The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 09:08:15 AM

Title: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 09:08:15 AM
The RE Community has a new enemy, “Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry”.

This new technology reveals the shape of Earth’s surface through aerial observation using infrared and Photogrammetry software and the results prove it’s not curved. High tech equipment has been used to continue the Globe fantasy and make people believe the great hoax, now it’s being used to expose it.  How ironic.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.

Epic Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry of the Flat Earth

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2019, 09:31:50 AM
Nice post. The Earth is flat.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2019, 09:37:30 AM
Incorrect premise, incorrect conclusion.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 09, 2019, 10:08:15 AM
What's in the video, what does it reveal?

Can't it be less than twenty minutes?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 10:17:41 AM
It reveals professional deniers, liars and rejecters have to sharpen their skills to keep more of their members from accepting defeat.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 09, 2019, 10:27:41 AM
It's just not you getting your ass handed to you in another topic, and looking for a new thing to throw at the wall?

So, what does the video tell us? And how is it proven? Do you understand what they are saying?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Crutchwater on September 09, 2019, 10:27:58 AM
That entire video is fake!

Worst Photoshop ever, you can clearly see the wires!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on September 09, 2019, 10:46:28 AM
What's in the video, what does it reveal?

Can't it be less than twenty minutes?

I second the request for a summary.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2019, 10:57:06 AM
CGI proves the earth is flat? ???
(https://media.tenor.com/images/dd7aea1a8e8c1fea82f65780b1665efd/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 01:12:30 PM
Yet another attempt to ignore datum.
To push it under carpet.

The guy in the video colected models relative to datum and declared it "relative to flat reference".

And then he manipulated it as he wanted, doing exactly the same thing that Flat Earthers declare invalid in composite photography.

When you read an explanation of Aerial Photography, (like this one: https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/ (https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/)

make sure you understand this:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/8C5aBa.png)
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey))
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 03:44:43 PM
Yet another attempt to ignore datum.
To push it under carpet.

The guy in the video colected models relative to datum and declared it "relative to flat reference".

And then he manipulated it as he wanted, doing exactly the same thing that Flat Earthers declare invalid in composite photography.

When you read an explanation of Aerial Photography, (like this one: https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/ (https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/)

make sure you understand this:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/8C5aBa.png)
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey))

No manipulation here. Just measuring the surface from the air. How did you like that horizontal row of clouds too!  Just more witnesses of a non curved surace.

Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.

And please stop using Plane Earth talking points to discribe your theory, and use your own like "Means Sea Curve, Curvevel, Curvontal and Curvision. That would make more sense.

(https://i.imgur.com/7tJD0Up.jpg)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2019, 04:27:57 PM
Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.
No.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: frenat on September 09, 2019, 04:38:00 PM

And please stop using Plane Earth talking points to discribe your theory, and use your own like "Means Sea Curve, Curvevel, Curvontal and Curvision. That would make more sense.

Except in this case sea level refers to an elevation and your other terms aren't words. Yet another fail from Plat Terra.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 04:45:35 PM
Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.
No.


Please post a video explaining Mean Sea Curve.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 05:20:38 PM
Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.
Incorrect!

If "Mean sea level is a horizontal plane" explain how a horizontal plane can hide so when the viewing height is 6 feet but not when it is 100 feet.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0k3a0otp403bgq/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%206%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft above sea-level
         (https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjftdg6dnuexl0o/Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20-%201%20-%20Wolfie%20.%20.%20.%20Bathurst%20Lighthouse%20at%20100%20ft.jpg?dl=1)
Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft above sea-level

And if "Mean sea level is a horizontal plane" explain why these power pylons curve downwards over the horizon.

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/lake-pontchartrain-power-lines-demonstrating-the-curvature-metabunk-jpg.27877/)
Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain
(https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/)

Then if "Mean sea level is a horizontal plane" explain why there is a sharp horizontal  over the sea. Look in your own post:
Why is there no apparent curve in this image compared to yours? Its the same lake.
(https://i.imgur.com/kwJIHsD.jpg)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 09, 2019, 05:29:22 PM
The RE Community has a new enemy, “Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry”.

This new technology reveals the shape of Earth’s surface through aerial observation using infrared and Photogrammetry software and the results prove it’s not curved. High tech equipment has been used to continue the Globe fantasy and make people believe the great hoax, now it’s being used to expose it.  How ironic.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.

Epic Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry of the Flat Earth


My fault for getting off topic.

Speaking of the video, how did you like that 500 mile horizontal row of clouds? No curve was present at surface or bottom of clouds.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2019, 05:45:12 PM
Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.
No.


Please post a video explaining Mean Sea Curve.
I already did.  It's just that, in the context of a round earth, "level" means something different that than what you want it to mean.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 06:30:39 PM
The RE Community has a new enemy, “Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry”.

This new technology reveals the shape of Earth’s surface through aerial observation using infrared and Photogrammetry software and the results prove it’s not curved. High tech equipment has been used to continue the Globe fantasy and make people believe the great hoax, now it’s being used to expose it.  How ironic.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.

Epic Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry of the Flat Earth


My fault for getting off topic.

Speaking of the video, how did you like that 500 mile horizontal row of clouds? No curve was present at surface or bottom of clouds.
I'm not wading through over 21 minutes of video to find the but you want! Either you do that and show some screen-shots of the relevant bits or forget it!

But since you seem to like "wading through videos" try these ;):

"Thanks JTolan Media1 for proving the Globe!
San Jacinto - JTolan Media1         by roohif
     
What JTolan Got Wrong: Infrared Video of Las Vegas
      Doesn't Show a Flat Earth      by All Grey Matters


JTolan Media1 :: EPIC FLAT EARTH FAIL
by roohif
     
How I destroyed flat Earth idiocy (4)– JTolan,
the Infra-Red Clown by Olivier Joseph




Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2019, 06:36:39 PM
Ouch. With that, this thread is over.  I look forward to the next one.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Tom Bishop on September 09, 2019, 06:54:40 PM
Going off topic is an act of desperation. Refusing to address the video posted is an instant fail, and a triumphant victory for Flat Earth.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on September 09, 2019, 07:33:00 PM
Going off topic is an act of desperation. Refusing to address the video posted is an instant fail, and a triumphant victory for Flat Earth.

How can we address it? It hasn't been adequately summarized yet.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 08:46:15 PM
Going off topic is an act of desperation. Refusing to address the video posted is an instant fail, and a triumphant victory for Flat Earth.
Plat Terra posted a video with no explanation nor points to address.
Why should I waste my time wading through to find the material Plat Terra finds so compelling?

I posted four videos that do address the issues in that video.
So I fail to why that is "an act of desperation", "refusing to address the video posted", an "instant fail", or "triumphant victory for Flat Earth".
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 09:10:55 PM
Going off topic is an act of desperation. Refusing to address the video posted is an instant fail, and a triumphant victory for Flat Earth.

Are you talking about constant refusal to learn what DATUM is? :)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 09:15:56 PM
Yet another attempt to ignore datum.
To push it under carpet.

The guy in the video colected models relative to datum and declared it "relative to flat reference".

And then he manipulated it as he wanted, doing exactly the same thing that Flat Earthers declare invalid in composite photography.

When you read an explanation of Aerial Photography, (like this one: https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/ (https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/introduction-to-uav-photogrammetry-and-lidar-mapping-basics/)

make sure you understand this:

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/8C5aBa.png)
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_survey))

No manipulation here. Just measuring the surface from the air. How did you like that horizontal row of clouds too!  Just more witnesses of a non curved surace.

Make sure you understand this: Mean sea level is a horizontal plane.

And please stop using Plane Earth talking points to discribe your theory, and use your own like "Means Sea Curve, Curvevel, Curvontal and Curvision. That would make more sense.

(https://i.imgur.com/7tJD0Up.jpg)

The Earth is not shaped by semantics.
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

Those things were measured and checked many times.
Converting reference points won't change it.

What would keep the Earth together if it was flat?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 09:47:25 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 09, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
Falling objects feel no force. So no, gravity isn't pressure.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 10:17:54 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.
No we don't!
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a Law meaning that it describes the way gravitation behaves based on experimental results.

No theory comes into it.

Quote from: sandokhan
I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

Where has your "Biefeld-Brown effect" been proven experimentally in a vacuum?
Yes I found the video but what does that prove? Show how your "EXACT FORMULA" exactly matches any experimental results.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 09, 2019, 10:24:02 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

Pressure? Do you mean things don't fall inside a vacuum chamber?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Shifter on September 09, 2019, 10:24:05 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.
No we don't!
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a Law meaning that it describes the way gravitation behaves based on experimental results.

Laws can be broken, or found to be unfair or harsh and thus changed.

Do you believe a simple man living centuries ago came up with a complete works and understanding of the universe? On his own? Just by an apple bumping him on the noggin? Now if that's not the most awesome case of savant syndrome I dont know what is!!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 10:28:29 PM
Cut out the BS regarding the Bathurst lighthouse and the Pontchartrain lake FAKE video.

Total demolition of the Bathurst lighthouse photos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201995#msg2201995

Total demolition of the Pontchartrain FAKE video:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2016747#msg2016747


No theory comes into it.

WHAT ?!

No theory at all?

HOW THEN DO YOU KNOW IT IS ATTRACTIVE?

WAIT, YOU SAID TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS NOT ATTRACTIVE RIGHT HERE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

It takes a single counterexample to prove the Newtonian formula wrong.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


You, the RE, have NOTHING at all when it comes to terrestrial gravity.

BY YOUR OWN WORDS: YOU HAVE NO THEORY, NO ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

And certainly no GENERAL RELATIVITY to explain anything at all regarding gravity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201655#msg2201655
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 10:46:30 PM
Laws can be broken, or found to be unfair or harsh and thus changed.

Do you believe a simple man living centuries ago came up with a complete works and understanding of the universe? On his own? Just by an apple bumping him on the noggin? Now if that's not the most awesome case of savant syndrome I dont know what is!!


Exactly.

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 09, 2019, 10:59:53 PM
Don’t forget aether!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 11:09:53 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

How does it work?
Well, it is actually very simple:

Every piece on Earth has mass.
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.
So, the resultant forces point/pull towards the center of the planet.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Shifter on September 09, 2019, 11:14:52 PM
The Earth is shaped by gravitation that keeps it together, and by tectonics and rotation.

You have to explain how gravitation works on a spherical Earth.

Unless you can do that you no longer have the option to leisurely state that "The Earth is shaped by gravitation".

How is it kept together?

Attractive gravitation?

Please explain the attractive mechanism.

Use gravitons or spacetime, your choice.

Those things were measured and checked many times.

What was measured is A FORCE OF PRESSURE, nothing else.

If you want gravity to be attractive YOU MUST EXPLAIN THE MECHANISM.

Unless you can do so, you no longer have the option to lie through your teeth on this forum.

I have the EXACT FORMULA for the Biefeld-Brown effect which immediately proves my point.

How does it work?
Well, it is actually very simple:

Every piece on Earth has mass.
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.
So, the resultant forces point/pull towards the center of the planet.

Yes and my mass supposedly has a measurable pull on an asteroid out there in the asteroid belt. Or the mythical 'Planet 9'. Or a grain of sand on an alien beach in the Triangulum galaxy.  :o Your 'laws' state this
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 11:15:21 PM
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 11:24:46 PM
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634

So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?

Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.

What you describe as an "explanation" has nothing to do with what I said.
And I don't want to interfere with your right to deny whatever you want.

Meanwhile you have two options:

1. The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

2. The Earth is flat because WHAT? keeps it together.

Which one you can explain directly?

NOTE: Here I talk only about the manifestation of gravitation, not about its nature.
Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 11:30:10 PM
The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

Explain the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

If you have NO THEORY concerning this essential point, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.

They are not just another subject, they are fundemantal to our discussion.

What you are telling your readers is that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, OR HOW IT WORKS.

You want mass to "attract" another mass.

How does it work?

If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

You want me to bring here the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT which does prove the existence of ether?

Relativists are switching to LORENTZ ETHER THEORY.

They have to, since the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Coriolis effect, nor do they record the solar gravitational potential.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 09, 2019, 11:38:20 PM
The Earth is spherical because gravitation keeps it together.

Explain the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.

If you have NO THEORY concerning this essential point, YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Was it fundamental force or spacetime distortion, or which math approach you accept in which situation, are another subjects.

They are not just another subject, they are fundemantal to our discussion.

What you are telling your readers is that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY, OR HOW IT WORKS.

You want mass to "attract" another mass.

How does it work?

If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

You want me to bring here the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT which does prove the existence of ether?

Relativists are switching to LORENTZ ETHER THEORY.

They have to, since the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Coriolis effect, nor do they record the solar gravitational potential.

We don't know WHY masses attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY charged particles attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY magnets attract each other, but does it mean they don't?

We all see all of those in action.

On the other hand, I don't try to interfere with your right to deny any of it.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 09, 2019, 11:54:04 PM
We don't know WHY masses attract each other

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

There is no attractive mechanism IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.

How in the world can you claim, again, that masses "attract" each other, if you haven't the faintest idea of how that might occur?

but does it mean they don't?

OF COURSE.

If you want ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, you must explain it.

If you have NO THEORY AT ALL, your attractive gravity model is worthless.

We don't know WHY charged particles attract each other, but does it mean they don't?
We don't know WHY magnets attract each other, but does it mean they don't?


Don't even think to try to mix electromagnetism with gravity unless you want me to start to describe ELECTROGRAVITY for you.

The mechanism concerning ELECTROMAGNETISM is well established, FOR GRAVITY, in heliocentrism, IT IS NOT.

You have to explain ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

If you cannot, you no longer have the option to come here is state that a spherical Earth is held together by gravity.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 09, 2019, 11:58:21 PM
Those masses attract each other stronger that distant celestial bodies attract them.

But your pal HAS JUST STATED THAT THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AT ALL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201634#msg2201634
That I did ::)!

Terrestrial gravity IS NOT ATTRACTIVE?

Then, by all means, tell us what it is then.

I do not "claim that terrestrial gravity is attractive"!

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses" as in, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks0kf5ov34q2u0h/Newton%27s%20Law%20of%20Universal%20Gravitation.png?dl=1)

Quote from: sandokhan
So you are unable to describe the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.
No I won't attempt to here, because gravitation is not caused by mass attracting mass!

Quote from: sandokhan
You want mass to ATTRACT another mass.
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.
How in the world do your know it is ATTRACTIVE?
Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

Quote from: sandokhan
Explain the attractive mechanism.

Use anything you want, gravitons, spacetime.

If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass "attracts" another mass.
But I did not ever claim "that mass attracts another mass" only that it behaves as if . . . . etc.

And what's the point of explaining gravitation using "spacetime"? You don't accept it anyway.

And your claim that "If you cannot explain the attractive mechanism, YOU NO LONGER CAN state that mass 'attracts' another mass" is quite false.

It was known experimentally that electric charges can attract long before the "the attractive mechanism" could be explained.
It was known experimentally that prisms split white light into colours long before the mechanism could be explained.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 12:13:38 AM
rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks0kf5ov34q2u0h/Newton%27s%20Law%20of%20Universal%20Gravitation.png?dl=1)

It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


YOUR FORMULA IS WORTHLESS.



Please explain the attractive mechanism.

How does mass 'attract' mass?

If you do not want attractive gravity, then gravity is caused BY PRESSURE.


Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

YOU HAVE MEASURED AN EFFECT.

Please describe the CAUSE of the effect.

You no longer have attractive gravity as an option.

You want to use relativity?

You can't.

Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8dc8476392d219aea5dbed160b57296570ae4286)

However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)

https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The experiments, including the Cavendish experiment, HAVE RECORDED THE EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE, not attractive gravity.

