ask you to find any eyewitness report from people living east of Tunguska. You don't mind doing a bit of homework do you?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 03:48:26 AM
I was able to locate two accounts of photographs being taken at Orlov province (Oka river), and at Kazan.

Photos of the glowing night sky were also taken in Orlov province, Russia, on the nights of June 30 and July 1.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=18&num=5&id=55 (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=18&num=5&id=55)
Where is the photo?


Russia, 300 miles east of Moscow. Midnight. A student from Kazan University took street photographs at midnight.
Sky-glow and shining clouds: drawing from a photograph taken in Russia on the night of 30 June - 1 July, 1908

(http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/files/dscf3603.jpg)

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html (http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html)
This is not local.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 04:00:09 AM
ORIGINAL RUSSIAN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

some book (http://books.google.ro/books?id=Gpwgm022ltMC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=tunguska+Busch+1908+Zotkin+1961+Vasilyev++1965&source=bl&ots=YK3JsD1NYO&sig=Ws792tUQo_b3iei68XTsvS2oU_A&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=oF1eUoLwLMGo4ASb8YGQDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20Busch%201908%20Zotkin%201961%20Vasilyev%20%201965&f=false)

Zotkin (1961) carefully studied the glowing clouds phenomenon at 100 points in Europe and Asia.
Did you read the entire paragraph at least? Or do you want to mislead us again? Let me type it entirely for you.
Quote
Zotkin (1961) studied the bright nights, observed in 114 points of the globe. He distinguished observations following the 30 June from those preceding that date. He considers the latter poorly reliable and of "local character", whereas the events observed from the 30 June did not have a "local" character and were observed in more than a hundred points of Europe and Asia.
Don't you realize that Zotkin did exactly what I am doing to you now sandokhan. Zotkin could not find any local observation following the blast! So good luck with your research.

To be honest I am tired with your deceptions. You make me unnecessarily read irrelevant documents. You're just a hopeless liar.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 04:06:47 AM
Vasilyev lists 159 cases in Russia alone.

Again selective copy paste to deceive us
Quote
Vasilyev (1965) considered a more complete data set and referred to 86 communications and articles dated to 1908. He lists 14 cases of bright nights from 21 to 29 June 1908 and 159 cases from 30 June up to 3 July (in subsequent papers, he indicates about twenty other cases from 4 to 28 July). He considers all these cases related to the Tunguska event and this is not easy to explain.

Don't you think this is even worse for your case sandokhan? Light was already observed even before the explosion!!

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 16, 2013, 04:53:23 AM
From the same book:
Quote
As can be seen, the bright nights were observed on an area of about 12 million km², from the longitude 6.5° W (Armagh, Ireland; see Fig. 18.6) up to 92.9° E (Krasnoyarsk) and from the latitude 41° N (Tashkent) up to 60° N (Petersburg).
This confirms my argument that the bright nights were only observed from west south-west of the blast location.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/11j52dy.jpg)

Can you find me any eyewitness report of bright nights from Tunguska or east of Tunguska sandokhan? :P
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 05:45:36 AM
cartesian...your trolling does not impress anybody anymore.

You asked specifically for eyewitness reports from Tunguska itself.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.

This is as local as an eyewitness report can get, given the geography of the river Tunguska.


Don't try to bs your way around here, it doesn't work with me.

Why did you not carry on reading? Did you forget to include the sentence that follows; this light was being reflected by a stream of dust particles that were ripped off a comet as it entered the atmosphere before colliding with the Earth's surface ? Have you ever questioned yourself why all glow could only be observed west of Tunguska? Why don't we see any report from any eyewitness east of Tunguska?


Your ignorance on the subject is noted.

I did not forget to include the quote you mentioned: it is not necessary to include it anywhere in our discussion.

1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


To talk about dust particles/ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what the dust particle/ice crystal theory implies:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation.


cartesian...you are still ignoring the most basic fact of the Tunguska event:

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.


I included a vast bibliography which does specify that bright lights were seen for days in Siberia (east and west), just as you requested.

Don't you think this is even worse for your case sandokhan? Light was already observed even before the explosion!!

Exactly. Only within the double helix theory of the magnetic field can this extraordinary observation be explained.

The first to learn of the coming calamity were the shamans of the native tribes. Two months before the explosion, rumours of the approaching "end of the world" began to spread across the taiga. Going from one settlement to another, the shamans warned the people of an imminent cataclysm. The people began to move their herds from the upper reaches of the Podkamennaya Tunguska to the Nizhniaya Tunguska and further, towards the River Lena.
 
The exodus of the Evenk began immediately after a suglan (gathering) of all the nomadic clans who moved around in close proximity, which took place in the month of Teliat (May). A secret conference of the elders had resolved that the cyclical course of their wanderings should be changed and that the clans should move close together along the new course.

Then there was a big ritual occasion at which the "Great Shaman" announced the "End of the World":
The ancestors said that they had to move from their traditional places. No one should be there after the month of Teliat in the month of Muchun [June], thus said the ancestors... The upper people want to visit Dulia... No one should see that.
And so the nomads began to move across the taiga...

Obeying some inner sense and supporting, as it were, the pronouncements of the shamans, the wild animals began to leave. The birds flew from their nesting grounds, the swans left the lakes and the fish disappeared from the rivers. An immense expanse of taiga, measuring several tens of thousands of square kilometers, lost its fauna. Only those who did not believe the shamans’ words remained in the danger zone.

All this speaks for itself. Obviously some early warning of the approaching event was given through the shamans who "spoke with the spirits of the ancestors". The animals, birds and fish reacted instinctively to the approaching danger, reacting to the negative influence of the Earth’s increasing electromagnetic field in that part of the taiga.


Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.


Let us return the description of the trajectory of the ball lightning.

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


This expert aerial navigation using Lake Baikal as a reference point was carefully investigated by Tesla days prior to the explosion itself.


Now, let me describe how the entire experiment was carried out.

(http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/fig10.jpg)

In the continuous mode, two continuous scalar waves are emitted -- one faster than the other -- and they pair-couple into vector energy at the region where they approach an in-phase condition. In this mode, the energy in the distant "ball" or geometric region would appear continuously and be sustained -- and this is Tesla's secret of wireless transmission of energy at a distance without any losses.

Two scalar antennas were required: an explosion requires the presence of both scalar waves at the same point.

Tesla sent just one scalar wave for several days prior to the explosion to properly set up the aerial navigation.


I included the Zotkin reference so that you would understand that over 100 points in Europe AND ASIA were used for the research.

