The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 14, 2019, 04:44:04 PM

Title: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 14, 2019, 04:44:04 PM
Okay, so in 1946, the distance to the Moon was first measured using radar. It wasn't 3,000 miles. Since then, we have measured the distance to many objects in the solar system with radar including Venus, Mars and Mercury. These weren't done once, but dozens maybe hundreds of times. None of them were 3,000 miles away. Do you know what was oddly not detected with radar ranging? A dome.

It's also not that difficult to reproduce. Sure, it will take a little bit of money to construct a radar system capable of ranging the Moon. But not as much as you might think. Easily affordable by one of the more successful Flat Earth Youtube personas.

So... how about it? Show us the dome!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 19, 2019, 10:58:42 AM
*crickets chirp*
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 19, 2019, 02:40:47 PM
*crickets chirp*
In the past there have been excuses like:
Distance assumes radio propagation through vacuum. If lumiferous aether or firmament glue or whatever has a different propagation speed, the delay will be longer and this assumed distance larger.
And have a look at: Second try at moonbounce post « Reply #4 on: November 02, 2018, 06:40:15 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78258.msg2112570#msg2112570)
This is not directly relavent but "interesting": Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on April 04, 2018, 12:01:13 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464;topicseen#msg2044464)

I think that FEers realise that all their excuses are poppy-cock so choose to ignore topics like this.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 19, 2019, 11:58:12 PM
Quote
Sure, it will take a little bit of money to construct a radar system capable of ranging the Moon

Astronomers at the McDonald Observatory in Texas have been laser ranging the Moon for over 40 years.  I know that because when I went to the Texas Star Party which is held just a few miles away at the Prude Guest Ranch they organise tours of the observatory. During my particular visit the Moon was in the sky and they were able to demonstrate how its done and show us the result.  Takes just over 2.5 seconds for the laser to travel to the Moon and back again.

Distance is speed x time so 300,000km/s x 2.56 seconds.  You do the maths...

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 20, 2019, 01:41:52 AM
"The reason why we're winning against science is that science just throws math at us."
-Mark Sargent
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 03:08:00 AM
One of the top threads of all time:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.0;nowap

Physicists are beginning to realize now, after more than 100 years have passed since the statement made in 1905 by Einstein, that the so-called postulate of the constancy of light is just that, a simple opinion with no scientific proof behind it.

Einstein, 1905:

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

However, those are the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ equations and not the original J.C. MAXWELL equations.

This means that a different set of equations will make this statement null and void.

The original Maxwell equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS: that is, they are superluminal.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884 (dynamical Maxwell equations)

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether”

“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"

Nikola Tesla
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 20, 2019, 03:49:55 AM
Quote
“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"

Except that radio waves don't need a medium to travel through while sound waves (which travel much, much slower) don't. 
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 04:32:53 AM
Tesla sound waves in ether:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2193463#msg2193463

Please explain to your readers, to the best of your knowledge, what an electromagnetic/radio wave is.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 20, 2019, 04:34:02 AM
One of the top threads of all time:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.0;nowap

Physicists are beginning to realize now, after more than 100 years have passed since the statement made in 1905 by Einstein, that the so-called postulate of the constancy of light is just that, a simple opinion with no scientific proof behind it.

Einstein, 1905:

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

However, those are the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ equations and not the original J.C. MAXWELL equations.

This means that a different set of equations will make this statement null and void.

The original Maxwell equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS: that is, they are superluminal.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884 (dynamical Maxwell equations)

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether”
Why would Tesla say that when we know that EM propagation is by a Transverse Electromagnetic mode wave (TEM wave) where the E and B vectors are normal to each other and to the direction of travel as in:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/EM-Wave.gif)

Quote from: sandokhan
“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"

Nikola Tesla
What has any of that to do with the topic, which happens to be "Radar ranging in the Solar System".

Radar signals were first returned from the moon in 1946:
Quote
SP-4218 To See the Unseen (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch1.htm)
- Chapter One -
A Meteoric Start

 
[1] During the 1940s, investigators in the United States and Hungary bounced radar waves off the Moon for the first time, while others made the first systematic radar studies of meteors. These experiments constituted the initial exploration of the solar system with radar. In order to understand the beginnings of radar astronomy, we first must examine the origins of radar in radio, the decisive role of ionospheric research, and the rapid development of radar technology triggered by World War II.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Project Diana
[9] The Signal Corps tried several times, but without success. "The equipment was very haywire," recalled DeWitt. Finally, at moonrise, 11:48 A.M., on 10 January 1946, they aimed the antenna at the horizon and began transmitting. Ironically, DeWitt was not present: "I was over in Belmar having lunch and picking up some items like cigarettes at the drug store (stopped smoking 1952 thank God)." The first signals were detected at 11:58 A.M., and the experiment was concluded at 12:09 P.M., when the Moon moved out of the radar's range. The radio waves had taken about 2.5 seconds to travel from New Jersey to the Moon and back, a distance of over 800,000 km. The experiment was repeated daily over the next three days and on eight more days later that month.