Your formula is worthless since I was able to post a counterexample derived by the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955.


but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?

Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics.

That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 12:52:01 AM
rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.

Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:

But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks0kf5ov34q2u0h/Newton%27s%20Law%20of%20Universal%20Gravitation.png?dl=1)

It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


YOUR FORMULA IS WORTHLESS.



Please explain the attractive mechanism.

How does mass 'attract' mass?

If you do not want attractive gravity, then gravity is caused BY PRESSURE.


Because it has been measured and demonstrated as such in hundreds of experiments using different techniques.

YOU HAVE MEASURED AN EFFECT.

Please describe the CAUSE of the effect.

You no longer have attractive gravity as an option.

You want to use relativity?

You can't.

Let me explain to everyone here why the RE cannot resort to general relativity to account for gravity.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8dc8476392d219aea5dbed160b57296570ae4286)

However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)

https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The experiments, including the Cavendish experiment, HAVE RECORDED THE EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE, not attractive gravity.

Your formula is worthless since I was able to post a counterexample derived by the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955.


but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?

Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics.

That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.

Current understanding of gravitation is not complete, but that doesn't invalidate what we know.

Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.

Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.

If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

You could also first post your theory in a science forum such as this one: https://www.scienceforums.net , so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 10, 2019, 12:56:03 AM
There is no attractive mechanism IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN IT.

How in the world can you claim, again, that masses "attract" each other, if you haven't the faintest idea of how that might occur?

but does it mean they don't?

OF COURSE.

I didn't add any attribute to gravity, was it attractive or repulsive or whichever.
And it is not what I "want". It is observed in reality.
The final result is that masses tend to each other, whether you call it "attraction" or not.
Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

If you want ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, you must explain it.

Does it go for "attractive electrostatic" and "attractive magnetism" as well?

Or you have different sandards for those?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 01:27:45 AM
so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.

You mean what they think of Hermann Weyl, since the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown was derived by him.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

Has already been done.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00756267

In a classic treatise, the theory was published again in 2017:

Gauge Approach and Quantization Methods in Gravity Theory

http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/docs/publictions/kniga_Ponomarev_Obukhov_Barvinsky_web.pdf (see pg. 74)

These results were further improved by N. V. Kharuk, S. A. Paston and A. A. Sheykin:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02284.pdf

Classical electromagnetic potential as a part of gravitational connection: ideas and history


Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 01:37:02 AM
Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.

Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?

You cannot, therefore those trillions of billions of liters of water are glued to an outer surface by pure magic.

Even pure magic cannot explain this horrendous hypothesis.

It is even worse than pure magic.

Please explain the physics to your readers.

The attractive gravity hypothesis is not even a credible fairy tale, it is even beyond the powers of pure magic to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

It is though the exemplification of a fanatical and dogmatic agenda which goes even beyond what organized religion has to offer.

Do you want to use gravitons?

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity on a spherical earth.


was it attractive or repulsive or whichever.

It has to be BOTH attractive and repulsive.

Otherwise you can kiss goodbye the existence of GRAVITATIONAL WAVES.

Gravitational waves are possible ONLY for general relativity equations which have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

In order to obtain that bounded dynamic solution you need antigravitational/repulsive terms as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454


The final result is that masses tend to each other, whether you call it "attraction" or not.

They can tend to each other by having received AN OUTSIDE PUSHING FORCE.

As a matter of fact, Newton was pressed from all sides to provide an explanation for terrestrial gravity, that is why the second edition of the Principia, in the official chronology of history, includes the essay on the CAUSE of gravity.

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


Does it go for "attractive electrostatic" and "attractive magnetism" as well?

Or you have different sandards for those?


Don't even think to try to mix electromagnetism with gravity unless you want me to start to describe ELECTROGRAVITY for you.

The mechanism concerning ELECTROMAGNETISM is well established, FOR GRAVITY, in heliocentrism, IT IS NOT.

You have to explain ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

If you cannot, you no longer have the option to come here is state that a spherical Earth is held together by gravity.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2019, 01:59:02 AM
rabinoz, are you sober?

You can't have it both ways.
1) I'm perfectly sober! 2) I'm not "having it both ways"!

Quote from: sandokhan
Gravitation is no longer claimed be an attractive force between masses but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

In the next sentence you state this however:
But on a superficial level it behaves and can be calculated as an "attractive force between masses"

If it is NOT ATTRACTIVE you can no longer use that concept to describe anything pertaining to gravity.

(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ks0kf5ov34q2u0h/Newton%27s%20Law%20of%20Universal%20Gravitation.png?dl=1)
Yes, I can.
What appears to be "attraction" is an indirect effect of mass curving the geodesics in spacetime and the apparently attractive force is simply the force required to prevent the mass following the geodesic.

Quote from: sandokhan
It takes a single COUNTEREXAMPLE to flush the toilet with your formula.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:
Quote from: sandokhan
but an inertial force somewhat akin to centripetal force.

What?
Yes!
Quote from: sandokhan
Inertia is simply built into the theory due to the assertion that test particles move along geodesics. That’s not a cause of inertia.

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE.
No, I do not have to explain the cause because I never hinted that inertia was caused by test particles move along geodesics.

In Euclidean space, close enough to our locality, geodesics are simple straight lines and unless acted of by a nett force a  moving body will travel in a straight line at uniform velocity.
An inertial force is any force, such as centripetal force, that forces that body to take some other path, such as a circle.

But I'm not going to waste my time trying to school you in curved spacetime.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2019, 02:12:45 AM
Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.
Why?
Do we need a force carrier to explain acceleration forces (inertial force) such as that needed accelerate an object or cause an object to move in a circle?

Quote from: sandokhan
Can you explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other? What is the mechanism of attraction?
No, I can't!
Who ever claims that "two gravitons attract each other"? You are the only one that seems ever suggests that.
Nobody even hypothesises that a graviton is a "force carrier".
No more than a photon is a force carrier in electromagnetic theory.

Now go and learn what photons are and what gravitons are hypothesised to be.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 02:19:43 AM
so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of your theory.

You mean what they think of Hermann Weyl, since the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown was derived by him.

“And now I want to ask you something more: They tell me that you and Einstein are the only two real sure-enough high-brows and the only ones who can really understand each other. I won’t ask you if this is straight stuff for I know you are too modest to admit it. But I want to know this -- Do you ever run across a fellow that even you can’t understand?”

“Yes,” says he.

“This will make a great reading for the boys down at the office,” says I. “Do you mind releasing to me who he is?”

“Weyl,” says he.

(an interview that Paul Dirac gave in America back in April, 1929)

by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.

Has already been done.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00756267

In a classic treatise, the theory was published again in 2017:

Gauge Approach and Quantization Methods in Gravity Theory

http://www.ibrae.ac.ru/docs/publictions/kniga_Ponomarev_Obukhov_Barvinsky_web.pdf (see pg. 74)

These results were further improved by N. V. Kharuk, S. A. Paston and A. A. Sheykin:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02284.pdf

Classical electromagnetic potential as a part of gravitational connection: ideas and history

I looked at those papers and didn't find any of those authors claiming that terrestrial gravity is caused by pressure exerted by ether waves.

This is what you said:

Quote
If you cannot explain, THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

Did Weyl say that gravity is caused by ether pressure?

It seems to be the case that ether pressure theories have been discarded long ago and any modern attempt to revive them has failed. Maybe you can share with us which author is your source for "TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves".
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 02:44:27 AM
What those papers prove is the UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM AND GRAVITY: ELECTROGRAVITY.

They prove the existence of REPULSIVE GRAVITY.

Now, try and smoke that on a spherical Earth.

Do you understand what is going on?

Mainstream science is telling you and everyone else that terrestrial gravity is attractive.

However, the general relativity equations which have a bounded dynamic solution MUST INCLUDE AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL/REPULSIVE GRAVITY TERM.

This antigravitational term expresses itself, as an example, through the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

In fact the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT was obtained by Hermann Weyl in 1917.

Here is the paper:

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

PLEASE READ:

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther

But you said that you read the paper.

You did no such thing.

didn't find any of those authors claiming that terrestrial gravity is caused by pressure exerted by ether waves.

A REPULSIVE TERM/FORCE TO THE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL TERM IS A PUSHING FORCE CAUSED BY PRESSURE.

The repulsive term acts in opposition to the terrestrial gravitational term.

That is, it is a force of PRESSURE.

And Weyl clearly spells out what the source of the force is: AETHER.

That is how he was able to derive those equations.


What appears to be "attraction" is an indirect effect of mass curving the geodesics in spacetime and the apparently attractive force is simply the force required to prevent the mass following the geodesic.

You are not sober and you can't be serious.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

So, in order to make any sense at all out of explaining the cause of gravity, physicists have resorted to the use of gravitational waves assumed to be ripples in the fabric of spacetime.

The Hulse-Taylor experiment proved their existence and in 2016 it was announced by LIGO that they had made the first direct observation of gravitational waves.

It was ALWAYS assumed that Einstein's equations can describe these gravitational waves, that is, that Einstein's equations have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8dc8476392d219aea5dbed160b57296570ae4286)

However, as early as 1917, one of the greatest mathematicians in the world, T. Levi-Civita discovered a huge flaw in these equations: there is no bounded dynamic solution.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

A. Gullstrand, the chairman of the Nobel prize committee, also discovered in 1921 that Einstein's equations cannot be applied to DYNAMIC situations: that is why he refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

None other than Einstein himself also discovered this very fact in 1936:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)


https://archive.org/details/TheBornEinsteinLetters/page/n72

THAT IS, THERE ARE NO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTIONS USING THE ORIGINAL EINSTEIN EQUATIONS.

Now, the best part.

Gravitational waves become possible if, and only if, an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL TERM is added to the original equations, which is exactly what Reissner and Nordstrom and Weyl did.

But this takes the wind out of round earth theory immediately.

Here is the proof that the original Einstein equations do not have a BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://cirworld.com/index.php/jap/article/view/354

See also:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


if that is done, prove that the Biefeld-Brown is simply an additional effect.

Again, you are trolling the upper forums.

The papers just referenced PROVE that you cannot have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION WITHOUT THE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL/REPULSIVE GRAVITY TERM.

Show experimental evidence that confirms those theorical predictions

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IN MINERAL OIL:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463


http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf

Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors
D.R. Buehler

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06915.pdf

On the Anomalous Weight Losses of High Voltage Symmetrical Capacitors
E.B. Porcelli and V.S. Filho

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2dacap.htm

Test of Nasa patent for thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/elpex10.htm

http://jnaudin.online.fr/elecpexp/elecpexp.html

Electrostatic pendulum experiment

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1913909#msg1913909 (Biefeld-Brown experiments in vacuum)


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

Page 100 (pg 11 of the pdf document)

(https://i.ibb.co/WcHbDSW/ann43.jpg)

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

Le système commence à entrer à rotation vers 80 Kv et en forcant la tension l'on peut parvenir a des rotations de l'ordre de 1 tour/seconde.

The system begins to rotate at 80 Kv and by forcing the tension one can achieve rotations of the order of 1 turn/second.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

On obtient des rotations entretenues a des vitesses de l'ordre des 1 tour/seconde.

We obtain rotations maintained at speeds of the order of 1 turn/second.

(https://i.ibb.co/8jxBkPC/ann43a.jpg)


No, I do not have to explain the cause

BUT YOU MUST EXPLAIN IT IF YOU ARE PROPOSING THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL.

WHO IS GOING TO BELIEVE YOU IF YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THE CAUSE?

Is this what you are telling your readers that you simply cannot explain the cause of terrestrial gravity?

Then, if you have NO IDEA what causes terrestrial gravity, you are in no position to come here, every day, to present the RE hypothesis.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2019, 03:26:33 AM
It seems to be the case that ether pressure theories have been discarded long ago and any modern attempt to revive them has failed. Maybe you can share with us which author is your source for "TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves".
This might be of interest: THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes
(https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201707/rnoti-p684.pdf)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 03:42:26 AM
This might be of interest: THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes


Is this supposed to be a practical joke on your part?

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 03:46:06 AM
(Lots of links and formulas no one asked for)

Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right? They are saying other things and you are the one reinterpreting their work in your own way.

So only if we follow your logic and derivations we come to this conclusion:
Quote
THEN I CAN IMMEDIATELY CLAIM THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS FORCE OF PRESSURE, the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

Since you are the only one coming to this conclusion and you believe your ether waves theory is a better explanation of reality than Einstein's GR, I'd suggest the following:

1. Publish your work, then submit it to peer review. Let other people check how ether waves explain facts better than GR, is simpler than GR and ether waves have more predictive power than GR.

2. You could also start with a post in a science forum such as this one: https://www.scienceforums.net , so that other people with deep knowledge of physics can tell you what they think of ether waves as replacement of GR.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 03:49:56 AM
Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

Let's put your word to the test.


http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther


The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: JackBlack on September 10, 2019, 04:59:29 AM
The RE Community has a new enemy, “Infrared Aerial Photogrammetry”.

This new technology reveals the shape of Earth’s surface through aerial observation using infrared and Photogrammetry software and the results prove it’s not curved. High tech equipment has been used to continue the Globe fantasy and make people believe the great hoax, now it’s being used to expose it.  How ironic.

If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.
Rather than providing a crappy con man's video why don't you provide something of more substance. Just what is involved in this photgrammetry and how does it reveal that Earth is flat?
So far all you have presented is just another baseless claim.

And please stop using Plane Earth talking points to discribe your theory, and use your own like "Means Sea Curve, Curvevel, Curvontal and Curvision. That would make more sense.
We will keep using the same words everyone except flatties agree upon.
Cherry picking a single definition doesn't magically change what the word means.
Sea level is curved, no matter how much you want to reject that.

Going off topic is an act of desperation.
You mean like how Plat and other FEers repeatedly avoid simple questions and repeatedly change the topic to try and bury their opponents in BS?
Just look at Sandy, jumping in with a completely different topic and not even remaining on it.
Yes, the FEers here do seem quite desperate.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 05:05:17 AM
Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

Let's put your word to the test.


http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther


The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again.

That's about the only time the word aether is used in the whole document, which again you reinterpret in your own way...

Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea. Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

I'm sorry for you, but H Weyl was a major supporter of Einstein's Theoy of Relativity.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2019, 05:22:46 AM
Let me get this clear, none of those papers and authors you are citing claim that gravity is caused by pressure of ether waves, is that right?

It is as simple as this.
Not quite as simple as you might hope!

Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.
Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.
Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes


 (https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201707/rnoti-p684.pdf)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 05:25:46 AM
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has advanced our ideas of the structure of the cosmos a step further. It is as if a wall which separated us from Truth has collapsed. Wider expanses and greater depths are now exposed to the searching eye of knowledge, regions of which we had not even a presentiment. It has brought us much nearer to grasping the plan that underlies all physical happening.

HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43006/43006-pdf.pdf
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 06:15:16 AM
Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea.

No, it was Whittaker's idea.

E.T. Whittaker, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

He even PROVED it, in two formidable papers published in 1903 and 1904:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

ETHER = POTENTIAL = LONGITUDINAL WAVES = SCALAR WAVES

In general relativity the ether = the affine connection which captures the gravitational potential (something that the metric cannot do).

Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

BUT HE DID UNIFY gravity and electromagnetism.

The initial criticism brought by Einstein was unfounded.

Weyl's solution was refined by Ponomarev and Obukhov in 1978.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2195432#msg2195432

So, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.

You still don't get it.

Einstein's metric captures only the transverse waves, and NOT the potential.