But I included also the Vasilyev report, which was better prepared and researched: 159 cases in all.

Then I included the specific Tunguska report you requested.

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.



Now you want reports from East Asia.

Let us remember that in 1908 there was a language barrier in China, Koreea and Manciuria.

Also it is possible that the two scalar waves were sent somewhere in the Gobi desert area/East Siberia region, from where Tesla directed them to the proper destination.


Here is your report from East Asia.


http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


There are also reports (I was not able to locate the reference) that the ball lightning was seen from the Indian Ocean (sailors aboard a ship).


You have chosen to dodge and avoid answering the facts which do prove that the earth is flat.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


YOU CANNOT IGNORE THESE FACTS ANY LONGER.


“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


YOU CANNOT ANY LONGER IGNORE AND DODGE THESE FACTS.

Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation, has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.


A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:07:57 AM
Also it is possible that the two scalar waves were sent somewhere in the Gobi desert area/East Siberia region, from where Tesla directed them to the proper destination.


Here is your report from East Asia.


http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).



Now, from the work Siberia by M.K. Anderson (Examines the history, people, industry and agriculture of the mysterious Russian lands which comprise one-third of the Asian continent) we have the following account:

...passage of the Tunguska fireball, using the collection of eyewitness reports marking its trail from Mongolia's Gobi Desert (page 16)

Investigations showed that, cylindrical tube shape was first detected by Caravans in Gobi desert in China then picked by southern Russia after dawn, leaving multicolored vapor trail; it was getting lower all the time, till the explosion.

http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/ufoscience/historical/#Tunguska_1908 (http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/ufoscience/historical/#Tunguska_1908)


This is the reason it was seen only starting with the Gobi desert: in the continuous mode, two continuous scalar waves are emitted -- one faster than the other -- and they pair-couple into vector energy at the region where they approach an in-phase condition. In this mode, the energy in the distant "ball" or geometric region would appear continuously and be sustained -- and this is Tesla's secret of wireless transmission of energy at a distance without any losses.

Two scalar antennas were required: an explosion requires the presence of both scalar waves at the same point.

The Gobi desert was in fact the very place where both scalar waves first appeared, then the fireball was navigated by Tesla to lake Baikal.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:19:35 AM
An expert on the Tunguska event, V.G. Fesenkov:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1966SvA....10..195F&classic=YES (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1966SvA....10..195F&classic=YES)

He clearly describes that the INITIAL REPORTS ARE VERY RELIABLE, and specifies which reports are not to be relied upon.

This is exactly what I included in my previous message.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 06:32:41 AM
I am now doing exactly what you do; copy pasting the same thing over and over:

I only comment on each new point you bring in. I am ignoring old points regardless how many times you copy paste it.

MORE REPORTS FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=4DMIRLOPlagC&pg=PA79&dq=tunguska+bright+lights+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=XWFeUrqrHYnIswbUq4GwCg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=glow&f=false)

pg. 79

The sky over Siberia radiated an unusual glow well into the evening.
Where is the eyewitness report itself? Where in Russia was this eyewitness from? Where does it say that it lasted days/nights after the blast? Have you ever questioned yourself why all glow could only be observed west of Tunguska? Why don't we see any report from any eyewitness east of Tunguska?



FINAL REPORT FROM SIBERIA:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.

Where is the eyewitness report itself? Why did you not carry on reading? Did you forget to include the sentence that follows; this light was being reflected by a stream of dust particles that were ripped off a comet as it entered the atmosphere before colliding with the Earth's surface ? Have you ever questioned yourself why all glow could only be observed west of Tunguska? Why don't we see any report from any eyewitness east of Tunguska?


Until you can produce a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast, your point doesn't stand at all. And also any light from Tunguska on a flat earth should have been visible from any direction. Not only west. Maybe I should also ask you to find any eyewitness report from people living east of Tunguska. You don't mind doing a bit of homework do you?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 06:35:57 AM
Now you want reports from East Asia.

Let us remember that in 1908 there was a language barrier in China, Koreea and Manciuria.

Also it is possible that the two scalar waves were sent somewhere in the Gobi desert area/East Siberia region, from where Tesla directed them to the proper destination.


Here is your report from East Asia.


http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


There are also reports (I was not able to locate the reference) that the ball lightning was seen from the Indian Ocean (sailors aboard a ship).
This is not an eyewitness report about glow in the nights/days following the blast. I asked you to find me eyewitness report about the glow outside the red box:

(http://i42.tinypic.com/11j52dy.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:45:36 AM
I did answer the dust particle comet argument.

Please read carefully.

Your ignorance on the subject is noted.

I did not forget to include the quote you mentioned: it is not necessary to include it anywhere in our discussion.

1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


To talk about dust particles/ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what the dust particle/ice crystal theory implies:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation.


The Tunguska event WAS NOT caused by either a comet, an asteroid, a meteorite or a volcanic explosion.


I did provide several references on the Western Siberia sightings of the glowing clouds.

Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm (http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm)



Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).

Over the next few days, "white nights" and unusual silvery clouds were seen over tha vast territory from Siberia to Europe's western borders.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html (http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html)


In many countries of Europe as well as western Siberia, the darkness of night was replaced by an unusual illumination.

(bibliotecapleyades archive)


This would be sufficient for any serious researcher.


But I went even further to locate this reference:


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.



Most probably the original report is from Kulik's initial expedition, and as such, is in Russian; we need here someone who speaks russian in order to locate the reference precisely.


However, here is a report from the Gobi Desert:



http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


Most probably Kulik did not ask the specific question about the glowing clouds being seen for several days after the event: he was satisfied to obtain the herdsmen's description of the fireball.


Again, you have been offered several references on Western Siberia (see the previous paragraphs) which are sufficient from a scientific point of view: the glowing clouds were seen all over Siberia for days after the explosion.


You have dodged for the fifth time the initial trajectory of the ball lightning paradox, the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and much more.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:47:54 AM
Please explain the trajectory of the ball lightning:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


If you cannot do this, it is all over for you and the RE.

A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:49:49 AM
Please explain these initial reports.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


If you refuse to answer, it is all over for you and the RE.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 06:50:10 AM
1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

I don't care about this and I don't want to speculate about this. My focus is now to get you to prove that the glow after the blast was caused by some lights over Tunguska.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:51:36 AM
Please explain the following fact.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:55:00 AM
1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

I don't care about this and I don't want to speculate about this. My focus is now to get you to prove that the glow after the blast was caused by some lights over Tunguska.

It doesn't work like this.

How can you NOT care about the initial path of the ball lightning?