Then in 1961 radar returns were first detected from Venus:
Quote
To See the Unseen, - Chapter Two - Fickle Venus
On 10 March 1961, a month before inferior conjunction, the Goldstone radars were pointed at Venus. The first signals completed the round-trip of 113 million kilometers in about six and a half minutes. During the 68 seconds of electronic signal integration time, 1 of 7 recording styluses on Goldstein's instrument deviated significantly from its zero level and remained at the new level.
From: SP-4218 To See the Unseen, Chapter Two - Fickle Venus (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch2.htm), full document: SP-4218 To See the Unseen. (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/sp4218.htm)

Now we know that even on the Flat Earth model, Venus at its closest approach to must be considerably closer to Earth than the sun. After all, we regularly get transits of Venus across the sun.

But a radar signal from Earth to Venus and back, even when not at conjunction took about six and a half minutes.
More on that from:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xku6wyqfjmwvxny/The%20Astronomical%20Unit%20Determined%20by%20Radar%20Reflections%20from%20Venus.png?dl=1)
Title: The Astronomical Unit Determined by Radar Reflections from Venus,
Authors: Muhleman, D. O., Holdridge, D. B., & Block, N.
(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1962AJ.....67..191M)

Radar ranging of distances to the nearer planets is now standard practice:
Solar System Studies at Arecibo Observatory: Introduction to Planetary Radar (https://www.naic.edu/~pradar/radarpage.html). Though at the Arecibo Observatory the interest is more in the details of the surface features.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 20, 2019, 04:44:08 AM
Tesla sound waves in ether:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2193463#msg2193463

Please explain to your readers, to the best of your knowledge, what an electromagnetic/radio wave is.
Please derive the mechanical properties needed to support longitudinal waves travelling at a velocity of close to 300,000 km/sec with the known characteristic impedance of free space,(https://www.dropbox.com/s/se6574mvb60pb8h/Zo%20Characteristic%20Impedance%20of%20Space.jpg?dl=1).
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 04:47:19 AM

Why would Tesla say that when we know that EM propagation is by a Transverse Electromagnetic mode wave (TEM wave) where the E and B vectors are normal to each other and to the direction of travel as in:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/EM-Wave.gif)

You haven't done your homework on this subject.

One of the rather "bad examples" of ubiquitous errors in electrodynamics is the conventional illustration of a so-called planar EM wavefront moving through space."

(http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/09-4/1em-radiation.png)

Dr. Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics, also chastised the diagram shown above, purporting to illustrate the transverse plane wave traveling through 3-space. In endnote 24 of his noteworthy editorial, Dr. Romer takes that diagram to task as follows:

"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."

Yet, you present this dreadful, horrible, misleading diagram that contaminates the pages of almost every book as true fact to your readers.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 04:59:28 AM
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/se6574mvb60pb8h/Zo%20Characteristic%20Impedance%20of%20Space.jpg?dl=1)

What is this?

That's the permeability/permittivity equation for transverse waves.

You need the equation for superluminal longitudinal waves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2058884#msg2058884

As for the mechanical properties, they have already been worked out by J.C. Maxwell (the sea of molecular vortices):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 08:07:48 AM
Hold on, back up.

Regardless of the true nature of light or the possibility of superluminal ether subboson anu psychic dextralavatory double torsion tornadoes, if we consistently measure light in a vacuum to be a roughly fixed speed, then it can still be used as a measuring rod, within that degree of measurable error.  It doesn't matter if Einstein was pulling our legs or not.  If it takes a round trip of about two and a half seconds for light to travel from earth to the moon and back to earth, then that indeed is a measurement that is completely inconsistent with Near Moon Theory.

You'd have to add wild, speculative, and most importantly unverified and unmeasured (not to mention inconsistent) physics to begin explain local differences in radar pulse propagation.  Or, I suppose, you can just throw away the radar results as yet another aspect of that worldwide multi-generational conspiracy that spends trillions on maintaining the prank of the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 20, 2019, 08:11:59 AM
Hold on, back up.

Regardless of the true nature of light or the possibility of superluminal ether subboson anu psychic dextralavatory double torsion tornadoes, if we consistently measure light in a vacuum to be a roughly fixed speed, then it can still be used as a measuring rod, within that degree of measurable error.  It doesn't matter if Einstein was pulling our legs or not.  If it takes a round trip of about two and a half seconds for light to travel from earth to the moon and back to earth, then that indeed is a measurement that is completely inconsistent with Near Moon Theory.