If you want the potential, the most important concept in physics today, you need THE AFFINE CONNECTION, which involves NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf


HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918


Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Here is quote you might have missed:

"Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrodinger-Dirac potential ψ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally-based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the ψ with the electromagnetic potentials Aµ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials gµν with the Aµ, and measured the Aµ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units."

Hermann Weyl


Hermann Weyl derived in 1917, for the first time, using the AFFINE CONNECTION NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY, the exact solution to the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 06:22:43 AM
Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.

You are embarrassing yourself.

You are showing to everyone that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.

In 1917 T. Levi-Civita PROVED that Einstein's original equations are invalid.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

Here is Einstein himself telling you that the HE DID NOT find a gravitational wave solution using his linearized equation:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)


You have a definite cognitive dissonance problem, and you are refusing to face this fact.


You have just stated that, "though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version". Using Einstein's own words and quote I was able to debunk your lie.


Einstein's GR cannot allow a gravitational wave solution SINCE IT DOES NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

If you want a bounded dynamic solution, you need the antigravitational coupling term.


Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes


I did read it.

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 10, 2019, 06:23:36 AM
Who cares who came up with what. Is the thing figured out by whomever the one widely accepted because it seems like the best one according to most? Not of much interested the ones which did not make it. They are sidenotes.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 06:53:28 AM
Weyl is not saying that gravity is caused by ether waves, that's your idea.

No, it was Whittaker's idea.

E.T. Whittaker, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time.

He even PROVED it, in two formidable papers published in 1903 and 1904:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

ETHER = POTENTIAL = LONGITUDINAL WAVES = SCALAR WAVES

In general relativity the ether = the affine connection which captures the gravitational potential (something that the metric cannot do).

Weyl was trying to unify the theories of gravitation and electrodynamics, which ultimately didn't work as he himself recognized.

BUT HE DID UNIFY gravity and electromagnetism.

The initial criticism brought by Einstein was unfounded.

Weyl's solution was refined by Ponomarev and Obukhov in 1978.

Please read:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2195432#msg2195432

So, you haven't done your homework on the subject.

Relativity is the basis of much if Weyl's work and he contributed to the development of the mathematical and philosophical foundations of relativity theory.  You will have to look harder.

You still don't get it.

Einstein's metric captures only the transverse waves, and NOT the potential.

If you want the potential, the most important concept in physics today, you need THE AFFINE CONNECTION, which involves NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf


HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918


Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Here is quote you might have missed:

"Later the quantum-theory introduced the Schrodinger-Dirac potential ψ of the electron-positron field; it carried with it an experimentally-based principle of gauge-invariance which guaranteed the conservation of charge, and connected the ψ with the electromagnetic potentials Aµ in the same way that my speculative theory had connected the gravitational potentials gµν with the Aµ, and measured the Aµ in known atomic, rather than unknown cosmological units."

Hermann Weyl


Hermann Weyl derived in 1917, for the first time, using the AFFINE CONNECTION NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY, the exact solution to the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves theory like the one you are suggesting, so now you jumped to other authors.

You seem to be just collecting quotes and formulas from different papers  and building your own ether fantasy while ignoring anything that contradicts it. The result has invariably nothing to do with what the papers you are linking are really saying. Then you proceed to spam your posts with all those links and formulas to no end.

There is a reason why luminiferous ether theories were discarded long ago. Einstein's Relativity was the death sentence of them.

You have been posting your ether theory  in this forums for quite a while. However you refuse to publish it in a scientific paper and submit to peer review or even to discuss the topic in a more science oriented forum, where physicist might answer you. Maybe the only purpose of the ether wave pressure theory is to entertain people in the FES forums?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 06:58:55 AM
At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves

Your tricks don't work with me.

Please read what I said earlier:

"Let's put your word to the test.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther

The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again."

Furthermore,

(https://i.ibb.co/8Y04G22/weyl2.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/Yp6N58v/weyl4.jpg)

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kosmacz on September 10, 2019, 07:18:05 AM
Hermann Weyl was the greatest mathematician in the world in the period 1917-1955, greater than Einstein.

Yeah, and Kazakhstan greatest country in the world.
I don't get this whole comparision, who was the greatest scientist, or mathematician. To me this looks like a child's self esteem problems.
Really. Who cares?

Important is, what has been proved, and what has been falsified. And here comes peer-reviews and other processes.
And if you like to undermine the work of any of these scientists - do not do this here, there are not the competences to do the peer reviews.
Go for it, and do as the grown ups do.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 07:25:20 AM
At least we now agree that Hermann Weyl didn't postulate a gravity by pressure of ether waves

Your tricks don't work with me.

Please read what I said earlier:

"Let's put your word to the test.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

In this context, the energy-momentum tensor will be comprised only of that valid for the electromagnetic field in the æther

The repulsive/antigravitational term can only be obtained if we acknowledge the medium called aether.

It is as simple as this.

You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.

Repulsive to what? Answer: to the terrestrial gravitational force which is assumed to be attractive.

Opposite of attractive = PRESSURE/Pushing force

Try again."


No, H. Weyl wasn't proposing an aether theory. That's is just your imagination. Look here:

The only reasonable answer that was given to the question as to why a translation in the æther cannot be distinguished from rest was that of Einstein, namely, that there is no æther ! (The æther has since the very beginning remained a vague hypothesis and one, moreover, that has acted very poorly in the face of facts.)

HERMANN WEYL
SPACE—TIME—MATTER, 1918

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43006/43006-pdf.pdf
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 07:50:31 AM
You have a huge problem with quotes.

Weyl was commenting on EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF ETHER THEORY.

Use the word search now with "æther".

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.

Weyl mentions the aether 51 times.

PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.




Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 10, 2019, 07:55:06 AM
I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.
...

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

Cute story, bro. The answer to your question is, yes, I would.

Why? Because he deduced the behavior of gravity and used that knowledge to explain how the same effect could cause something to fall to earth and yet keep the moon in the sky. There was no need for him to know why gravity caused attraction between masses, only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

Similarly, Newton didn't have to understand the cause of light before he could invent, and build, and use reflecting telescopes in the 17th century. Neither did opticians before and after him need to understand the cause of light before inventing and making and using lenses. They worked with great success without the slightest inkling of the basic nature of light. All that any of them needed to know is how light behaved when passing through various media and when encountering mirrors.

The achromatic lens was invented and the first such lenses were produced in the mid 18th century, and the apochromatic lens followed soon after, once the principle was shown to have merit. These were breakthroughs in optics long before the understanding of the electromagnetic nature of light, which came more than a century later. That didn't stop very active and productive development of optics, which was based on the behavior of light, not its cause.

Your notion that it's impossible to know anything about something without knowing everything about it is, simply, wrong. Period. Just because you want it to be true and it's all you have to hang your hat on doesn't mean anything in reality.

Many of Newton's ideas and insights were brilliant, but they are anything but infallible. Many of them did advance principles for the way the universe works that are still used today because they work and for that he is, unlike you, highly admired by many very accomplished people. Again, you just make stuff up if you think it advances your argument without any regard to whether or not it is true or even makes sense in the real world. This shows what a lightweight you are in science.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 08:01:54 AM
You have a huge problem with quotes.

Weyl was commenting on EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF ETHER THEORY.

Use the word search now with "æther".


Read the quote again. Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 08:08:51 AM
only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

You are of no help to the RE.

Your statement shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

Here are the direct quotes from NEWTON HIMSELF:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A


Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

https://books.google.ro/books?id=VW_CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=isaac+newton+In+attractions,+I+briefly+demonstrate+the+thing+after+this+manner.+Suppose+an+obstacle+is+interposed+to+hinder+the+meeting+of+any+two+bodies+A,+B,+attracting+one+the+other&source=bl&ots=eRsq4NaOYt&sig=ACfU3U3NMCiW4fsquNSq0t25is5H6aobrA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipgr6fw6fgAhWnAGMBHXZMAlQQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20In%20attractions%2C%20I%20briefly%20demonstrate%20the%20thing%20after%20this%20manner.%20Suppose%20an%20obstacle%20is%20interposed%20to%20hinder%20the%20meeting%20of%20any%20two%20bodies%20A%2C%20B%2C%20attracting%20one%20the%20other&f=false

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER


Only the most ignorant of all users would post something like this in view of the quote just mentioned...

only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.


4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.


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'

Newton dismissed the attractive law of gravity:

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

The last quote was meant exactly for you.

Please do your homework and stop posting nonsense.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 08:11:07 AM
Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.

It takes five seconds to debunk your quote.

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.


PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 08:44:53 AM
Weyl isn't just commenting on Einstein, he's agreeing with him and the same  word "æther" is used as in all other 50 appearances.

It takes five seconds to debunk your quote.

Here, then, is the quote which completely validates my point:

PAGE 191

In particular, the affine relationship of the world is nothing more than the gravitational field, but its metrical character is an expression of the state of the “æther” that fills the world; even matter itself is reduced to this kind of geometry and loses its character as a permanent substance.


PAGE 310

the electric force E is counterbalanced in the æther by an “electrical pressure”

AETHER PRESSURE!

You see, you didn't even read the book.

He's just using aether in the same way Einstein does, then you pick two quotes that still don't look much like your theory of ether waves causing gravity.



At the index of the document you get two links for aether:
(as substance) 237
(in generalised sense) 251, 466

This is the last mention of it on page 466:
The extended field, “æther,” is merely the transmitter of effects and is, of itself, powerless;
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 09:00:26 AM
You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 09:06:58 AM
You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.

You are the ether expert, I'll give you that.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 10, 2019, 09:20:19 AM
You are new at this.

You must do a thorough research on the concept of the aether as it was debated in the early part of the past century.

https://epdf.pub/einstein-and-the-ether399d8b6e31bf5fa5c37792915272f98c85850.html

Here is a briefer version:

http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF

Each of the main players had his own version of ether: Poincare, Lorentz, Einstein, Weyl, Dirac.

You must become an expert at distinguishing what is meant in each context as it relates to the concept of aether/ether.

Any debate (other than yourself) in the current century on this issue?

And in the context of previous debates, how many of your sources were taken out of context?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 10, 2019, 01:33:37 PM
only that it did, and the strength of the attraction was directly proportional to the masses involved and inversely proportional to the inverse of the distance between them squared.

You are of no help to the RE.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? Since the earth is "round" (actually, it's approximately spherical) regardless of what I do or say, your comment is is as irrelevant as it is trite.

Quote
Your statement shows your utter ignorance of the subject.

Since you're so completely wrong about so many things, that's high praise! Thanks!
 
Quote
Here are the direct quotes from NEWTON HIMSELF:

“In attractions, I briefly demonstrate the thing after this manner. Suppose an obstacle is interposed to hinder the meeting of any two bodies A, B, attracting one the other: then if either body, as A, is more attracted towards the other body B, than that other body B is towards the first body A, the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail, and will make the system of the two bodies, together with the obstacle, to move directly towards the parts on which B lies; and in free spaces, to go forwards in infinitum with a motion continually accelerated; which is absurd and contrary to the first law.”

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A

So you agree that gravity is attractive after all. That's a start!

Quote
Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

<link that doesn't work>

Right from the pages of the Principia.

ATTRACTION = PRESSURE EXERTED FROM OUTSIDE PUSHING TWO OBJECTS TOGETHER

Only the most ignorant of all users would post something like this in view of the quote just mentioned

...

All we see above and with what follows is that you can pull quotes out of context with the best of 'em. This is not a new discovery. You show that you can even repeat parts of the out-of-context material in the same post, highlighted, and in a different color! Woo!! What talent!

Quote

4. ... aether ...

5. ... aether ...


Yes, aether was an idea for the mechanism of gravity that Newton postulated, but it didn't pan out in the long run. Nonetheless, the proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of distance part still stands tall.

His work in alchemy resulted in many a dead end because the basic premise underpinning the subject was flawed. Still, he learned enough while doing those experiments that he gained insights that proved very significant later, in a different field. Alchemy eventually evolved into chemistry, which does have a basis in reality and has made immense progress since its inception due to that (unlike alchemy, which went nowhere, but not through lack of effort).

... But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.
Many of Newton's ideas and insights were brilliant, but they are anything but infallible.

See... I was right. Not infallible. Case closed.

Quote
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':

....

Newton dismissed the attractive law of gravity:

A letter to Bentley: ...

The last quote was meant exactly for you.

Woah! I'm honored you think so!! Newton was not only brilliant, he was clairvoyant and foresaw my existence 300 years in the future!!! If only it were so.  :'(

Quote
Please do your homework and stop posting nonsense.

Lol!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 10, 2019, 02:21:27 PM
Mathematical representation of that tendency is force.

What?

Now you are saying that gravity is a FORCE?

THEN, YOU NEED A FORCE CARRIER: THE GRAVITON.

Wrong.

I didn't say that it is a force. You DID see the words "mathematical representation".
Even the force of your finger pressing a key on your keyboard is only a mathematical representation.
Resultant of billions of molecular interactions between particles inside your finger and the key cap.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: 29silhouette on September 10, 2019, 09:20:25 PM
If you haven’t heard of JTolan Media1 and his work you should have a look at his amazing work.
JTolan Media has done well in proving the globe with his footage.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 09:51:07 PM
Yes, aether was an idea for the mechanism of gravity that Newton postulated, but it didn't pan out in the long run. Nonetheless, the proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of distance part still stands tall.

Let's put your word to the test, as always.

And it shows exactly why the story of the allegory is so important: terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electromagnetism.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Your statements have been debunked, yet again.

Here is the BIEFELD-BROWN FORCE FORMULA obtained using Weyl's affine connection theory:

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)


So you agree that gravity is attractive after all.

Newton's clear description again:

the obstacle will be more strongly urged by the pressure of the body A than by the pressure of the body B, and therefore will not remain in equilibrium: but the stronger pressure will prevail

Pressure gravity, the true cause of terrestrial gravity.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 10, 2019, 10:01:12 PM
Why do objects in free fall not feel a force.

Simple question.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 10:25:27 PM
But they do feel a force.

A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.

Where does the energy acquired by a falling body come from? Certainly it was not inherent in the body before the fall.

"All potential energy exists in the ether"

Sir Oliver Lodge

"All kinetic energy is kinetic energy of the ether"

Sir J.J. Thomson

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 10, 2019, 10:40:30 PM
But they do feel a force.
Really? What part of your body would "feel a force"?

Why does a free-falling body experience no force despite accelerating? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196136/why-does-a-free-falling-body-experience-no-force-despite-accelerating/196166) There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

Quote from: sandokhan
A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.
"A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source" and that source is its own potential energy.

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 10, 2019, 10:54:13 PM
What part of your body would "feel a force"?

At the most infinitesimal level: atomic nuclei.

The dextrorotatory ether waves act exactly at that level: the body can then emit or absorb aether.

A falling body ABSORBS aether as it falls.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

A simple plastic bottle proves all of them wrong:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.

A body in a circular orbit is subject to the OTHER GRAVITATIONAL COMPONENTS CENSORED/ELIMINATED/DELETED BY NEWTON.

Newton published only the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation.

(http://image.ibb.co/bJJHkx/acc1.jpg)

When equation (1) was derived, it was assumed that empty space is rigid. We will now assume that space is dynamical and replace angular velocity ω with the vorticity vector H which is related to ω through the equation:

(http://image.ibb.co/bXW3Qx/acc2.jpg)

That is why everyone who witnessed the first experiment on rotational Newtonian gravity performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma was left speechless.

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

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

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

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

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 10, 2019, 11:15:15 PM
But they do feel a force.

No.




The two are nothing alike.




Quote
A falling body gathers kinetic energy from some source, as evidenced by its acceleration.