Then you accept that the Earth is stationary.

Please explain the trajectory of the ball lightning:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


If you cannot do this, it is all over for you and the RE.

A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


Certainly this initial trajectory was seen all the way from London.

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."


It is all over for you and the RE.

Your constant dodging is obvious: you cannot explain the path of the ball lightning, nor the fact THAT IT WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 06:55:04 AM
So far what you are doing is to keep posting either:
I keep saying I DO NOT WANT THOSE! What I want is an eyewitness report about the glow after the blast from local or west Tunguska
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 06:58:01 AM
I did provide several references on the Western Siberia sightings of the glowing clouds.

Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm (http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm)



Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).

Over the next few days, "white nights" and unusual silvery clouds were seen over tha vast territory from Siberia to Europe's western borders.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html (http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html)


In many countries of Europe as well as western Siberia, the darkness of night was replaced by an unusual illumination.

(bibliotecapleyades archive)


This would be sufficient for any serious researcher.


But I went even further to locate this reference:


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.



Most probably the original report is from Kulik's initial expedition, and as such, is in Russian; we need here someone who speaks russian in order to locate the reference precisely.


However, here is a report from the Gobi Desert:



http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm (http://www.halexandria.org/dward232.htm)

Herdsman in the Gobi desert to the south described a fireball streaking across the sky along a flight path (based on a later reconstruction) at about 10o, just slightly east of true north.  Along this direction, the object approached Keshma from the south.  Then the object was observed by others moving very nearly due east toward Preobrazhenka.  This was followed by the object moving slightly north of due west toward Vanavara.  The explosion itself was oval shaped, suggesting a prior motion in the westerly direction.     

With a distance of 2000 km, and an altitude of 2 km, the visual obstacle will measure 275 km, nothing could have been seen from that distance (the explosion itself occurred at an altitude of 7 km).


Most probably Kulik did not ask the specific question about the glowing clouds being seen for several days after the event: he was satisfied to obtain the herdsmen's description of the fireball.


Again, you have been offered several references on Western Siberia (see the previous paragraphs) which are sufficient from a scientific point of view: the glowing clouds were seen all over Siberia for days after the explosion.


Your dodging of the initial path paradox, the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal, and the report from London at 0:00 midnight means you accept TOTAL DEFEAT.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 07:02:33 AM
Please provide an eyewitness report about the glow after the blast from local or west of Tunguska (outside the red box below) before you proceed further.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/11j52dy.jpg)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
ORIGINAL RUSSIAN SITE, KULIK EXPEDITION: http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/)

ALTAY SECTION.

testimony of Ivan Kudryavtsev Nikanorovich .

"June 30, 1908 the day was clear, the height of the Parts. Dawn I went with the horses. At 6:00 brought the horses from the pasture, and we sat down to breakfast. I sat across from a window on the West.

Our village ALEKSANDROVKA stretches along the gorge through which flows a mountain creek Quiet. Right on the river Quiet was Seminsky ridge, and the left - Anuysky. Semínský opposite the village on top of a mountain ridge towered looking. Sun at 7 o'clock in the morning had risen, but because of the mountain looking not yet appeared.

And suddenly appeared on the horizon of light ball, it quickly grew in size and brightness. The direction of the flight was to NE. The size of a flying ball was like the moon, only brighter, without dazzling brightness, and it was possible to look at his flight, without stopping. The flight was very quick. Along the way, the ball remained belodymny flight track is wider than the ball. Once there was this ball, the whole place was lit up by some unnatural light, and this light was not exactly progressive, but with some variations, the wave flash. No noise, drone during a flight of the ball was not, but unnatural, a flickering light is induced fear and anxiety.

Rose concern among domestic animals and birds. The dog rushed in his kennel, chickens to roost. Horses gave up eating oats, which I poured and agitated. Geese guffawed loudly. People ran out into the street and looked in disbelief at the sky. After a decent time, started some unnatural noise, earth tremors deaf and deaf-hum, as from a distant thunderstorm. Next flight of the ball in the sky slowly diverged, but could see almost to the evening in the melt state. This unusual phenomenon was thrilled people.

At that time I already had some idea of ​​meteorites, fireballs. In the village school then this is not taught, but I took the teacher's book Astronomy "and read it. Teacher said it was flying great heavenly stone-car and fell somewhere in the north, in the taiga.

After the fall of the car fell on some light night. In the moonless in our mountain valleys are usually dark nights, but almost till the autumn nights were bright. "

TILL THE AUTUMN NIGHTS WERE BRIGHT.


End of discussion.


Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 07:25:00 AM
http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/)
Quote
In 1972, JL Kandiba while in Biysk, recorded the testimony of Ivan Kudryavtsev Nikanorovich .

"June 30, 1908 the day was clear, the height of the Parts. Dawn I went with the horses. At 6:00 brought the horses from the pasture, and we sat down to breakfast. I sat across from a window on the West.

Our village ALEKSANDROVKA stretches along the gorge through which flows a mountain creek Quiet. Right on the river Quiet was Seminsky ridge, and the left - Anuysky. Semínský opposite the village on top of a mountain ridge towered looking. Sun at 7 o'clock in the morning had risen, but because of the mountain looking not yet appeared.

And suddenly appeared on the horizon of light ball, it quickly grew in size and brightness. The direction of the flight was to NE. The size of a flying ball was like the moon, only brighter, without dazzling brightness, and it was possible to look at his flight, without stopping. The flight was very quick. Along the way, the ball remained belodymny flight track is wider than the ball. Once there was this ball, the whole place was lit up by some unnatural light, and this light was not exactly progressive, but with some variations, the wave flash. No noise, drone during a flight of the ball was not, but unnatural, a flickering light is induced fear and anxiety.

Rose concern among domestic animals and birds. The dog rushed in his kennel, chickens to roost. Horses gave up eating oats, which I poured and agitated. Geese guffawed loudly. People ran out into the street and looked in disbelief at the sky. After a decent time, started some unnatural noise, earth tremors deaf and deaf-hum, as from a distant thunderstorm. Next flight of the ball in the sky slowly diverged, but could see almost to the evening in the melt state. This unusual phenomenon was thrilled people.

At that time I already had some idea of ​​meteorites, fireballs. In the village school then this is not taught, but I took the teacher's book Astronomy "and read it. Teacher said it was flying great heavenly stone-car and fell somewhere in the north, in the taiga.