Where does the energy acquired by a falling body come from? Certainly it was not inherent in the body before the fall.
Million dollar question. The answer will win you a Nobel Prize and a million dollars.

Quote
"All potential energy exists in the ether"

Sir Oliver Lodge

"All kinetic energy is kinetic energy of the ether"

Sir J.J. Thomson

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.
You have ether doing so much, yet you can’t show it.

Gravity isn’t a force. That helps solve the different masses accelerating at the same rate problem.

Quote
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.


http://www.orgonelab.org/newtonletter.htm (I. Newton letter to R. Boyle)

4. When two bodies moving towards one another come near together, I suppose the aether between them to grow rarer than before, and the spaces of its graduated rarity to extend further from the superficies of the bodies towards one another; and this, by reason that the aether cannot move and play up and down so freely in the strait passage between the bodies, as it could before they came so near together.

5. Now, from the fourth supposition it follows, that when two bodies approaching one another come so near together as to make the aether between them begin to rarefy, they will begin to have a reluctance from being brought nearer together, and an endeavour to recede from one another; which reluctance and endeavour will increase as they come nearer together, because thereby they cause the interjacent aether to rarefy more and more. But at length, when they come so near together that the excess of pressure of the external aether which surrounds the bodies, above that of the rarefied aether, which is between them, is so great as to overcome the reluctance which the bodies have from being brought together; then will that excess of pressure drive them with violence together, and make them adhere strongly to one another, as was said in the second supposition.
The examples are outdated.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 10, 2019, 11:50:34 PM
The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world at that time, several ranks higher than Einstein.

Yes, Weyl was a great mathematician, however Weyl was also a notorious supporter of Einstein's Relativity and I'm sure he would never agree to your ideas of ether causing gravity.

Weyl also admited that his attempt to unify relativity and electromagnetism failed:

(https://i.imgur.com/q8BxWFa.jpg)

Hermann Weyl 1950
From Space-Time-Matter. Preface to the american edition from 1952.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 12:06:14 AM
I told you that you need to become an expert in quotes involving ether.

In the same year, Weyl published this:

(https://i.ibb.co/gtxrsmZ/weyl13.jpg)

Weyl was under tremendous pressure to renounce his quest for unification, that is why he was practically forced to give up on it.

But he knew he was right all along.

In 1918, H. Weyl introduced the physical concept of gauge at points within an affinely connected space corresponding to a non-Riemannian geometry to unify electromagnetism and gravitation. The Riemannian metric was used to explain gravity, while the new non-Riemannian geometries in the points of space were used to express the electromagnetic field.

Einstein immediately objected and argued that certain vectors can be treated as clocks marking the histories of atoms, whose spectral lines never change with time. Pauli used a different kind of a counterargument to Weyl's theory: the discovery of an “absolute length” in the Dirac theory of the electron (its “Compton wave length”).

However, Weyl responded to both objections.

https://www.scribd.com/document/316926632/Weyl-Reichenbach-and-the-Epistemology-of-Geometry (the best work on Weyl's response to Einstein's objections)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2182319#msg2182319 (Nobel prize winner C.N. Yang explains that Einstein's objection was not valid)

Weyl even addressed the Compton wavelength argument in 1949 (see the quote above).


Where did the pressure come from?

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

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.


Weyl was allowed to be a Professor at Princeton, but he had to give up his quest for unification.

That is why he wrote that passage (quoted above) not in the preface, but somewhat hidden in some later chapter, letting everyone know that he knew that the Compton wavelength argument was not valid to start with.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 11, 2019, 12:14:53 AM
What part of your body would "feel a force"?

At the most infinitesimal level: atomic nuclei.

The dextrorotatory ether waves act exactly at that level: the body can then emit or absorb aether.

A falling body ABSORBS aether as it falls.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

There sure seem to be a lot of confused physicists out there!

A simple plastic bottle proves all of them wrong:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2037796#msg2037796

A body in a perfectly circular orbit is also in free-fall but neither its kinetic energy nor potential energy change.

A body in a circular orbit is subject to the OTHER GRAVITATIONAL COMPONENTS CENSORED/ELIMINATED/DELETED BY NEWTON.

Newton published only the RADIAL component of the acceleration equation.

(http://image.ibb.co/bJJHkx/acc1.jpg)

When equation (1) was derived, it was assumed that empty space is rigid. We will now assume that space is dynamical and replace angular velocity ω with the vorticity vector H which is related to ω through the equation:

(http://image.ibb.co/bXW3Qx/acc2.jpg)

That is why everyone who witnessed the first experiment on rotational Newtonian gravity performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma was left speechless.

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

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

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

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

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

Gravitation caused by pressure of ether particles is just an outdated idea from the  XVIII century. Now it's clear where your theories are coming from.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 11, 2019, 12:26:42 AM
I told you that you need to become an expert in quotes involving ether.


Weyl admitted his attempt failed. That is fact. The rest is just your excuses and conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 12:31:34 AM
Newton based his entire theory of gravity on ETHER PRESSURE. In the official chronology of history, this theory was further developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, one of his best friends. Lesage added certain features later on.

However the pressure theory developed by Lesage was not INFINITESIMAL.

The first physicist to truly develop and describe ETHER PRESSURE theory was John W. Keely.


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

Keely's theory of molecular structure:

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

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

For Weight Increase or aggregation of additional mass: When the artificial neutral center is superposed onto the natural center, the aether flows increase proportionate to the entraining amplitudes flowing through the artificial neutral center thus causing an increase in weight and a gradual INCREASE in the mass density.

Such a resonance, properly directed can cause what Keely calls "high vortex action" to decrease or increase the aether flow through the mass neutral center.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 12:46:44 AM
Weyl admitted his attempt failed. That is fact. The rest is just your excuses and conspiracy theories.

Within the same year, Weyl publishes TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED STATEMENTS.

The original objection to his unification project, stated by Pauli, was the Compton wavelength argument.

Weyl says he solved it:

(https://i.ibb.co/gtxrsmZ/weyl13.jpg)

He had to be careful to insert this in a later chapter in such a way as to not attract attention.

If the Compton wavelength argument is invalid, his unification theory stands correct.



Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 11, 2019, 12:48:08 AM
Newton based his entire theory of gravity on ETHER PRESSURE. In the official chronology of history, this theory was further developed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, one of his best friends. Lesage added certain features later on.

However the pressure theory developed by Lesage was not INFINITESIMAL.

The first physicist to truly develop and describe ETHER PRESSURE theory was John W. Keely.


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

Keely's theory of molecular structure:

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

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

For Weight Increase or aggregation of additional mass: When the artificial neutral center is superposed onto the natural center, the aether flows increase proportionate to the entraining amplitudes flowing through the artificial neutral center thus causing an increase in weight and a gradual INCREASE in the mass density.

Such a resonance, properly directed can cause what Keely calls "high vortex action" to decrease or increase the aether flow through the mass neutral center.

Yes, a c. XVIII idea, that was further developed during c. XIX to finally join the ranks of superseded theories in the beginning of c. XX.

Nothing wrong with XVIII theories, it just happen that this particular one has been discarded because it doesn't work and there's a superior theory called Relativity which:
- is simpler
- fits the facts much better
- has way superior predictive power
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 12:57:08 AM
and there's a superior theory called Relativity

Not Einstein's relativity which does not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

It can only be applied to STATIC SYSTEMS, not to the bending of light, not to many body problems (Mercury's perihelion).

If you want a bounded dynamic solution, you need to introduce an antigravitational term in the equations.

Please inform yourself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825

Ponomarev and Obukhov went even further than Weyl, and unified gravity with electromagnetism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2192962#msg2192962
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 11, 2019, 01:06:06 AM
If the Compton wavelength argument is invalid, his unification theory stands correct.

If... If.. If... If I had to believe all your Ifs I would probably become a flatearther and black sun believer, but I would rather trust what Weyl clearly wrote: "This attempt has failed".

After going through many of your linked documents and quotations, I could verify that many of those papers are not saying anything close to what your posts suggest. I have also seen how you omit important information, like the fact that one author already admitted that the theory you are using "has failed".

You are doing exercise of cherry picking from different modern physics papers  in an attempt to resurrect an old dead theory.

I guess that works well for your followers in this forum, although I question how many of them bother to read all your links and formulas . You should probably thank me for reading your stuff and going through your links, as I'm likely one of the few who bothered to do that.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 02:24:44 AM
Here is something you can believe in: the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl: the electrovacuum solutions.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


Here is the BIEFELD-BROWN FORCE FORMULA obtained using Weyl's affine connection theory:

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

Dr. Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute


I could verify

The only thing everyone here has had an occasion to verify, first hand, is the vacuity of your beliefs.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 11, 2019, 03:06:04 AM

Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf
Quote
CONCLUSIONS
From the theoretical analysis by the zero-point field theory, it is considered that the origin of the dynamical
Biefeld-Brown effect might be attributed to the interaction of zero-point vacuum fluctuations with high potential electric field impressed to the capacitor. This result suggests that the pulsed electric field applied to the capacitor
may produce artificial gravity sufficient for practical application to the space propulsion technology.

That doesn't sound very conclusive to me!

Quote from: sandokhan

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf
Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute

Based on  hypotheses!
Quote
THEORETICAL CONSIDERRATION ON THE B-B EFFECT
To explain the B-B effect, the author proposed two hypotheses, Hypothesis(1) and Hypothesis(2), shown as follows:
         Hypothesis(1) : Charged particle under strong electric field generates a new gravitational field ΦA  around itself.
         Hypothesis(2) : Additional equivalent mass due to the electric field is canceled by negative mass generated by the new gravitational field.

And, ". . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets."

I don't see anything that might challenge current theories. It's all conjecture with only minute forces measured.

Quote from: sandokhan
I could verify

The only thing everyone here has had an occasion to verify, first hand, is the vacuity of your beliefs.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: SpaceCadet on September 11, 2019, 03:22:28 AM
Like most of us, when served a heaping bowl of Sandy's copypasta, we just ignore what he posts. But something caught my eye as I scrolled past.


[q]Dr. Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed." [/q]

This is what Sandy wrote up there. Please tell me where that quote shows Paul Biefield did Einstein's homework. When did going through someone's lecture notes to catch up on what you missed become having your homework done by that person?

This is a perfect example of Sandy's reasoning - take something out of context, read personal opinion into it, and pass it off as truth and fact.

Here is something you can believe in: the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507082.pdf

Weyl electrovacuum solutions and gauge invariance
Dr. B.V. Ivanov

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0502047.pdf

On the gravitational field induced by static electromagnetic sources
Dr. B.V Ivanov

The formula was obtained for the first time in 1917 by Hermann Weyl: the electrovacuum solutions.

http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065


Here is the BIEFELD-BROWN FORCE FORMULA obtained using Weyl's affine connection theory:

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

Dr. Paul Biefeld did Einstein's homework while both were attending the same university:

http://ttbrown.com/defying_gravity/12_biefeld-brown.html

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute


I could verify

The only thing everyone here has had an occasion to verify, first hand, is the vacuity of your beliefs.


Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 03:33:30 AM
Weyl's formula was FULLY verified for the experiment carried out in Japan, at the Honda R&D Institute.

The plate of the capacitor measured 170 mm. The weight of the capacitor was 62 g.

A 3% weight reduction was recorded.


The scale of this experiment was greatly increased by T. Townsend Brown in 1956, in France.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175747/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2F__Annexe_4.pdf (annex 4.3 describes the positive results obtained in vacuum (vide) using plexiglass and 80 Kv)

Page 100 (pg 11 of the pdf document)

(https://i.ibb.co/WcHbDSW/ann43.jpg)

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

Le système commence à entrer à rotation vers 80 Kv et en forcant la tension l'on peut parvenir a des rotations de l'ordre de 1 tour/seconde.

The system begins to rotate at 80 Kv and by forcing the tension one can achieve rotations of the order of 1 turn/second.


https://web.archive.org/web/20140602175742/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_2E__Annexes_3.4-3.6.pdf

Essais sous vide (vacuum tests)

On obtient des rotations entretenues a des vitesses de l'ordre des 1 tour/seconde.

We obtain rotations maintained at speeds of the order of 1 turn/second.

(https://i.ibb.co/8jxBkPC/ann43a.jpg)

(https://quantumantigravity.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/aaaa2.jpg?w=730)
(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)


http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf

Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors
D.R. Buehler

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.06915.pdf

On the Anomalous Weight Losses of High Voltage Symmetrical Capacitors
E.B. Porcelli and V.S. Filho

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2dacap.htm

Test of Nasa patent for thrust using a two dimensional asymmetrical capacitor module

http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/elpex10.htm

http://jnaudin.online.fr/elecpexp/elecpexp.html

Electrostatic pendulum experiment


Now, let increase the scale of the experiment: the B-2 bomber.

"It was revealed in 1992, for example, that the B-2 Bomber used electrostatic charges on its leading wings and exhaust. According to aerospace experts, this was confirmation that the B-2 used electrogravitic principles based on the “Biefeld-Brown Effect”. The Biefeld-Brown Effect is based on the research of Thomas Townsend Brown who in 1928 gained a patent for his practical application of how high voltage electrostatic charges can reduce the weight of objects.

The B-2 bomber employs sufficiently high voltages to significantly reduce its weight. This enables the B-2 and other classified antigravity vehicles to display flight characteristics that appear to defy conventional laws of physics. The key Obama appointee for introducing antigravity technology into the public sector is General Jones.
After retiring from the Marines on February 1, 2007, General Jones served on the Board of Directors of the Boeing Corporation from June 21, 2007 to December 15, 2008. Boeing had been active at least since the early 1990’s in studies to apply antigravity technology for commercial use.

“In 2002, an internal Boeing project called ‘Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion’ (GRASP) had been disclosed to the aerospace industry. A GRASP briefing document obtained by Jane’s Defense Weekly stated Boeing’s position: ‘If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire aerospace business’”.

“According to a 2008 book by Dr. Paul LaViolette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, Boeing completed a separate classified study for the US military of electrogravitic propulsion recently before October 2007. Boeing was rebuffed in its efforts to have such technology declassified and released into the public sector. As a Board Director and member of Boeing’s Finance Committee at the time of the 2007 classified study, General Jones was privy to and supported Boeing’s efforts in antigravity research and development. At the same time that Boeing was actively seeking to develop antigravity technologies for a new generation of aircraft, Jones became President of the Institute for 21st Century Energy. The Institute was created by the US Chamber of Commerce with the following mission: ‘To secure America’s long-term energy security, America must reexamine outdated and entrenched positions, become better informed about the sources of our fuel and power, and make judgments based on facts, sound science, and good American common sense’”

In 1956, a British research company, Aviation Studies (International) Ltd. published a classified report on Electrogravitics Systems examining various aspects of gravity control.  They summarized the pioneering work of Townsend Brown and then described the use of electrogravitic thrust as follows:

        “The essence of electrogravitics thrust is the use of a very strong positive charge on one side of the vehicle and a negative on the other.  The core of the motor is a condenser and the ability of the condenser to hold its charge (the K-number) is the yardstick of performance.  With air as 1, current dielectrical materials can yield 6 and use of barium aluminate can raise this considerably, barium titanium oxide (a baked ceramic) can offer 6,000 and there is a promise of 30,000, which would be sufficient for supersonic speed.”

        In one of their conclusions, based on Brown’s work, they suggested that: “Electrostatic energy sufficient to produce a Mach 3 fighter is possible with megavolt energies and a k of over 10,000.