After the fall of the car fell on some light night. In the moonless in our mountain valleys are usually dark nights, but almost till the autumn nights were bright.
Good boy for looking for more reports but I am afraid you need to work harder since Biysk is 52.5167° N, 85.1667° E which is still within the red box (from the longitude 6.5° W up to 92.9° E and from the latitude 41° N up to 60° N).
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 07:36:49 AM
Listen you dork...your tricks do not work with me.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/12/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/12/)

134. Andrey Gordeev, F. , born in 1897, Russian, illiterate farmer, clarity is good memories. Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepal (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village).

"That was before he left the army before the revolution was about 17-18. Summer, at the meadow, before lunch, at 12 o'clock." The angular height of the sun at the time of observation 50 on , azimuth 120 on . "The weather is clear, windless. Was in the yard, mowing or rowing." Seems to have attracted the attention of his blows. Saw the body with sharp edges, form - the ball. Neither fire nor smoky tail was not. On the body can be viewed with the naked eye. Color of different parts of the body is the same. Point observations: azimuth 30 o , 25 height of the point of extinction: the azimuth of 110 o , height 25 on . The trajectory parallel to the horizon. The entire visible region of the trajectory lying to the left of the sun. Thermal sensations of the body was not. The shadows of the things not seen. Did not see the light flash, posts on the horizon - as well. Flight time - 10 seconds. Closer to the speed of the aircraft than a shooting star. Sounds: explosions, as the guns or even stronger, stronger than thunder in a thunderstorm. Had two strikes before the body and three - after the appearance. Recent attacks have been stronger. About moving sound source said: "A small stretch of the motion of the body." Sound effects were quickly 1-2 minutes. The earth trembled, that was in the house - do not know. People and animals do not fall. Smoky cloud in the fall did not notice. Bright nights after flying remembers. People were frightened at first. A year after his fall were asked two engineers with the parties - Kokaulin and Kul who went to the crash site a year after the disaster. About the Tunguska meteorite did not read and did not know.


Eyewitness report from the upper reaches of the Lower Tunguska River basin: Gostorg trading station, Vanavara.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif)


THIS IS THE ORIGINAL RUSSIAN REPORT USED EARLIER IN THE SIBERIA REFERENCE (50 MILES/80 KM DISTANCE OF THE EPICENTER).


Bright nights after flying remembers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Eyewitness report from Vanavara itself: bright nights seen after June 30, 1908.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 07:55:06 AM
Listen you dork...

Watch your language please. This is upper fora.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 07:56:50 AM
http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/12/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/12/)

134. Andrey Gordeev, F. , born in 1897, Russian, illiterate farmer, clarity is good memories. Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepal (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village).

"That was before he left the army before the revolution was about 17-18. Summer, at the meadow, before lunch, at 12 o'clock." The angular height of the sun at the time of observation 50 on , azimuth 120 on . "The weather is clear, windless. Was in the yard, mowing or rowing." Seems to have attracted the attention of his blows. Saw the body with sharp edges, form - the ball. Neither fire nor smoky tail was not. On the body can be viewed with the naked eye. Color of different parts of the body is the same. Point observations: azimuth 30 o , 25 height of the point of extinction: the azimuth of 110 o , height 25 on . The trajectory parallel to the horizon. The entire visible region of the trajectory lying to the left of the sun. Thermal sensations of the body was not. The shadows of the things not seen. Did not see the light flash, posts on the horizon - as well. Flight time - 10 seconds. Closer to the speed of the aircraft than a shooting star. Sounds: explosions, as the guns or even stronger, stronger than thunder in a thunderstorm. Had two strikes before the body and three - after the appearance. Recent attacks have been stronger. About moving sound source said: "A small stretch of the motion of the body." Sound effects were quickly 1-2 minutes. The earth trembled, that was in the house - do not know. People and animals do not fall. Smoky cloud in the fall did not notice. Bright nights after flying remembers. People were frightened at first. A year after his fall were asked two engineers with the parties - Kokaulin and Kul who went to the crash site a year after the disaster. About the Tunguska meteorite did not read and did not know.
Nepal is still inside the red box. Sorry.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 08:00:26 AM
Eyewitness report from the upper reaches of the Lower Tunguska River basin: Gostorg trading station, Vanavara.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif)


THIS IS THE ORIGINAL RUSSIAN REPORT USED EARLIER IN THE SIBERIA REFERENCE (50 MILES/80 KM DISTANCE OF THE EPICENTER).


Bright nights after flying remembers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Eyewitness report from Vanavara itself: bright nights seen after June 30, 1908.
Where is the eyewitness report of this? If this is about the blast then I don't want it. I want the glow one.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 17, 2013, 08:17:43 AM
You are trolling around cartesian.

Gostorg, Vanavara.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif)

40 to 50 miles from the epicenter.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1940PA.....48..493L&db_key=AST&page_ind=7&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1940PA.....48..493L&db_key=AST&page_ind=7&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES) (precise location of Gostorg, Vanavara)

134. Andrey Gordeev, F. , born in 1897, Russian, illiterate farmer, clarity is good memories. Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepal (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village).

"That was before he left the army before the revolution was about 17-18. Summer, at the meadow, before lunch, at 12 o'clock." The angular height of the sun at the time of observation 50 on , azimuth 120 on . "The weather is clear, windless. Was in the yard, mowing or rowing." Seems to have attracted the attention of his blows. Saw the body with sharp edges, form - the ball. Neither fire nor smoky tail was not. On the body can be viewed with the naked eye. Color of different parts of the body is the same. Point observations: azimuth 30 o , 25 height of the point of extinction: the azimuth of 110 o , height 25 on . The trajectory parallel to the horizon. The entire visible region of the trajectory lying to the left of the sun. Thermal sensations of the body was not. The shadows of the things not seen. Did not see the light flash, posts on the horizon - as well. Flight time - 10 seconds. Closer to the speed of the aircraft than a shooting star. Sounds: explosions, as the guns or even stronger, stronger than thunder in a thunderstorm. Had two strikes before the body and three - after the appearance. Recent attacks have been stronger. About moving sound source said: "A small stretch of the motion of the body." Sound effects were quickly 1-2 minutes. The earth trembled, that was in the house - do not know. People and animals do not fall. Smoky cloud in the fall did not notice. Bright nights after flying remembers. People were frightened at first. A year after his fall were asked two engineers with the parties - Kokaulin and Kul who went to the crash site a year after the disaster. About the Tunguska meteorite did not read and did not know.

Bright nights after flying remembers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Eyewitness report from Vanavara itself: bright nights seen after June 30, 1908.


This is the original reference used for my earlier article.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false (http://books.google.ro/books?id=vMk4t21fOvoC&pg=PA146&dq=tunguska+siberia+glowing+clouds&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=q2JeUtryDaWq4ASZnIA4&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=tunguska%20siberia%20glowing%20clouds&f=false)

PAGE 146

RESIDENTS OF SIBERIA WHO LIVED WITHIN ABOUT 50 MILES (80 KILOMETERS) OF THE BLAST SITE REPORTED UNUSUAL GLOWING LIGHT FROM THE SKY FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AFTER THE EXPLOSION.


Eyewitness report from Vanavara itself: bright nights seen after June 30, 1908.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 17, 2013, 08:31:16 AM
sandokhan, please watch the personal attacks.  Please watch you language. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 08:33:36 AM
You are trolling around cartesian.

I am not trolling. I am getting you to prove your claim.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 08:38:59 AM
(http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_tunguska1.gif)

40 to 50 miles from the epicenter.
This is indeed a map of Vanavara. So far I am with you.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 17, 2013, 08:42:50 AM
And then how did you jump to "Gostorg, Vanavara" from the below Google translated text? The map above has no relationship to the text below. You're just making stuff up, aren't you. Another deception.

134. Andrey Gordeev, F. , born in 1897, Russian, illiterate farmer, clarity is good memories. Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepal (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village).

"That was before he left the army before the revolution was about 17-18. Summer, at the meadow, before lunch, at 12 o'clock." The angular height of the sun at the time of observation 50 on , azimuth 120 on . "The weather is clear, windless. Was in the yard, mowing or rowing." Seems to have attracted the attention of his blows. Saw the body with sharp edges, form - the ball. Neither fire nor smoky tail was not. On the body can be viewed with the naked eye. Color of different parts of the body is the same. Point observations: azimuth 30 o , 25 height of the point of extinction: the azimuth of 110 o , height 25 on . The trajectory parallel to the horizon. The entire visible region of the trajectory lying to the left of the sun. Thermal sensations of the body was not. The shadows of the things not seen. Did not see the light flash, posts on the horizon - as well. Flight time - 10 seconds. Closer to the speed of the aircraft than a shooting star. Sounds: explosions, as the guns or even stronger, stronger than thunder in a thunderstorm. Had two strikes before the body and three - after the appearance. Recent attacks have been stronger. About moving sound source said: "A small stretch of the motion of the body." Sound effects were quickly 1-2 minutes. The earth trembled, that was in the house - do not know. People and animals do not fall. Smoky cloud in the fall did not notice. Bright nights after flying remembers. People were frightened at first. A year after his fall were asked two engineers with the parties - Kokaulin and Kul who went to the crash site a year after the disaster. About the Tunguska meteorite did not read and did not know.
As the original text is in Russian:

Quote from: http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/12/
134. Гордеев Андрей Федорович, 1897 года рождения, русский, неграмотный, колхозник, четкость воспоминаний хорошая. Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непа (госторг, 2 км вверх по реке от села).

"Это было до ухода в армию, до революции, было лет 17-18. Летом, в самый покос, до обеда, в 12 часов". Угловая высота солнца в момент наблюдения 50о, азимут 120о. "Погода ясная, безветренная. Находился во дворе, косил или греб". Кажется, привлекли его внимание удары. Видел тело с четкими краями, по форме - шар. Ни огненного, ни дымного хвоста не было. На тело можно было смотреть невооруженным глазом. Цвет различных частей тела одинаков. Точки замечания: азимут 30о, высота 25о, точка исчезновения: азимут 110о, высота 25о. Траектория параллельна горизонту. Весь видимый участок траектории лежал слева от солнца. Тепловых ощущений от тела не было. Тени от предметов не наблюдал. Световую вспышку не видел, столбов на горизонте - тоже. Время полета - 10 сек. Ближе к скорости самолета, чем падающей звезды. Звуки: взрывы, как из орудий или еще сильнее, сильнее, чем гром в грозу. Было два удара до появления тела и три - после появления. Последние удары были сильней. О перемещении источника звуков ответил: "Небольшое протяжение по движению тела". Звуковые явления прошли быстро, 1-2 минуты. Земля дрожала, что было в домах - не знает. Люди и животные не падали. Дымного облака в месте падения не заметил. Светлых ночей после полета не помнит. Люди сначала испугались. Через год после падения его опрашивали два инженера с партиями - Кокаулин и Куляев, которые ходили на место падения через год после катастрофы. О Тунгусском метеорите ничего не читал и не знает.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 17, 2013, 04:10:53 PM
.... The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
According to my findings so far, the BB experiment actually produces some thrust force. Just like a rocket or a helicopter produces a thrust. There is no violation of Newton laws of motion. If he calls that force as anti gravity then he can say the same for helicopters and rockets. The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric. Normal lifters use the ambient air as fuel therefore they stop working in vacuum. NASA has been working on a similar kind of engine called ion thruster (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html)) which uses ion as fuel. This kind of engine doesn't produce enough thrust to lift a spacecraft off the ground but it works well once the spacecraft is in space.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 18, 2013, 10:49:13 AM
.... The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it.

This may be a bit ancillary to your argument, but I feel it is worth mentioning.

"If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. "

All this really means is that the gravitational force is dependent on mass -- it is not constant. In the same way, the electrical force is dependent on charge. Your argument is similar to claiming that the electric force cannot be found, since two objects with different charges will experience a different Coulomb force.

Two objects fall in vacuum with the same acceleration precisely because the force is variable. 
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 11:05:43 AM
To sandokhan,

Regarding your last finding, while trying to find out where exactly this eyewitness was and what exactly he said I tried to translate individual sentence one by one. I found out that the Google translation was highly unreliable to use. The English translation changes without any logical reason. For example; Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непa is translated as Point observations and simplified Tokma village, river Nepa, but, Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непa (госторг, 2 км вверх по реке от села) is translated as Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepa (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village)

So let's compare these two translations:
So was this a report from a person who lived in Tokma village near river Nepa or the name of the person was Tokma who lived in p. Nepa? I found an article about a village called Tokma located by a river called Nepa (click here (http://www.ecologicalinternet.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=58714&keybold=global%20AND%20%20warming%20AND%20%20NEPA)). So I believe the first translation is better than the second, although the first one says "simplified" rather than "interviewing". Also check this one, as this one is what you use in your claim:

Светлых ночей после полета не помнитBright nights after flying remembers
Светлых ночей после полета, не помнит    Bright nights after the flight, does not remember

You see how a comma change the translation from something you can barely understand to something more logical. But that means you are completely wrong again sandokhan! Poor sandokhan failed again :(. But in order not to speculate over something we both don't know, I have asked my Russian neighbour to help. She agreed to come tomorrow so I will let you know the human translation version this weekend.