Aviation Studies (International) Ltd. 1956. Electro-gravitics Systems: An examination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control. p. 14. In Valone, T. (ed.), 1994. Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a new propulsion methodology. Integrity Research Institute, Washington, DC 20005.



http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2cbcfa7c2e0dcf5704ad84ee6ad2a861-c)

"A scientist said other, more dramatic classified technologies are applicable to lasers, aircraft control and propulsion. However, the scientists and engineers were especially hesitant to discuss these projects."

"Besides it would take about 20 hr. to explain the principles, and very few people would understand them anyway."

What he meant is that this aircraft control and propulsion technology is based on physics principles that go beyond what is currently known and understood by the general public as well as most academic physicists.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

We have
d=0.5cm
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u=2.7 g/cm^3 (aluminium)
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

This gives F=2.2e10 dyne [cgs] = 2.2e5 N [SI]
Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

So that's around 30% of the force required to lift a B2 bomber directly upwards.

The force from these capacitors is almost the same thrust produced by the main engines.


 u=2.7 g/cm^3 (aluminium)

u refers to the density of the dielectric, which is barium titanate (6.02 g/cm3).

Then, F = 4.906e10 dyne = 4.906e5 N (72%).


It is very possible that the B-2 bomber also uses supercapacitors which greatly increase the force.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1403/1403.6862.pdf

Then the dielectric constant can be 10^8.

Most likely they have found a way to apply a high voltage to supercapacitors (with solid dielectrics), something that cannot be achieved with the technology available to the public.

https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/EESAT/2009_papers/Proposal%20to%20Build%20Supercapacitors%20Using%20Solid%20Dielectrics.pdf

https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/MFS-TOPS-77

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5512908/


Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 03:36:10 AM
Please tell me where that quote shows Paul Biefield did Einstein's homework.

The B-2 bomber uses THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, based on the research carried out by Paul Biefeld and Townsend Brown.

NOT the Einstein equations.

Certainly they used the effect ascribed to the MENTOR, while the PUPIL was ignored.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Crutchwater on September 11, 2019, 03:42:16 AM
Wow, this thread has been completely "Sanokahned"!

TL:DR
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 11, 2019, 03:53:42 AM
Please tell me where that quote shows Paul Biefield did Einstein's homework.

The B-2 bomber uses THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, based on the research carried out by Paul Biefeld and Townsend Brown.

NOT the Einstein equations.

Certainly they used the effect ascribed to the MENTOR, while the PUPIL was ignored.
"The Biefeld-Brown effect is ion wind, nothing to do with gravity. For evidence of this, see how the effect disappears in vacuum."

How does that factor into all this?

But it is an interesting topic, "UFO tech" stealth bombers. Kinda like X-COM.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 04:00:27 AM
"The Biefeld-Brown effect is ion wind, nothing to do with gravity. For evidence of this, see how the effect disappears in vacuum."

Please wake up.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177463#msg2177463

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2177793#msg2177793
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 11, 2019, 04:06:57 AM
I am pretty woke, no worries.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 11, 2019, 11:28:22 AM
Yes, aether was an idea for the mechanism of gravity that Newton postulated, but it didn't pan out in the long run. Nonetheless, the proportional to mass and inversely proportional to square of distance part still stands tall.

Let's put your word to the test, as always.

And it shows exactly why the story of the allegory is so important: terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electromagnetism.

HERE IS THE EXACT FORMULA FOR THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

<blah, blah, blah...>

Here is the BIEFELD-BROWN FORCE FORMULA obtained using Weyl's affine connection theory:

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

Notice the G, described as "the Newton constant" in there? Do you know what that is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

Hint: F = G  m1m2/r2

If you don't understand the implications, I or others can explain them to you.

Quote
So you agree that gravity is attractive after all.

Newton's clear description again:
...

That description includes archaic language and some now-obsolete ideas (they're obsolete because they didn't match the results of experiments conducted to test them). These appear to be confusing you. Newton no doubt believed it, which was understandable given the knowledge of his day, and you may still want to believe it despite hundreds of years of advances in knowledge, but you're clearly wrong.

[Edit to add]
We sure have drifted a long way from the topic, which was photogrammetry. Oh, well. This is typical for discussions here.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 12:01:02 PM
Notice the G, described as "the Newton constant" in there? Do you know what that is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

Do you know what this is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

It is an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE obtained using the Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov electrovacuum solution.

In case you haven't noticed, it acts in the Z DIRECTION, directly opposite to the terrestrial gravitational force.

That is, your formula F = G  m1m2/r2 can be flushed down the toilet right into the sewer system.

As for G, you need to put on your thinking hat: since the antigravitational force is totally caused by the presence of ether, then G is a quantum function and a vacuum repulsion reaction.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2179065#msg2179065

Your incursion here is not going very well for you... since you like to be noticing all sorts of things.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 11, 2019, 02:26:19 PM

As for G, you need to put on your thinking hat: since the antigravitational force is totally caused by the presence of ether, then G is a quantum function and a vacuum repulsion reaction.


I looked at those papers by Takaaki Musha and Boyko V. Ivanov and couldn't find a single mention of ether or aether.  Takaaki Musha  seem to be more interested in alternative propulsion technologies for space travel and Ivanov mentions  wormholes and warp drives. Please someone tell these two poor souls that space travel is not possible and the stars are not that far anyway.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 11, 2019, 03:12:02 PM
Notice the G, described as "the Newton constant" in there? Do you know what that is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

Do you know what this is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

It is an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE obtained using the Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov electrovacuum solution.
No! Big G, described as "the Newtonian Gravitational Constant"  has been determined by hundreds of experimants similar to the "Cavendish Experiment"!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 11, 2019, 05:20:29 PM
Notice the G, described as "the Newton constant" in there? Do you know what that is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

Do you know what this is, what it represents, and how it's determined?

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

It is an ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE obtained using the Weyl-Majumdar-Papapetrou-Ivanov electrovacuum solution.

Well, that's one interpretation. Apparently not a very common one, except perhaps among conspiracy theorists. And, of course, some flat-earth believers since they are prone to seek out, latch onto, and hold dear many things that don't fit with well-established, well-tested, and often easily seen principles. That, alone, doesn't mean it's wrong, of course, but it's not strong evidence in favor of it. At all.

Quote
In case you haven't noticed, it acts in the Z DIRECTION, directly opposite to the terrestrial gravitational force.

Woo! Airplane wings and helicopter rotors produce a force in that direction, too, but they're much more effective in making heavy objects fly.

Quote
That is, your formula F = G  m1m2/r2 can be flushed down the toilet right into the sewer system.

Um, nope... It works beautifully in the realm where relativistic effects and quantum effects are small to negligible. Which is to say, almost everything humans deal with in the everyday world, and a lot more, most of the time. Of course it's possible to introduce forces that act in the opposite direction, but those affect the net force on an object, not the the gravitational component of the total force.

Quote
As for G, you need to put on your thinking hat: since the antigravitational force is totally caused by the presence of ether, then G is a quantum function and a vacuum repulsion reaction.

<self-citation>

Since the postulated "antigravitational force" is most likely a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the observed effects, there goes the need for an ether... again.

Quote
Your incursion here is not going very well for you...

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 09:47:21 PM
I looked at those papers by Takaaki Musha and Boyko V. Ivanov and couldn't find a single mention of ether or aether.

But you DID.

I told you that you need to sharpen your skills in ether theory.

In fact it is mentioned RIGHT IN THE TITLE OF THE PAPER.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from
the standpoint of ZPF field

ZPF = zero point energy = ether = scalar waves

the author tries to explain this phenomenon by interactions between the zero-point field of the quantum vacuum and the high potential electric field.

From the paper published by Dr. Takaaki Musha:

(https://i.ibb.co/bK2KH02/puh1.jpg)

In fact, the formula features in the paper was obtained by three of the greatest mainstream physicists in the world:

The electrodynamic Hamiltonian of a particle in ZPF (zero point energy field/ether) was obtained for the first time in 1994, and was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff
Phys. Rev. A 49, 678
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 11, 2019, 10:13:16 PM
Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

The answer to your question is, yes, I would.

Unfortunately, you can't.

Here is the VERY IMPORTANT ROLE played by electromagnetism in determining the CAUSE of terrestrial gravity.

A sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibits unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

For the same mass, and the for the same distance from Earth, there will be AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT FORCE clearly exhibited by the capacitor: a total invalidation of attractive gravity.

Well, that's one interpretation.

You did graduate from high school, right?

The papers by WEYL, MAJUMDAR, AND PAPAPETROU were published in the well-respected journals.

In case you did not know, the following formulas were obtained using the ELECTROVACUUM SOLUTION discovered by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world, 1917-1955:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

Here is also the Reissner-Nordstrom solution, also published in the best journals and well-known:

https://archive.org/details/philtrans04375412

Airplane wings and helicopter rotors produce a force in that direction, too, but they're much more effective in making heavy objects fly.

You must be dreaming.

Jet engines were invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER using TORSION FIELD theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

It works beautifully in the realm where relativistic effects and quantum effects are small to negligible.

I have just posted a formula WHICH INVALIDATES NEWTON'S USELESS GRAVITATIONAL FORMULA.

It takes A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO INVALIDATE A FORMULA OR THEORY.

Newton says that ONLY ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY EXISTS. Nothing else!

A force which provides lift/thrust IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION destroys the premises upon which Newton's formula was built: gravity is totally related to electromagnetism.

Any gravitational interaction is due to the PRESSURE EXERTED BY THE ETHER.

There is no such thing as EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY. It is valid only for STATIC SITUATIONS. Einstein's equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

You can't apply them to anything pertaining to the real world.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

Of course it's possible to introduce forces that act in the opposite direction, but those affect the net force on an object, not the the gravitational component of the total force.

WHAT ?!!!

Terrestrial gravity can be completely ANNULED with the Biefeld-Brown effect formula.

Of course the entire gravitational component of the total force will be affected using the Biefeld-Brown effect.


Here are the calculations for the B-2 bomber.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

We have

d=0.5cm
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u= 6.02 g/cm^3
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

Then, F = 4.906e10 dyne (cgs) = 4.906e5 N

Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

THAT IS 72% of the force required to lift the B-2 bomber.

And the percentage can become 100% or even higher using supercapacitors.

So you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Since the postulated "antigravitational force" is most likely a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the observed effects

This is NOT THE CN SECTION.

There is no "postulation" or "misunderstanding".

THE CAPACITOR WILL MOVE TOWARD ITS POSITIVE POLE.

COMPLETELY INVALIDATING NEWTON'S UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION.

HERE IS THE FORMULA:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

Using 20Mv (66713 statvolts), d = 1/10 cm, e = 10000.

gzmax = 3.5gearth



Big G, described as "the Newtonian Gravitational Constant"  has been determined by hundreds of experimants similar to the "Cavendish Experiment"!

All of those experiments discovered the EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE WAVES, nothing else:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Newton's useless formula IS INVALIDATED AT ONCE BY THE EXACT BIEFELD-BROWN FORMULA.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 11, 2019, 11:32:52 PM
Just no.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 12, 2019, 12:01:40 AM
Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

The answer to your question is, yes, I would.
Unfortunately, you can't.
Here is the VERY IMPORTANT ROLE played by electromagnetism in determining the CAUSE of terrestrial gravity.
A sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibits unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.
For the same mass, and the for the same distance from Earth, there will be AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT FORCE clearly exhibited by the capacitor: a total invalidation of attractive gravity.

Well, that's one interpretation.

You did graduate from high school, right?

The papers by WEYL, MAJUMDAR, AND PAPAPETROU were published in the well-respected journals.
Just checking. You did mean this Hermann Weyl, a colleague of Albert Einstein who wrote this book?
Quote
Space, Time, Matter by Hermann Weyl (https://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Matter-Hermann-Weyl/dp/0486602672)
"The standard treatise on the general theory of relativity." — Nature
"Whatever the future may bring, Professor Weyl's book will remain a classic of physics." — British Journal for Philosophy and Science
Reflecting the revolution in scientific and philosophic thought which accompanied the Einstein relativity theories, Dr. Weyl has probed deeply into the notions of space, time, and matter. A rigorous examination of the state of our knowledge of the world following these developments is undertaken with this guiding principle: that although further scientific thought may take us far beyond our present conception of the world, we may never again return to the previous narrow and restricted scheme.

Although a degree of mathematical sophistication is presupposed, Dr. Weyl develops all the tensor calculus necessary to his exposition. He then proceeds to an analysis of the concept of Euclidean space and the spatial conceptions of Riemann. From this the nature of the amalgamation of space and time is derived.

This leads to an exposition and examination of Einstein's general theory of relativity and the concomitant theory of gravitation. A detailed investigation follows devoted to gravitational waves, a rigorous solution of the problem of one body, laws of conservation, and the energy of gravitation. Dr. Weyl's introduction of the concept of tensor-density as a magnitude of quantity (contrasted with tensors which are considered to be magnitudes of intensity) is a major step toward a clearer understanding of the relationships among space, time, and matter.

Just checking but Hermann Weyl sounds like a firm supporter of "Einstein's general theory of relativity and the concomitant theory of gravitation" to me.

Especially as the book starts with:
Quote from: HERMANN WEYL, First Published in 1922
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has advanced our ideas of the structure of the cosmos a step further. It is as if a wall which separated us from Truth has collapsed.

Wider expanses and greater depths are now exposed to the searching eye of knowledge, regions of which we had not even a presentiment. It has brought us much nearer to grasping the plan that underlies all physical happening.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 12, 2019, 12:12:55 AM
I looked at those papers by Takaaki Musha and Boyko V. Ivanov and couldn't find a single mention of ether or aether.

But you DID.


If you are talking about ZPE then just call it that, I don't think it needs another name.

Musha's short paper is purely hypothetical and speculative, just read the conclusions:
Quote
From the theoretical analysis by the zero-point field theory, it is considered that the origin of the dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect might be attributed to the interaction of zero-point vacuum fluctuations with high potential electric field impressed to the capacitor. This result suggests that the pulsed electric field applied to the capacitor may produce artificial gravity sufficient for practical application to the space propulsion technology.

The same can be said about the other paper (Haissch-Rueda-Puthoff)

Quote
In conclusion (i) it appears that a magnetic component of the Lorentz force arises in ZPF-matter interactions in accelerating reference frames such that the property of resisting acceleration which defines inertia could be attributed to this interaction. (ii) Newton's equation of motion F=rna thus appears to be made explainable directly by ZPF electrodynamics. (iii) The equivalence of the ZPF inertial mass derived here and the ZPF gravitational mass in the Sakharov-Puthoff model of Newtonian gravity would appear to provide some corroboration to this aspect of the principle of equivalence. (iv) Alternatively, if the principle of equivalence is taken as given, our argument for inertia expounded here seems to provide some independent collateral support for the concept of ZPF-based Newtonian gravity developed in the Sakharov-Puthoff model. (v) Finally, a causal and quantifiable basis for Mach's principle is suggested.

ZPE is currently not fully understood.  A complete quantum theory of gravitation doesn't exist yet. Current interest in ZPE by NASA and many others is geared towards new means of propulsion in space and  interstellar travel, but at this point is all highly speculative. 

Once again you are cherry picking and jumping to conclusions that have nothing to do with the conclusions and scope of the papers you are citing.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 12:19:03 AM
Here is the 1944 paper in which Weyl DEMOLISHES EINSTEIN'S ORIGINAL EQUATIONS:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090509190344/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/weyl-1.pdf

An interesting treatment by Hermann Weyl (1944) demonstrating that the standard linearization of Einstein's equations is inadmissible because it leads to the requirement of a tensor, which, except for the trivial case of being zero, does not otherwise exist! Another important paper ignored by the orthodox physicists.


Weyl extended GR to NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRIES, using his affine connection field.


Musha's short paper is purely hypothetical and speculative, just read the conclusions

Cut the crap.