OK sandokhan?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 18, 2013, 11:16:56 AM
I just found one free one Russian-English translator http://webtranslation.paralink.com/English-Russian-Translation/. (http://webtranslation.paralink.com/English-Russian-Translation/.) It has three different engines. When supplied with Светлых ночей после полета не помнит it shows:
I didn't even have to insert a comma anymore. So, sandokhan, it is almost certain that you are wrong. But I'll confirm it again this weekend.

OK, sandokhan?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 18, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
According to my findings so far, the BB experiment actually produces some thrust force. Just like a rocket or a helicopter produces a thrust. There is no violation of Newton laws of motion. If he calls that force as anti gravity then he can say the same for helicopters and rockets. The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric. Normal lifters use the ambient air as fuel therefore they stop working in vacuum. NASA has been working on a similar kind of engine called ion thruster (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html)) which uses ion as fuel. This kind of engine doesn't produce enough thrust to lift a spacecraft off the ground but it works well once the spacecraft is in space.
Yeah, it does. Its how the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifier works when air is accelerated. I'm aware of ion engines. Ion engines have been around awhile. The mythical TIE fighter in Star Wars uses them. T.I.E.= Twin ion engines.(Obviously it's a movie)  sandokhan is known for taking an idea and changing it to suit his beliefs. He doesn't do it on purpose, he just doesn't understand the science.

.... The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it.

This may be a bit ancillary to your argument, but I feel it is worth mentioning.

"If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. "

All this really means is that the gravitational force is dependent on mass -- it is not constant. In the same way, the electrical force is dependent on charge. Your argument is similar to claiming that the electric force cannot be found, since two objects with different charges will experience a different Coulomb force.

Two objects fall in vacuum with the same acceleration precisely because the force is variable. 
Or because there is no force, which makes 100% more sense. If you want to call it a force, how does the force know how much mass an object has?
The shift from Newtonian gravity  to Einstein's gravitation makes sense. Doing so also shows just how much sandokhan's idea of gravity fails.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2013, 02:26:18 PM
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 18, 2013, 02:30:25 PM
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.

Not with Einsteinian gravity.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 18, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 18, 2013, 03:41:57 PM
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 18, 2013, 03:44:15 PM
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.

I keep saying it isn't.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 18, 2013, 04:10:26 PM
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.

I keep saying it isn't.

You keep saying it isn't....what? A force? I am Correct? Not to be repetitive, just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2013, 04:58:01 PM
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?

Other than GR, scientists have no idea.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 18, 2013, 05:45:22 PM
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?

Other than GR, scientists have no idea.
General relativity says it's not a force.
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.
I was mistaken. I'm saying it isn't a force and sandokhan is trying to replace it with a force, which won't work.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2013, 05:50:20 PM
GR is also incomplete, so we can't really say for certain that gravity is not a fundamental force.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 18, 2013, 05:51:13 PM
GR is also incomplete, so we can't really say for certain that gravity is not a fundamental force.
The evidence says it's not a force.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 18, 2013, 06:10:56 PM
I agree, the evidence says it isn't and GR nicely explains a lot of things like gravitational waves and gravitational lensing which itself is evidence. It also just makes sense and removes the implications of gravity seeming like magic. As I've said it might even explain dark energy.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Rama Set on October 18, 2013, 07:46:09 PM
The problem of course being that almost as soon as GR was complete it was shown to be incomplete.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 18, 2013, 09:39:08 PM
Hmm. If the theorized graviton were discovered, then gravity would be accepted as a force on the particle scale, i.e., it would have a particle description.  This discovery would not invalidate GR.

Since gravitons are proposed to be massless, they move at speed of light, and they do couple to photons: there is an F^2 term in the action, you only get that if you have E/M coupling. Hence they would explain all phenomena that GR presently does.

So I must admit, I am still confused as to why there is the consensus among you fellas that gravity is not a force.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: rottingroom on October 19, 2013, 04:45:41 AM
Because GR explicitly states that gravity is not a force. Discovery of the graviton would completely obliterate GR and until it is discovered I can't assume that it exists. I can't imagine a particle that reaches out from a center of mass that magically pulls things toward it. GR is an elegant theory that makes sense.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 19, 2013, 07:50:20 AM
sandokhan, I have got it confirmed by my Russian neighbour. Basically that article was about a guy who lived in a village called Tokma (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BC%D0%B0_(%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE)) (around 350 km from the epicentre). He described the explosion as he saw it. And listen to this carefully. He could not remember seeing bright nights after the blast.

That is a local eyewitness report about the blast but not about the glow.

sandokhan's Tunguska debunked!
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 19, 2013, 09:06:33 AM
Because GR explicitly states that gravity is not a force. Discovery of the graviton would completely obliterate GR and until it is discovered I can't assume that it exists. I can't imagine a particle that reaches out from a center of mass that magically pulls things toward it. GR is an elegant theory that makes sense.

Yes, GR is a macroscopic, spacetime, explanation for gravity. I am not convinced the discovery of the graviton would make any difference to GR, it is just the explanation at a different scale. Many theories in physics are like this.

And you CAN imagine a particle that "magically pulls things toward it," the Coulomb force is attractive in the case of opposite charge. Gluons do this in the nuclei of atoms, it is called asymptotic freedom (in this case). A gravitational wave propagating at "c" is equivalent to a graviton (or distribution of them, more likely) propagating at "c" ....that is, if you believe their hypotheses about it.   

GR is agreeably elegant, but cannot be the entire story, as it cannot explain the convergence of the running gravitational coupling constant with the electro-weak and strong ones. On a fundamental level, they cannot explain where gravity CAME from using GR, a QFT description is necessary.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 21, 2013, 01:37:04 AM
The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric.

Needless to say, only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could make a statement like this.

The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.”

On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.  This indicates that in the absence of the unbalanced forces exerted by ion clouds, the discs moved mainly on the basis of the electrogravitic field effect, always toward the positive (negative G) direction.

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 accumulation of the laevorotatory subquark strings (magnet monopoles) or ether provides the thrust or antigravitational effect.


Same effect noticed in 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 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.

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


I have already explained in great detail that the dextrorotatory subquarks are actually the sought after gravitons (but they are NOT electrically neutral, as has been supposed so far in the official science).

Subquarks are made up of strings of bosons and antibosons, please see the article posted here earlier:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540721.html#msg1540721 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540721.html#msg1540721)



And listen to this carefully. He could not remember seeing bright nights after the blast.