Dr. Musha applied the BIEFELD-BROWN EXACT FORMULA for a capacitor which has 170 mm in diameter and 62 g in weight.

A full confirmation of the formula.

The experiment was carried out at the Honda R&D Institute:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf


Once again you are cherry picking and jumping to conclusions that have nothing to do with the conclusions and scope of the papers you are citing.

You are trolling the upper forums.

HERE IS THE ZERO POINT ENERGY FORMULA DERIVED BY HAISCH, RUEDA AND PUTHOFF used directly in the experiment carried out by Dr. Musha, using the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, a complete confirmation of the existence of the zero point energy field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412


Again, your statements have been debunked in less than 20 seconds.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 12, 2019, 12:47:07 AM
The experiment was carried out at the Honda R&D Institute:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

CONCLUSIONS
From the theoretical analysis by the zero-point field theory, it is considered that the origin of the dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect might be attributed to the interaction of zero-point vacuum fluctuations with high potential electric field impressed to the capacitor. This result suggests that the pulsed electric field applied to the capacitor may produce artificial gravity sufficient for practical application to the space propulsion technology.


Dr. Musha's conclusions, confirming what I said.

Quote
HERE IS THE ZERO POINT ENERGY FORMULA DERIVED BY HAISCH, RUEDA AND PUTHOFF used directly in the experiment carried out by Dr. Musha, using the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, a complete confirmation of the existence of the zero point energy field:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2178412#msg2178412

Again the conclussions by Haissch-Rueda-Puthoff, since you missed them the first time:

In conclusion (i) it appears that a magnetic component of the Lorentz force arises in ZPF-matter interactions in accelerating reference frames such that the property of resisting acceleration which defines inertia could be attributed to this interaction. (ii) Newton's equation of motion F=rna thus appears to be made explainable directly by ZPF electrodynamics. (iii) The equivalence of the ZPF inertial mass derived here and the ZPF gravitational mass in the Sakharov-Puthoff model of Newtonian gravity would appear to provide some corroboration to this aspect of the principle of equivalence. (iv) Alternatively, if the principle of equivalence is taken as given, our argument for inertia expounded here seems to provide some independent collateral support for the concept of ZPF-based Newtonian gravity developed in the Sakharov-Puthoff model. (v) Finally, a causal and quantifiable basis for Mach's principle is suggested.

You are just making a whole lot of assumptions based on a couple of highly speculative papers. These scientist are researching alternative propulsion methods for space travel, yet in your mind they confirm some sort of luminiferous ether theory, whatever.

Quote
Again, your statements have been debunked in less than 20 seconds.

It takes 20 seconds two do your copypasta spam.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 01:38:36 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.

Again.

You did not DEBUNK anything.

I presented A REAL EXPERIMENT CARRIED OUT AT THE HONDA R&D INSTITUTE.

Here is the paper:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Can you read a scientific paper?

The research group of the HONDA R&D Institute observed the weigh reduction at the experiment by applying an alternate electric field to the capacitor.

The author used the WEYL-MAJUMDAR-PAPAPETROU-IVANOV formula to derive the force equation.

Then, he used the HAISCH-RUEDA-PUTHOFF ZERO POINT ENERGY MASS DENSITY FORMULA to derive the TOTAL MASS REDUCTION.

No more suggestions, attributale effects.

THE ZERO POINT ENERGY EQUATION WAS USED TO DERIVE THE OBSERVED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

(https://i.ibb.co/bK2KH02/puh1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mb8nGhj/puh2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRQ7Q7X/puh3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/YpJdNZJ/puh4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cvzrHNf/puh5.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/NjXXzYK/puh6.jpg)

The formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor subjected to the Biefeld-Brown effect requires even higher mathematical physics than Weyl fields electrovacuum solutions.

The electrodynamic Hamiltonian of a particle in ZPF (zero point energy field/ether) was obtained for the first time in 1994, and was published in the Physical Review A:

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff
Phys. Rev. A 49, 678

Once this equation is obtained, the formula for the maximum weight loss of a capacitor subjected to the Biefeld-Brown effect can now be derived:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf


You will never be able to debunk any of my messages, save your efforts and time for something else.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 12, 2019, 01:52:39 AM
You did not DEBUNK anything.


I'm not trying to debunk anything, publish your ideas and submit them to peer review if you would like them debunked. Or post them to a science forum and see what happens.

I'm only posting the conclusions of the papers you are linking. I don't know why that bothers you so much.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: radioflat on September 12, 2019, 02:02:18 AM
Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

The answer to your question is, yes, I would.

Unfortunately, you can't.

Here is the VERY IMPORTANT ROLE played by electromagnetism in determining the CAUSE of terrestrial gravity.

A sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibits unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

For the same mass, and the for the same distance from Earth, there will be AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT FORCE clearly exhibited by the capacitor: a total invalidation of attractive gravity.

Well, that's one interpretation.

You did graduate from high school, right?

The papers by WEYL, MAJUMDAR, AND PAPAPETROU were published in the well-respected journals.

In case you did not know, the following formulas were obtained using the ELECTROVACUUM SOLUTION discovered by Hermann Weyl, the greatest mathematician in the world, 1917-1955:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

Here is also the Reissner-Nordstrom solution, also published in the best journals and well-known:

https://archive.org/details/philtrans04375412

Airplane wings and helicopter rotors produce a force in that direction, too, but they're much more effective in making heavy objects fly.

You must be dreaming.

Jet engines were invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER using TORSION FIELD theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

It works beautifully in the realm where relativistic effects and quantum effects are small to negligible.

I have just posted a formula WHICH INVALIDATES NEWTON'S USELESS GRAVITATIONAL FORMULA.

It takes A SINGLE COUNTEREXAMPLE TO INVALIDATE A FORMULA OR THEORY.

Newton says that ONLY ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY EXISTS. Nothing else!

A force which provides lift/thrust IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION destroys the premises upon which Newton's formula was built: gravity is totally related to electromagnetism.

Any gravitational interaction is due to the PRESSURE EXERTED BY THE ETHER.

There is no such thing as EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY. It is valid only for STATIC SITUATIONS. Einstein's equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

You can't apply them to anything pertaining to the real world.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

Of course it's possible to introduce forces that act in the opposite direction, but those affect the net force on an object, not the the gravitational component of the total force.

WHAT ?!!!

Terrestrial gravity can be completely ANNULED with the Biefeld-Brown effect formula.

Of course the entire gravitational component of the total force will be affected using the Biefeld-Brown effect.


Here are the calculations for the B-2 bomber.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

We have

d=0.5cm
e=1e4 [units] (barium titanate)
V=6.67e4 statvolts
G=6.67e-8 [cgs units]
u= 6.02 g/cm^3
S=4.78e6 cm^2 (wing area of a B2 bomber)

Then, F = 4.906e10 dyne (cgs) = 4.906e5 N

Gravitational force on an empty B2 is 7.1e4*9.81 = 6.8e5 N

THAT IS 72% of the force required to lift the B-2 bomber.

And the percentage can become 100% or even higher using supercapacitors.

So you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Since the postulated "antigravitational force" is most likely a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the observed effects

This is NOT THE CN SECTION.

There is no "postulation" or "misunderstanding".

THE CAPACITOR WILL MOVE TOWARD ITS POSITIVE POLE.

COMPLETELY INVALIDATING NEWTON'S UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION.

HERE IS THE FORMULA:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

Using 20Mv (66713 statvolts), d = 1/10 cm, e = 10000.

gzmax = 3.5gearth



Big G, described as "the Newtonian Gravitational Constant"  has been determined by hundreds of experimants similar to the "Cavendish Experiment"!

All of those experiments discovered the EFFECT OF ETHER PRESSURE WAVES, nothing else:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg805751#msg805751

Newton's useless formula IS INVALIDATED AT ONCE BY THE EXACT BIEFELD-BROWN FORMULA.

Phew!

What I don't understand is how people have the time and energy to read and paste all this drivel...

One essence of good science is the ability to explain and simplify it so *the masses* can understand it.
All this twit does is obfuscate and confuse matters. To him, it becomes more true with increasing incomprehensible formulae and greek letters!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 12, 2019, 03:10:39 AM
Yes, it looks very impressive, but as it lacks the support of the scientific community, I find it hard to believe it is worth anything.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: JackBlack on September 12, 2019, 03:24:17 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.
No, that is still you.

You continue to spam this thread with things completely unconnected to the OP.
You quote mine authorities appealing to their authority with your blatant misrepresentation of your claims, while ignoring that the authorities fully support Earth being round which you reject.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 03:37:44 AM
The WEYL-MAJUMDAR-PAPAPETROU-IVANOV electrovacuum solution is as mainstream as it gets. However, it requires very advanced mathematics, taught perhaps at the post-graduate level.

This is is pure science: using differential geometry to unify terrestrial gravity and Coulomb electrostatics.

So, it is totally accepted by modern science: the papers were published and peer-reviewed by some of the best journals out there.

The reason why more and more people do not have a knowledge of these outstanding and far reaching results is the fact that in high school they are not taught about Whittaker scalar waves, Tesla ball lightning theory, DePalma's spinning ball experiment and much more.

Here is how senior year physics should be taught in high schools.

High School Physics 12th grade textbook, 2020 edition, table of contents


I. Ether Quantum Physics


1. Atomic structure of the subquark (tachyon)


2. String theory - bosons and antibosons

2.1 Vortex model of the atom

2.2 Geometrical structure of the elements

2.3 Boson and antiboson configuration


3. Antigravity through sound and double torsion

3.1 UFOs - structure, form, flight mechanism physics

3.2 Granite megalithic blocks levitation

3.3 Transmutation of metals

3.4 Dr. Bruce DePalma and Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev experiments


Endnote: failed theories of the 20th century - planetary model of the atom


II. Magnetricity


1. Linus Pauling experiments: laevorotatory structure of the living organisms


2. Ether – telluric currents


3. Aether – medium of propagation of ether waves


4. G.B. Airy's experiment (1871)


5. Compton effect explained by ether waves


6. Ball lightning and cavity resonators


Endnote: failed theories of the 20th century - the theory of relativity


III. Free energy and ether waves


1. Nikola Tesla nonhertzian wave analysis


2. Floyd Sweet transistor


3. Biefeld-Brown effect


4. Viktor Schauberger double torsion theory


Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 03:43:29 AM
while ignoring that the authorities fully support Earth being round which you reject.

You can no longer "support" a RE hypothesis, once you have at your disposal the EXACT BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FORMULA.

How do you justify the fact that the B-2 bomber just floats up there using only the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT as a power source of thrust and flight?

Here is the exact BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FORMULA:

(https://i.ibb.co/BCDmvh8/iv.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/9TBrSBD/iv3.jpg)

This is ELECTROGRAVITY, the unification of gravity and electromagnetism.

Einstein was very happy about it:

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

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

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

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

It doesn't get more mainstream than this, does it?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: JackBlack on September 12, 2019, 03:56:42 AM
You can no longer "support" a RE hypothesis
Because it is a theory, supported by mountains of evidence, unlike the refuted FE idea.

If you want to use authorities, accept Earth is round. If you don't, spamming them and deal with the topic.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 12, 2019, 04:05:44 AM
Yes, I doubt many here doubt the mainstream parts. But when it gets to black sun and others people do tend to question.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 04:09:40 AM
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 04:23:41 AM
Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.
No, it doesn't.

That explains the chase for mythical dark matter...
Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.
Yeah, such a pity.

Failing to come to a complete understanding of the mythical "g."
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 12, 2019, 04:24:47 AM
is sando a professor working on a thesis at some university?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 12, 2019, 04:25:19 AM
while ignoring that the authorities fully support Earth being round which you reject.

You can no longer "support" a RE hypothesis, once you have at your disposal the EXACT BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FORMULA.

How do you justify the fact that the B-2 bomber just floats up there using only the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT as a power source of thrust and flight?

Why do none of your papers on the "BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" or the B-2 bomber supposedly "just floating up there using only the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" ever mention that it debunks the "RE hypothesis" or even that it debunks either Newtonian Gravitation or General Relativity?

Maybe you read a lot into these papers that is not really there?

Have you ever thought that the CIA might be expert at spreading disinformation to cover up high security projects? They've done it before.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 12, 2019, 04:40:15 AM
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

And to prove your point to refer to authors investigating alternative methods of propulsion in space, wrap drives and interstellar travel. Good job.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 12, 2019, 12:29:00 PM
Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.
No, it doesn't.

That explains the chase for mythical dark matter...
Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.
Yeah, such a pity.

Failing to come to a complete understanding of the mythical "g."
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.

Apparently you have never flown in a plane before. I can see why you haven't as the engineering behind every piece of equipment is predicated on this 'mythical g' as you call it. And why would you put your personal transportation safety at risk while mistrusting this myth? No sane person would. Best for you to stay on terra firma.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 12, 2019, 03:08:16 PM
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer-reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.
Don't be ridiculous, the acceleration due to gravity, g, whatever the cause is easy to prove!

Simply drop a rock on your foot from 1 metre onto your foot and measure the time from your dropping the rock till your yells.
Then get your "mate" to drop the rock from 10 metres high onto your foot and measure the time from his/her dropping the rock till your screams in agony.

Then from your hospital bed get out your calculator and check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2.

To learn more you might read, Flat Earth Debate / Re: GRAVITY PROOF « Message by rabinoz on August 27, 2018, 08:56:40 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77424.msg2093638;topicseen#msg2093638).

Your "peer-reviewed" is only relevant when you are looking for the cause of gravity.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2019, 09:59:56 PM
check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

It works the same way on a flat earth.

What you, the RE, cannot explain is the value of g itself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2080817#msg2080817 (three consecutive messages)

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2

But it has not.

What has been measured is the PRESSURE OF THE ETHER WAVES on the Cavendish experiment, that is all.


Again, you have been caught lying on a grand scale.


Here are more blatant lies on your part.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.


Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That is why Einstein had to fudge everything:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405

Here is the proof that the Einstein equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454


This fact has been explained already to you right here in this thread, yet here you are again, lying to your readers and making false claims.

Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 13, 2019, 12:39:00 AM

Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That might be a valid critic to Einstein GR. However non of the physicists critic with GR are proposing aether waves pressure as alternative to GR. GR is incomplete, some physicist claim GR is wrong, but that doesn't automatically lead to aether wave pressure.

Showing issues with GR is not enough. You also need to show how your aether waves pressure fits all the facts better than GR. The only way you can do this is denying all the facts that don't fit your theory, such as all space missions. That's why nobody takes your theories seriously, they are just pseudoscience. 
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 13, 2019, 04:11:28 AM
check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

It works the same way on a flat earth.

What you, the RE, cannot explain is the value of g itself:
The approximate value of g, the acceleration due to gravity is easy to find!  Drop a weight and time its fall!

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2080817#msg2080817 (three consecutive messages)

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2

But it has not.

What has been measured is the PRESSURE OF THE ETHER WAVES on the Cavendish experiment, that is all.
So you say, but I'm under no obligation to agree with you.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, you have been caught lying on a grand scale.
Disagreeing with you is not lying! So I "been caught lying on a grand scale". Get used to that simple fact.


Quote from: sandokhan
Here are more blatant lies on your part.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.

No lies there because, whatever you say, "The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is as described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity."

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.
Disagreeing with you is not lying! And that has nothing to do with Einstein failing to be awarded the Nobel prize for general relativity

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That is why Einstein had to fudge everything:
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

You might disagree, but so what?

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405

Here is the proof that the Einstein equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

This fact has been explained already to you right here in this thread, yet here you are again, lying to your readers and making false claims.
I choose not to accept your "facts" as facts. Is that a crime now?

Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!

I have every bit as much right to my opinions as you have and that's all you are presenting, your personal opinions.

By the way, would you care to show everybody how you proved the sun to be about 600 m in diameter and abou the 15 k  above the earth?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Yes on September 13, 2019, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!
(https://i.imgur.com/OxBi1Sx.jpg)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 13, 2019, 02:22:18 PM
Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!
(https://i.imgur.com/OxBi1Sx.jpg)
I wish ::) but no one that matters cares about a few flat earthers spreading their ignorance.

But there is concern that many modern educational systems have been more like the "indoctrination" that these flat earthers complain about.

Modern Flat Earthism and all the other conspiracy theories that abound are just symptoms of this.


An educational system should teach more of "how to learn" and how to evaluate information and simply present "facts".
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 13, 2019, 09:50:20 PM
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

But they cannot be applied to DYNAMIC SITUATIONS.

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging the fact that his equations do not have A DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION, i.e. no GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTION:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)

But this 'argument' of yours has ALREADY been addressed.

You are SPAMMING the upper forums!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Smoke Machine on September 13, 2019, 10:40:29 PM
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

Lol!!!!!

Do you have a copyright on the above phrase, sandman? If not, I'd like to put it on a t-shirt...... and like the sandman, your long long long long posts, have succeeded in putting me to sleep many a time!

The aether is another name for space, or the substance which is found in a vacuum. It's the same substance that separates planets and separates atoms from electrons. It's alchemy. It's the first matter, from which all measurable quantifiable matter, or secondary matter, is spawned from. It is the intermediary substance between our physical plane of existence and then the etheric plane, followed by the astral realms, etc.

Why, sandman, are you using it to try and bamboozle people with mathematical equations that belong in a harry potter movie, to trick them into a flat earth fall? It doesn't make sense!

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 13, 2019, 11:02:09 PM
An educational system should teach more of "how to learn" and how to evaluate information and simply present "facts".
I wholeheartedly agree.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 01:03:00 AM
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

But they cannot be applied to DYNAMIC SITUATIONS.

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging the fact that his equations do not have A DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION, i.e. no GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTION:
(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)
I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.
More recently, however, solutions for the complete GR tensor equation.

I already showed you this:
Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.
Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.
Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
          Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
          Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes

 (https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201707/rnoti-p684.pdf)

Quote from: sandokhan
But this 'argument' of yours has ALREADY been addressed.
So? Why would your addressing the matter end all discussion? Do you regard yourself as the last word on GR, etc?

Quote from: sandokhan
You are SPAMMING the upper forums!
That's your opinion but in reality I'm simply answering your repeated claims that I do not agree with. Why would that be "SPAMMING the upper forums"?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2019, 03:03:38 AM
This is beyond belief.

I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.

rabinoz CANNOT FACE reality.

Einstein says exactly THE OPPOSITE:

(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)

His linearized equations COULD NOT deliver the gravitational wave solution.

Yet rabinoz states the opposite of what Einstein stated back in 1936.


How is this for cognitive dissonance?


I already showed you this:

But I already debunked that reference, not once but twice!

rabinoz cannot face the stark reality of scientific proofs, so he is SPAMMING this forum yet again.

THIS IS DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202720#msg2202720

The same reference, the same response.

How do you deal with someone who refuses to face the facts?

Why do we, the FE, have to deal with this sort of cognitive dissonance in full display?

Since I have just proven that rabinoz SPAMMED this forum for a third time in row, just today, the necessary ban has to be implemented by the mods.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 14, 2019, 03:09:37 AM
Isn’t all that purely academic? It is interesting, but as long as it is of no practical use, its worth in settling FE vs RE is non-existent?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 04:10:28 AM
This is beyond belief.
I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.
rabinoz CANNOT FACE reality.

Einstein says exactly THE OPPOSITE:
(https://i.ibb.co/TBrqJ0L/125.jpg)

His linearized equations COULD NOT deliver the gravitational wave solution.
You might want to read a little more on the topic before you make claims like that! There is far more to this issue than you try to make out with your little snippet of a quote with no reference.
Quote from: Galina Weinstein, 15/2/16
Einstein and Gravitational Waves 1936-1938 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 1936 Leopold Infeld arrived in Princeton to replace Rosen as Einstein's new assistant. In his autobiography Infeld describes his first meeting with Einstein, at which Einstein explained to him his proof of the non-existence of gravity waves. Einstein began to talk about his latest and still unpublished paper concerning the work done with his assistant Rosen during the preceding year.
It was on the problem of gravitational waves. Infeld explains the basic idea in simple words in the following way (Infeld 1941, 260-261): general relativity is a field theory, and it does for the problem of gravitation what Maxwell's theory had done for the problem of electromagnetic phenomena. For this reason, gravitational waves can be deduced from general relativity just as the existence of electromagnetic waves can be deduced from Maxwell's theory. In their motion the stars send out gravitational waves, spreading in time through space, just as oscillating electrons send out electromagnetic waves. It is a common feature of all field theories that the influence of one object on another spreads through space with a great but finite velocity in the form of waves.

Einstein always believed that a more thorough examination could only confirm this result, revealing some finer features of the gravitational waves. However, in the previous two years – before Infeld's arrival at Princeton in 1936 – Einstein began to doubt the existence of the gravitational waves. When making an approximate investigation of the problem he found that gravitational waves seemed to exist. But a deeper analysis brought him to the conclusion that completely contradicted the previous conclusion. Einstein thought that if this result that gravitational waves did not exist was true, it would be of a fundamental nature, because in this
case, unlike previous beliefs, a filed theory (general relativity) could not then be closely connected with the existence of waves.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The next day Infeld went to Einstein and told him that he (Infeld) had found a mistake in the calculation, and that he believed that gravitational waves do exist. Einstein replied that he too had found a mistake in his paper with Rosen that had been submitted to The Physical Review. It was less trivial than Infeld's mistake in the two pages where he had tried to prove that gravitational waves do not exist, and more difficult to detect. Einstein had come to the same conclusion as Infeld's, namely that gravitational waves do in fact exist; and with Robertson's help (still not knowing it was Robertson who had reviewed and remarked on Einstein's submission to The Physical Review) he finally corrected his Einstein-Rosen submission paper (Weinstein 2015, 261-264).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote from: sandokhan
Yet rabinoz states the opposite of what Einstein stated back in 1936.
Sure, I had not have researched the matter deeply enough before now, but it appears that in the end it the end Einstein did accept that his GR did support gravitational waves.

Read this again,  please:
Quote from: Galina Weinstein, 15/2/16
Einstein and Gravitational Waves 1936-1938 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.04674)
The next day Infeld went to Einstein and told him that he (Infeld) had found a mistake in the calculation, and that he believed that gravitational waves do exist. Einstein replied that he too had found a mistake in his paper with Rosen that had been submitted to The Physical Review. It was less trivial than Infeld's mistake in the two pages where he had tried to prove that gravitational waves do not exist, and more difficult to detect. Einstein had come to the same conclusion as Infeld's, namely that gravitational waves do in fact exist.

Now, maybe you could find the time to read this!
THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes p 693


 (https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201707/rnoti-p684.pdf)
Quote from: sandokhan
How do you deal with someone who refuses to face the facts?
Look in a mirror and learn that you do not know everything.

Quote from: sandokhan
Why do we, the FE, have to deal with this sort of cognitive dissonance in full display?

Since I have just proven that rabinoz SPAMMED this forum for a third time in row, just today, the necessary ban has to be implemented by the mods.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2019, 04:26:53 AM
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.

This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.

The FACT that Einstein's linearized equations do not have a DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION is scientifically proven.

Here we go again.

In 1917 T. Levi-Civita PROVED that Einstein's original equations are invalid.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf



QUESTION FOR THE ADMIN/MODS: how many times do we have to go through this before it dawns on rabinoz that he is wrong? He is unable to accept proofs which shatter his little universe, so he is turning this forum, through spamming, into a nightmare.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 04:44:21 AM
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.

This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.

I am not spamming but replying to your posts with quite reasoned answers.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2019, 04:56:12 AM
But you ARE spamming.

Here is the proof.

This is the first time rabinoz made use of this reference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202712#msg2202712

I was able immediately to debunk (not deny, or obfuscate) his statement, using FOUR different references which show that the Christodolou-Kleinerman solution is false.


Any sensible, sane person would leave at that.

Not rabinoz.

Here he is, spamming this forum, again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202733#msg2202733

Let us remember, he was just told that his reference is invalid.

So I had to respond again to his spam:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202747#msg2202747

I even used A FIFTH reference to back up my message.


This was four days ago.

Just today, rabinoz  USES THE VERY SAME REFERENCE in a debate:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202747#msg2202747


If you are unable to reconcile yourself to scientific proofs, then there is nothing that the FES can do for you here.

You REPEATED the same reference four times: how is this not spamming? When you received a proper rebuttal the very first time.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sokarul on September 14, 2019, 05:00:44 AM

No.




The two are nothing alike.
You ran away from this. Do you see how gravity is nothing like a force?

Des this mean you will stop spamming gravity is ether pressure now?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 05:18:08 AM
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.
This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.
The FACT that Einstein's linearized equations do not have a DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION is scientifically proven.
Here we go again.

I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

General Relativity has been well proven in the hundred years or so since it was first presented.

And as long as you believe this sort of thing I've nothing to fear from your (lack of) logic!
a couple of photos are enough to prove that the sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the earth

You claimed that "a couple of photos are enough to prove that the sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the earth".

Well, "put your money where you must is" and prove it here for everybody to see!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: sandokhan on September 14, 2019, 07:16:56 AM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 14, 2019, 07:36:50 AM
15km up is not that far.
Should be easily provable since the RE space starts at 80km and according to you, sando, and chikypajamas, rockets need atmosphere to work.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rvlvr on September 14, 2019, 07:40:12 AM
Sandokhan, what are the implications of the stuff you push? How does it prove flat Earth (if that is the model you are going for)?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 02:13:28 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.
Do you really expect people to read all of this sort of the thing, especially when you have posted almost exactly the same things (and they've been answered) numerous times before?
This one was to JackBlack, but you just brushed of his derivation.
Let's put your word to the test.

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

Now, what the frell is this?

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.

We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:

l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)

and

-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)

Catastrophically wrong!!!

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.

What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).

He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.


Where are your loops???

You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.

Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A


Completely wrong!

The paths are very clear:

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time

You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.

You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something.

No negative times at all.

Just two loops, continuous paths, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

(http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale_webapp/image002.png)

Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2


BY CONTRAST, here is what you did:

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

You used the SAME sign for opposite directions.

Moreover, you compared two open segments, and not the two loops of the Sagnac interferometer.

l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Again, there are 4 legs, not 2. This means you should actually have 4 components.
If you assume arm 2 and 4 to be insignificant (which is technically wrong for a rectangle, as they need to be radial to have no effect, but then again you don't even have a constant v for a rectangle either), then you end up with arm 1, where the light is propagating with the motion of the apparatus, a time of (again, just accepting the formula you provided rather than double checking it):
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.

Then for the time in arm 3 you get:
l3/(c + v3)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
You need to add these 2 POSITIVE times to get a reference time for the loop (as well as 2 lots for arm 2 and 4).


You seem to need medical attention jackblack.

Of course the times will be larger and smaller, since you are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.

Positive times? Everyone is laughing at you.

You used the wrong signs.

You compared two open segments, in full defiance of the definition of the Sagnac effect.

I added correctly the terms for the two loops.

Do you understand the definition of the Sagnac effect?

Let me remind you of it:

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

Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

You have the wrong sign!!!

These beams are in opposite direction: one has a positive sign l1/(c - v1), the other has a negative sign -l2/(c + v2).

But again, we don't use your nonsense negative times.

There are NO negative signs.

Just TWO LOOPS: one counterclockwise, one clockwise.

Exactly as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT MY FORMULA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:

(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)

The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2



YOU ARE NOT USING THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT: TWO COUNTERPROPAGATING LOOPS.

You are comparing two sides, WITHOUT ANY LOOPS.

As such, your analysis is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, and not at all the SAGNAC EFFECT.
###########################################################################################
And a great meny of your posts are of a similar length and some people do have other things to do.

Quote from: sandokhan
I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?
"All 24 pages of it" then dismissed it completely

Quote from: sandokhan
The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.
I look at so many of your references and find that they simply do not support your claims and all you do is cherry-pick words and phrases out of them and ignore the major intention of the papers.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 14, 2019, 02:28:10 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 02:46:56 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 14, 2019, 03:04:26 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

"The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers.[1][2] It remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6] A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on September 14, 2019, 03:08:08 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 03:10:17 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

"The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers.[1][2] It remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6] A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Please post something related to the subject matter.

Here is is again. Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 14, 2019, 03:12:14 PM
Since we re 2019 ad  then 3 bc would be roighly 2000yrs.
Keep failing at basic things.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 03:15:24 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.

That's not the issue.

The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 14, 2019, 03:16:19 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

"The earliest documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it was mentioned by ancient Greek philosophers.[1][2] It remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.[3][4][5][6] A practical demonstration of Earth's sphericity was achieved by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation (1519–1522).[7]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Please post something related to the subject matter.

Here is is again. Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

What don't you get about "more than 2000 years ago" = 5th century BC & 3rd century BC?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on September 14, 2019, 03:19:13 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.

That's not the issue.

Is it not? Is the point not to find proof?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Gumwars on September 14, 2019, 04:15:41 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.

That's not the issue.

The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.

As we've previously discussed, Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the Earth in the 3rd century BC.  This experiment has been reproduced in modern times, verifying its methodology and confirming the value obtained some 2300 years ago.  Simply put, the ancient Greeks figured it out long before Rowbotham muddied the waters with his brand of idiocy. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272755423_Modern_replication_of_Eratosthenes'_measurement_of_the_circumference_of_Earth

For those interested.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: kopfverderber on September 14, 2019, 04:19:55 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

Flat earth was debunked by ancient greeks more than 2000 years ago, since then it has been all down hill for FE. For instance Aristotle made this deduction after observing different stars could be seen when travelling further south. Remember the earth has a south celestial pole and a north celestial pole? Well Aristotle was smart enough see the proof of spherical earth in the night sky, all by himself without using youtube, just watching the stars. Really smart people those ancient greeks. Have you ever observed and studied the stars Platt Terra? I mean the real sky, not in youtube.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: markjo on September 14, 2019, 04:21:55 PM
The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.
Perhaps you should learn about the opposition before you try to argue against it.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 05:37:10 PM
The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.
A statement like that just shows how little you know of the history of the ancient flat earth beliefs and their progress into the Globe over the period from 600 BC to about 300 BC.

Those flat earth flat beliefs involved cosmology as well because the study of the movement of the Sun, Moon and star constellations was important them as it was their way of marking the seasons, their calendar.

But these early flat earth models covered a limited region that had little curvature an insufficient east-west extent to cause noticeable "time zones".

In addition most had the celestial bodies (Sun, Moon and stars) either in a celestial sphere all around the earth, roughly as we see it now, or rising from the horizon moving overhead and setting into the horizon in the west.
They explained the the Sun, Moon etc returning to the east by various means such as under the earth, through "Hades", around to the far  North or even outside the "Dome" of the sky.

So the transition from a flat-earth to a Globe, as people travelled greater distances, came fairly naturally without the great modern day flat-earth vs Globe debate.

Those early people already accepted the sun etc rising full size and top first from the eastern horizon full sized and setting into the western horizon bottom first.

For most there was no thought of a near Sun etc circling above the earth.
For a short period some Chinese had a model with an Earthly Plane and a Celestial Plane, similar the the modern flat earth, but that was soon rejected because it could not explain sunrises and sunsets - sound familiar?