You haven't done your homework, as usual.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/)

ANGARA RIVER BASE TESTIMONIES


225) Kuropatkina Varvara Ivanovna, 1889 birth. Vantage point - FANACHET village, 40 km away. Taseevo from the east. "In that year she married, 19 years old. Before haying before lunch. Was in the street of the village. Flew fiery broom. Could distinguish elongated body and tail. At the tail sparks in all directions. Along the length of the tail of the density varies. According bright as the sun, you can see with the naked eye. Terrain lit. The body was much brighter than the tail. speed as the aircraft. " Remember the buzz, shake glass in the window. Tremor and buildings. Air wave was not felt. At the crash site of a smoky cloud was not. The next night the unusual optical phenomena remembers. "They said it was some kind of split the planet." Interviewed in the village Razdolinsk.

Now, TWO of the translation services will validate this google translation.
Two other will translate as: does not remember.

Therefore, these translation services do not agree always.


However, there are further accounts which do prove that glowing clouds were seen for days after the explosion.

These accounts WILL RECEIVE THE SAME TRANSLATION NO MATTER WHICH TRANSLATION SERVICE YOU WILL USE.


226) Mosin Stepan Ye, born in 1900. Vantage point - KANDYKI village, 60 km away. from Motygino, p. Taseevo.

"It has been 8 years. Before haying in the morning. Clear bevetrenno. Played in the street. Saw a burning star with a tail over his head. Circular body, a star with a tail. One body. Tail is like a flame, the density varies along the length. Trail of smoke behind the body remained. Compare the brightness of the body to the sun can be. Thermal sensation was not. " Aircraft flew faster times at 3. Sound effects do not remember. There were light dawns. About the Tunguska meteorite had not. No one questioned. Interrogated with. May Day, the river Taseevo.


No matter which translation service was used we get: there were light dawns.



Let us go to Vanavara.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/8/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/8/)

38) Downey, Vasily , Evenk, born in 1910. has education, earlier worked as the chairman of the collective farm. He told me that his father said, and local residents.

At the time of the fall of the meteorite his father standing in the lower HUSHMY. The explosion was very strong, ripped deer, took down the plague, people were unconscious. Lots of deer and dogs died. And the forest fires started strong. The sky was red a few days. Those that come under the disaster, then sick.


No matter what translation service is used we get: The sky was red a few days.


Evenki tribe account.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm (http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm)

A bright summer night fell, the fire began to diminish. In place of the heat, it grew cold. We decided to move toward the Katanga [river]. By the time we got to the Chambe river, we were already totally weak, all around we saw marvels, terrible marvels. It wasn’t our forest [any more]. I never saw a forest like that. It was strange somehow. Where we lived there had been dense forest, an old forest. But now in many places there was no forest at all. On the mountains all the trees lay flat, and it was bright, and everything was visible for a far distance.

(translation by Bill DeSmedt)


Let us also remember the account from the Altay tribe:

In the moonless in our mountain valleys are usually dark nights, but almost till the autumn nights were bright.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/)


Please do your homework...and stop posting nonsense. Here, you do not stand a chance with me.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: SeekerOfTruth on October 21, 2013, 07:31:30 AM
Sandokahn, You claim the spinning ball experiment works "just as well in a vacuum." You are always so good about providing links to justify your claims. Could you please provide a link for this one?
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:01:27 AM
Needless to say, only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could make a statement like this.

Ah name calling again hein sandokhan? I will have to report you to a mod if you keep doing this (and if any mod cares at all).
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:09:11 AM
The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.”
There you go. If you use the right dielectric then you get a thrust. That's exactly what I meant as fuel. Do you know the best dielectric available? It's vacuum. But unfortunately BB effect doesn't work with vacuum as dielectric since no particle can be ionised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_permittivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_permittivity)
http://www.instructables.com/id/Asymmetrical-Capacitor-Thrusters-the-Biefeld-Brow/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Asymmetrical-Capacitor-Thrusters-the-Biefeld-Brow/)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:13:09 AM
I'll reply to your Tunguska stuffs later. I need to read it thoroughly. I hope this is not another attempt of deception again.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:28:14 AM
http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/

ANGARA RIVER BASE TESTIMONIES


225) Kuropatkina Varvara Ivanovna, 1889 birth. Vantage point - FANACHET village, 40 km away. Taseevo from the east. "In that year she married, 19 years old. Before haying before lunch. Was in the street of the village. Flew fiery broom. Could distinguish elongated body and tail. At the tail sparks in all directions. Along the length of the tail of the density varies. According bright as the sun, you can see with the naked eye. Terrain lit. The body was much brighter than the tail. speed as the aircraft. " Remember the buzz, shake glass in the window. Tremor and buildings. Air wave was not felt. At the crash site of a smoky cloud was not. The next night the unusual optical phenomena remembers. "They said it was some kind of split the planet." Interviewed in the village Razdolinsk.

Now, TWO of the translation services will validate this google translation.
Two other will translate as: does not remember.

Therefore, these translation services do not agree always.
This is the same spelling as what we discussed before.
не помнит = does not remember.

So no night glow.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:37:15 AM
http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/)

ANGARA RIVER BASE TESTIMONIES


226) Mosin Stepan Ye, born in 1900. Vantage point - KANDYKI village, 60 km away. from Motygino, p. Taseevo.

"It has been 8 years. Before haying in the morning. Clear bevetrenno. Played in the street. Saw a burning star with a tail over his head. Circular body, a star with a tail. One body. Tail is like a flame, the density varies along the length. Trail of smoke behind the body remained. Compare the brightness of the body to the sun can be. Thermal sensation was not. " Aircraft flew faster times at 3. Sound effects do not remember. There were light dawns. About the Tunguska meteorite had not. No one questioned. Interrogated with. May Day, the river Taseevo.


No matter which translation service was used we get: there were light dawns.
Yes but light dawns are not night glows. We are talking about night glows, not light dawns. I also checked where Мотыгино was, this place is also inside the red box. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мотыгино (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мотыгино)

So no night glow.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:43:07 AM
Let us go to Vanavara.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/8/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/8/)

38) Downey, Vasily , Evenk, born in 1910. has education, earlier worked as the chairman of the collective farm. He told me that his father said, and local residents.

At the time of the fall of the meteorite his father standing in the lower HUSHMY. The explosion was very strong, ripped deer, took down the plague, people were unconscious. Lots of deer and dogs died. And the forest fires started strong. The sky was red a few days. Those that come under the disaster, then sick.