But you really should try to read the early history of the Globe with an open mind. Here's one reference, Spherical Earth (https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Spherical_earth.html) but there are plenty more.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 05:47:54 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 14, 2019, 05:54:12 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?

Here's one of many:

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[52] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

From his works entitled, "On the Heavens", approx., 350 BCE. In which, he waxes quite extensively about his observations regarding a spherical earth. (In case you're struggling with how calendars work too, that's about 2369 years ago.)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 06:03:06 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?

Here's one of many:

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[52] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

From his works entitled, "On the Heavens", approx., 350 BCE. In which, he waxes quite extensively about his observations regarding a spherical earth. (In case you're struggling with how calendars work too, that's about 2369 years ago.)

You fail again. Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school" does not debunk a Flat Earth. and saying "Since this could only happen on a curved surface" is really lame. Is this the best you can do on sudh an issue, really? Hahahaha

 Still waiting for the records of a major debunking (event) of the Flat Earth that happend more than 2000 years ago.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 14, 2019, 06:05:59 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?

Here's one of many:

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school".[52] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

From his works entitled, "On the Heavens", approx., 350 BCE. In which, he waxes quite extensively about his observations regarding a spherical earth. (In case you're struggling with how calendars work too, that's about 2369 years ago.)

You fail again. Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school" does not debunk a Flat Earth. and saying "Since this could only happen on a curved surface" is really lame. Is this the best you can do on sudh an issue, really? Hahahaha

 Still waiting for the records of a major debunking (event) of the Flat Earth that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Do you mean a record of a major debunking event like the first Flat versus Globe Earth Olympics?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: markjo on September 14, 2019, 06:14:49 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?
No, it's just off topic.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 06:27:30 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a major event that happened more than 2000 years ago.
There was no "such a major event that happened more than 2000 years ago"! You did read the reference in, The RE Community Has a New Enemy « Reply #161 » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2204102#msg2204102)

Why would there be?
As people travelled further, the Greeks in this case (though the Phonecians as well), they saw that their early belief in the earth's bing flat could not be true.

But no "major event" was needed. Why would it? The progression from the old flat earth ideas to a spherical came naturally as more evidence came it.

There's more in here: Explorable: Ancient Astronomy, Science And The Ancient Greeks (https://explorable.com/greek-astronomy).
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Gumwars on September 14, 2019, 07:00:22 PM
Still waiting for the records of such a a major event that happend more than 2000 years ago.

Or is it just a bunch of crap?

Eratosthenes.  Again.  Good grief. 

Is there something wrong with your ability to comprehend the written word?  I don't mean reading, I mean comprehension.  Your ability to actually comprehend, apply critical thinking to, and understand what a chain of words, written in English, and determine what their combined meaning is. 

Eratosthenes determined the circumference of the Earth.  Understand that circumference is a term used strictly with circles.  This test was performed again in modern times and was verified as being correct in methodology as it was repeatable.  The test proves the circumference, and with more than two locations used as data points, proves the Earth is not flat. 

Do you intend to continue the dance of ignorance?  Are you willing to drop this nonsense and realize that the biggest enemy to FE is very likely you.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Plat Terra on September 14, 2019, 07:09:46 PM
No, there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago, it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere. You guys have to stop the lies!

And again, Eratosthenes did not prove Earth was a sphere. He only made a caculation. And in reality, he's wrong considering refraction. You can't actually get an accurate measurement when refraction exists. This is why you  have to VERIFY CURVATURE, whch no one has done. So even your model sphere is not valid.

(https://i.imgur.com/AGNUNsK.jpg)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Gumwars on September 14, 2019, 07:58:41 PM
No, there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago, it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere. You guys have to stop the lies!

And again, Eratosthenes did not prove Earth was a sphere. He only made a caculation. And in reality, he's wrong considering refraction. You can't actually get an accurate measurement when refraction exists. This is why you  have to VERIFY CURVATURE, whch no one has done. So even your model sphere is not valid.

(https://i.imgur.com/AGNUNsK.jpg)

Eratosthenes determined the circumference of a spherical Earth.  His findings led to the creation of the Cartesian system of longitude/latitude that has been used for CENTURIES.  This cannot be understated, it has been in use for CENTURIES, and has been one of the primary reasons the exploration of Earth has succeeded as it has.  At no point did ANYONE stand up and point out some critical flaw with this system, like say, it being based on the wrong planetary shape.  EVERYTHING you keep spouting is an attempt to refute ESTABLISHED, VERIFIED, and INCONTROVERTIBLE truth about the history of the world, how we travel, and how the systems we have in place work.

Your idiocy is limitless and is only match by the depths of your own ignorance.  The fact that you cannot see how dangerous your own inability to comprehend these truths is cannot be underscored more.  You are either a troll of the first degree or so hopelessly lost in an abyss of paranoid delusion and abject dismissal of all reason and logic that you are doomed to see the world framed this way. 

Are you that needy?  Is your ego so fragile that in order to make yourself feel special, you find it necessary to tear down the splendor and achievements of so many that have come before you?  Is that why you find shelter within the ignorance you've so clearly demonstrated to everyone here?  Neil Armstrong's light was too bright, so diminish his accomplishment, and with him all the men and women that risked everything to see that task done?  The same with all the explorers of the far flung limits?  Same then with Yuri Gagarin?  Diminish what risks he took so your narrow worldview is more appealing?  You are a sad person, stuck in a loop of your own creation, unable to see beyond the self-imposed limits of your own imagination...
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 08:20:29 PM
No, there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago, it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere. You guys have to stop the lies!

There was nothing to debunk 2000 years ago and even 2600 years ago the flat earth models were nothing like the impossible one used by modern flat earthers.

For example this is the last of the ancient Greek Flat Earth "Cosmologies":
Quote
COSMOS - The SAO Encyclopedia of Astronomy (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Anaximander)
ANAXIMANDER
Anaximander of Miletus (c.610-c.545 BC), a pre-Socratic philosopher, was a contemporary of Thales and was one of the first ‘cosmologists’ (i.e. one who attempted to explain the origin and form of the Universe). Anaximander was quite a productive philosopher as he made maps of the known world, offered explanations for the origin of the Sun, Moon and stars, and even performed simple experiments such as marking the solstices and equinoxes on sundials.

The cosmological model he proposed was a ring of fire surrounding the Earth, that was hidden from view except through vents. The stars were the light of this fire that could be seen through the openings. This model could also explain the phases of the Moon: its phase depended on how wide or narrow the vent covering was.
(http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/anaximander.jpg)
Anaximander’s model of the Universe. The Sun, the Moon and each of the stars is actually
a transparent ring – or hoop – made of air. Each ring is filled with fire which we can only see
hen the hole in that particular ring passes over us.
Anaximander described the Earth as rounded and circular with two plane surfaces (not necessarily a flat disk, more like a cylinder or ‘stone pillar’), which was suspended freely in space. It stays where it is because it is equidistant from everything else in the Universe. Above the Earth were (in order) the other planets, the stars, the Moon and finally the Sun. The components of the Universe were supposed to have formed as rings that were shed from a fiery sphere that once surrounded the Earth.

Only one phrase remains from Anaximander’s prose account ‘On Nature’, although copies of this work were probably available in Aristotle’s time (4th century BC).

And more on him: Anaximander Of Miletus: Father Of Cosmology, Pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher Who Discovered Equinox, Solstices And Gnomon (http://www.ancientpages.com/2019/03/07/anaximander-of-miletus-father-of-cosmology-pre-socratic-greek-philosopher-who-discovered-equinox-solstices-and-gnomon/)

But I do wish that you'd just learn to face the simple fact that "there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago" because there was never a need to!

The earlier flat-earth cosmologies simply gave way to the idea that the earth was a Globe as more and more evidence came in.

But all the time you are debating fro ignorance of the Globe and its history so your only tactic left is ridicule and that is always a poor counter to evidence!

And you have to resort to the sort of ridiculous attack, "it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere. You guys have to stop the lies!"

No, Mr Flat Terra, WE are not telling any lies!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: rabinoz on September 14, 2019, 09:27:57 PM
No, there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago, it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere. You guys have to stop the lies!

And again, Eratosthenes did not prove Earth was a sphere. He only made a caculation. And in reality, he's wrong considering refraction. You can't actually get an accurate measurement when refraction exists.
Not true! There is negligible refraction above 15° or so above the horizon and you were told of the and even a link to a table of it.
Remember this?
No, Mr Plat Terra, you are the one that is completely wrong here!

You say that "Author", that's ME, "does not include a key element in the argument; thousands of miles of Linear atmosphere and Light refraction."
But there are NO "thousands of miles of Linear atmosphere"! The effective thickness of the earth's atmosphere is no more than the equivalent of about 9 km (of sea-level density air) so even that 45° slanted path is only through no more than 13 km of sea-level.

And even then there has been much research into the refraction of light coming into the atmosphere from the outside:
See Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, M. E. THOMAS AND R. I. JOSEPH (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ddb0/c717f703eaa47b57bb4e5147286e98003df8.pdf) See Table 1 at Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, Table 1. (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Astronomical-Refraction-Thomas-Joseph/b2264b31cdfa2a5ef12427f1a6f91fce982b9c54/figure/1)
From that you will find that at 45° from the zenith the refraction is only about one minute of arc (1/60 degree).
That very informative table will also show that even right on the horizon the usual refraction is only about 34.5' or arc or a bit over 0.5°.

You say "One who leaves out such important issues is being intellectually dishonest and knows better" but, Mr Plat Terra, refraction is a very trivial issue  here.
So, I have not been intellectually dishonest in drawing up that diagram and is essentially the same as the one that you flat earthers use to justify you son's distance above the earth being about 3200 miles.

I'd be careful throwing these accusations about because they might just come back and bite YOU as this one has!

One who falsely accuses another "being intellectually dishonest" should, at the very least, offer an apology - how about it?

In case you didn't read my earlier post look at this table!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/x2js1wgohosaxbr/Refraction%20deviation%20angles%20for%20an%20observer%20at%20sea%20level%2C%20M.%20E.%20THOMAS%20AND%20R.%20I.%20JOSEPH.png?dl=1)
Refraction deviation angles for an observer at sea level, M. E. THOMAS AND R. I. JOSEPH

Now look at that table and note that at only 15° above the horizon refraction is only 3.6 arc minutes!  So your refraction excuse is pure crap!

So, just face the facts, the Eratosthenes experiment and the numerous similar ones done since do provide evidence of curvature.

Quote from: Plat Terra
This is why you  have to VERIFY CURVATURE, whch no one has done. So even your model sphere is not valid.

It has been verified thousands of times! But you simply refuse to face plain simple facts!

Even the Eratosthenes type experiment kills you claims stone dead.

The 800 km and 7.2° angle of the original could be claimed to show the sun's height above a flat earth to be 800/tan(7.2°) = 6333 km.
If the same experiment is performed at an equinox between the equator and a point 45° N at solar noon the distance (flat-earth or Globe) is 5000 km.
So this would make the sun 5000/tan(45°) = 5000 km and at a point 75° N at solar noon the distance (flat-earth or Globe) is 8333 km and the sun would be 2233 km above the flat earth.

From these results, just how high is sun above your flat earth?

The Eratosthenes type measurement gives quite inconsistent heights for your flat erth sun but fits the Globe almost perfectly - almost because of the trace of refraction.

So, as well as all the other evidence the Eratosthenes type measurement also provides evidence of CURVATURE - just face facts!
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: JackBlack on September 16, 2019, 02:11:55 PM
You fail again. Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school" does not debunk a Flat Earth.
Make up your mind. What are you looking for?
Are you looking for historical records of the event(s)?
If so, they have been provided.
If not, then are you looking for the actual science which shows it, in which case stop appealing to history.

No, there was no debunking more than 2000 years ago, it's all more programed lies, lies and more lies. That would mean that 2000 years ago the masses believed Earth to be a sphere.
Complete non-sequitur. Just because it was proven doesn't mean the masses accepted it.
For a lot of the time the masses had more important things to worry about, like not dying of starvation or disease.
It seems you just cling to programmed rejection of reality.

And again, Eratosthenes did not prove Earth was a sphere.
While that was not his intent, he did.
Under the fact that the sun is very far away (not an assumption, a fact, based upon prior observation), the solution to the problem is a spherical Earth.

he's wrong considering refraction.
Refraction will not save you.
It curves light in the wrong direction for your pizza planet.

You can't actually get an accurate measurement when refraction exists.
Do you mean accurate or precise? The 2 are quite different.
Either way, you can, you are just limited by refraction.
It would make it hard to use the equator and the north pole on the equinox to determine the radius of Earth, due to the significant refraction of objects near the horizon. But it wont have a significant impact for measurements regarding objects much higher in the sky.

This is why you  have to VERIFY CURVATURE
Which has been done repeatedly, by countless people.
You choosing to ignore that doesn't magically take that away and make it so no one has verified the curvature of Earth. Your wilful ignorance doesn't magically refute a RE.
All it means is you are choosing to ignore reality.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 16, 2019, 02:30:34 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.

That's not the issue.

The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.

another very odd fixation...

show me proof how bread was invented and that it wasn't given to us by aliens.
who in their right mind, being a primitive robe wearing, no shoe, peasant would spend the effort to pick a whole wack lot of seeds, crush them, add water, bake in fire to eat.
what an impractical idea at a basic level.
show me the recipe.
you would think that the whole known world would have a recipe documented somewhere of this first ground breaking idea to launch humanity from hunter to farmer.
if you can't show me the recipe, then i contend that bread doesn't exist and we've been fed a lie all these years.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Macarios on September 16, 2019, 10:56:16 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

Date?

Event?

It didn't happened overnight.

People were observing, measuring, deriving, calculating and they concluded that the previous Flat model is useless and baseless.
The data accumulated over centuries.

Even the word "geometry" came from... (you discover it on your own - google for: origin of the word geometry). :)
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Stash on September 16, 2019, 11:22:21 PM
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.

Prove flat Earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago. What were the arguments and who was invovled and what was the date and who recorded the event? The words of the opposition don’t carry any weight.

You really don't need someone else to prove it. You can prove it to yourself because a wonderful day is approaching. All you need to do is travel to Ushuaia, Argentina for December 21st(give or take a few days) and watch the Sun rise in the SOUTHEAST and set in the SOUTHWEST some 19 hours later. Enjoy the local cuisine and beautiful landscape in the mean time.

That's not the issue.

The opposition shouldn's make such a bold statement without (proof) records of a major event more than 2000 years ago. Their words don’t carry any weight.

another very odd fixation...

show me proof how bread was invented and that it wasn't given to us by aliens.
who in their right mind, being a primitive robe wearing, no shoe, peasant would spend the effort to pick a whole wack lot of seeds, crush them, add water, bake in fire to eat.
what an impractical idea at a basic level.
show me the recipe.
you would think that the whole known world would have a recipe documented somewhere of this first ground breaking idea to launch humanity from hunter to farmer.
if you can't show me the recipe, then i contend that bread doesn't exist and we've been fed a lie all these years.

I think Plat has evaporated into the aether of the infinite planar earth.
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 17, 2019, 12:29:59 AM
Come on plata.
Does bread exist or is it a conspiracy by the stone mason?
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Crutchwater on September 17, 2019, 03:44:47 AM
Come on plata.
Does bread exist or is it a conspiracy by the stone mason?

I believe it were the Stone-Ground Mason's...
Title: Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
Post by: Themightykabool on September 17, 2019, 07:46:06 AM
Thats how they got so rich - forcing all the peasants to by giant stone wheels.