No matter what translation service is used we get: The sky was red a few days.
This is not his own account and I am sure he's describing about the fire. Read the context.

So no night glow.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:51:04 AM
Evenki tribe account.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm (http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm)

A bright summer night fell, the fire began to diminish. In place of the heat, it grew cold. We decided to move toward the Katanga [river]. By the time we got to the Chambe river, we were already totally weak, all around we saw marvels, terrible marvels. It wasn’t our forest [any more]. I never saw a forest like that. It was strange somehow. Where we lived there had been dense forest, an old forest. But now in many places there was no forest at all. On the mountains all the trees lay flat, and it was bright, and everything was visible for a far distance.

(translation by Bill DeSmedt)
This may be the closest you have found, but it is still not conclusive. She was comparing the view before and after her local forest was destroyed by fire. She could see the faraway remaining fire without trees.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:53:57 AM
Let us also remember the account from the Altay tribe:

In the moonless in our mountain valleys are usually dark nights, but almost till the autumn nights were bright.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/ (http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/)
This is not a local eyewitness. The area is in the red box.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алтайский_край (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Алтайский_край)
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 21, 2013, 11:55:31 AM
Please do your homework...and stop posting nonsense. Here, you do not stand a chance with me.

That message is actually for you sandokhan.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2013, 06:17:08 AM
Mark my words: you do not stand a chance with me; not now, not ever.

Game over.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Yeniseirivermap.png/600px-Yeniseirivermap.png)

Notice the cities of Krasnoiarsk and Irkutsk.

NOW, THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN IRKUTSK RIGHT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 30: BRIGHT NIGHTS IN SIBERIA:

(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8113/l6sl.jpg)

TOP OF THE PHOTOGRAPH: BRIGHT NIGHTS OBSERVED AT THE KRASNOIARSK WEATHER STATION.


(from Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, an Interdisciplinary approach: P. Brobowsky and H. Rickman eds., chapter 18, the Tunguska Event by G. Longo, fig. 18.5 and fig 18.6)


Evenki tribe account.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm (http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm)

A bright summer night fell, the fire began to diminish. In place of the heat, it grew cold. We decided to move toward the Katanga [river]. By the time we got to the Chambe river, we were already totally weak, all around we saw marvels, terrible marvels. It wasn’t our forest [any more]. I never saw a forest like that. It was strange somehow. Where we lived there had been dense forest, an old forest. But now in many places there was no forest at all. On the mountains all the trees lay flat, and it was bright, and everything was visible for a far distance.

(translation by Bill DeSmedt)

The trees already were flat, and fire began well to diminish. In the daytime it was already bright, no need to mention this; only at night it would make sense to mention such a fact, that everything was visible for a far distance.

Also, the bright summer night of June 30 is explicitly mentioned, just as reported at Krasnoiarsk and Irkutsk.

Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 22, 2013, 08:00:24 AM
Mark my words: you do not stand a chance with me; not now, not ever.

Game over.

You haven't even answered my first question. I have got plenty others which I will ask in succession after the previous question is answered. So it's far from game over mate.
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 22, 2013, 08:02:04 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Yeniseirivermap.png/600px-Yeniseirivermap.png)

Notice the cities of Krasnoiarsk and Irkutsk.
OK
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: Cartesian on October 22, 2013, 08:05:02 AM
EDIT: I found the source of this picture. I read one page of it before but I didn't know there was a picture after it. The PDF can be found here (http://thelightofdayradioshow.com/PlanetX_Files/Comet-Asteroid-Impacts-and-Human-Society.pdf). See chapter 18 page 321-322 (or 310-311).
 
NOW, THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN IRKUTSK RIGHT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 30: BRIGHT NIGHTS IN SIBERIA:

(http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8113/l6sl.jpg)

TOP OF THE PHOTOGRAPH: BRIGHT NIGHTS OBSERVED AT THE KRASNOIARSK WEATHER STATION.


(from Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society, an Interdisciplinary approach: P. Brobowsky and H. Rickman eds., chapter 18, the Tunguska Event by G. Longo, fig. 18.5 and fig 18.6)
Did you read the descriptive text that came with the picture?
Quote
Only the bright nights following the 30 June should be related to the Tunguska event. This is confirmed by the global character of the phenomenon and by polarization measurements. The “global” character of the phenomenon, observed in the nights beginning on 30 June and 1 July 1908 are illustrated in Fig. 18.5 (Vasilyev and Fast 1976). As can be seen, the bright nights were observed on an area of about 12 million km2, from the longitude 6.5°W (Armagh, Ireland; see Fig. 18.6) up to 92.9° E (Krasnoyarsk) and from the latitude 41° N (Tashkent) up to 60° N (Petersburg).
And that's exactly what I refer to as red box in my map below. So all night glows are inside the red box.

From the same book:
Quote
As can be seen, the bright nights were observed on an area of about 12 million km², from the longitude 6.5° W (Armagh, Ireland; see Fig. 18.6) up to 92.9° E (Krasnoyarsk) and from the latitude 41° N (Tashkent) up to 60° N (Petersburg).
This confirms my argument that the bright nights were only observed from west south-west of the blast location.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/11j52dy.jpg)

Can you find me any eyewitness report of bright nights from Tunguska or east of Tunguska sandokhan? :P
Title: Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
Post by: sokarul on October 22, 2013, 08:14:02 PM
The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric.

Needless to say, only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could make a statement like this.

The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.”
Is that the same force that works to purify air without fans?


Quote
The accumulation of the laevorotatory subquark strings (magnet monopoles) or ether provides the thrust or antigravitational effect.
No, still.

Quote
Same effect noticed in 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 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.
No.
Same gyroscope video. They do things that seem strange.
(http://)
Quote
The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.
From DePalma's own words.(Not sure why I never found this before)

"The momentous fact is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is explained simply on the addition of free energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making. The spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control."
You can read the whole thing here and see the context the quote came from. You will see DePalma's experiment was not to disporve gravity. He never mentions ether.
http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall%28Understanding%29.html (http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall%28Understanding%29.html)

Time to give that argument up. You were caught lying again.
 
Quote
I have already explained in great detail that the dextrorotatory subquarks are actually the sought after gravitons (but they are NOT electrically neutral, as has been supposed so far in the official science).

Subquarks are made up of strings of bosons and antibosons, please see the article posted here earlier:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540721.html#msg1540721 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540721.html#msg1540721)
Linking to yourself does nothing. Plus you still haven't explained how I do my job with your model.