You'd have to add wild, speculative, and most importantly unverified and unmeasured (not to mention inconsistent) physics to begin explain local differences in radar pulse propagation.  Or, I suppose, you can just throw away the radar results as yet another aspect of that worldwide multi-generational conspiracy that spends trillions on maintaining the prank of the shape of the earth.

And even if we can't count on C=300,000 km/s, then whatever the speed of light actually is, it is still incredibly fast, it would still be constant and it would mean that Venus is still much, much further from the Earth than the Moon is.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 08:43:32 AM
if we consistently measure light in a vacuum to be a roughly fixed speed, then it can still be used as a measuring rod, within that degree of measurable error

The speed of light is variable. A fact accepted by most relativists: anisotropy in the physical, local speed of light.

If it takes a round trip of about two and a half seconds for light to travel from earth to the moon and back to earth, then that indeed is a measurement that is completely inconsistent with Near Moon Theory.

Not at the speed of light. The density of ether increases greatly near the Dome, thus the speed of light will diminish by a corresponding amount once it encounters those layers of aether/ether.

Remember the Ruderfer experiment: the local-ether model which must be adopted in order for the relativists to save face.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

This is true wireless.

Tesla used exclusively non-Hertzian waves, and none of the Hertzian waves.

The speed of a radio wave is completely and absolutely linked to the density of aether in the atmosphere.


All space is permeated by a fluid Aether, containing an immense number of excessively small whirlpools. The elasticity which the Aether appears to possess, and in virtue of which it is able to transmit vibrations, is really due to the presence of these whirlpools; for, owing to centrifugal force, each whirlpool is continually striving to dilate, and so presses against the neighbouring whirlpools.

E.T. Whittaker

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 20, 2019, 09:18:47 AM
Quote
The speed of light is variable. A fact accepted by most relativists: anisotropy in the physical, local speed of light.

Really... care to name one then so I can look them up please.  If the speed of light was variable as you suggest, then that would have some major implications to the Universe as we experience it. 

https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

The second link here talks about a variable speed of light (VSL) but describes it as a hypothesis rather than a fact as you do.  Or do you know something that no one else does?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 09:19:15 AM
The speed of light is variable. A fact accepted by most relativists: anisotropy in the physical, local speed of light.
False.  c is a constant.  Lorentz transformations of spacetime preserve c.  Zero relativists would claim otherwise, because lorentz transformations are at the heart of relativity.

The density of ether increases greatly near the Dome, thus the speed of light will diminish by a corresponding amount once it encounters those layers of aether/ether.
Nothing has ever taken ether density measurements near or at the Dome.  No one and nothing has never been near or at the Dome.  Your claim is wild speculation, unverified and unmeasured.

it would mean that Venus is still much, much further from the Earth than the Moon is.
This is an excellent point.  Sandokhan, how do the different "luminaries" warp ether density differently such that their affects on the speed of light makes them appear as though they are millions of miles away and consistent with the heliocentric model?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Macarios on November 20, 2019, 09:52:41 AM
That "horrible" diagram represents
one plane in the reference frame of the other plane,
not the two planes in the reference frame of the space.
And within each plane are just intensities.

Radio wave can't stop propagating without barrier simply because of Lenz Law.
You should be able to understand that.

Increase/decrease of the field in one point is opposed by the increase/decrease of the opposite field in the next point and vice versa.
There are two points around the current point: previous point and next point.
The difference between the two is the fact that one had field before the current point and the other didn't.
The energy simply gets gradually transfered from point to point, previous point loses energy and next one gains.
Transmitter keeps radiating which pumps the previous point with the next amount of energy that then transfers farther by the same principle.

Energy can't disappear and you don't need the obsolete idea of ether for that.
Fields exist without it and physics will eventually discover what they really are.

Simple enough?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 10:25:35 AM
Lorentz transformations of spacetime preserve c.

Superluminal Lorentz transformations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194778#msg2194778

Zero relativists would claim otherwise

“ .. the principle of the constancy of c cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame ..”.

“Now consider a process in which observers in the rotating frame attempt to use Einstein synchronization (constancy of the speed of light) ..... Simple minded use of Einstein
synchronization in the rotating frame ... thus leads to a significant error”.

N. Ashby

Dr. R.D. Klauber, as mainstream a relativist as they come, has written extensively on the anisotropy of light in the context of non-time orthogonal relativity.

Nothing has ever taken ether density measurements near or at the Dome.

But they have: the RUDERFER experiment.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721 (the existence of the local-ether model)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 10:42:45 AM
“ .. the principle of the constancy of c cannot be applied in a rotating reference frame ..”.
You are confusing different inertial frames of reference, perhaps on intentionally, to try to slide out of the fact that c is still constant.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703123.pdf
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rotatingCoordinates.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_light_in_non-inertial_reference_frames

Your assertions would be less embarrassing if you just googled them first.

Nothing has ever taken ether density measurements near or at the Dome.

But they have: the RUDERFER experiment.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721 (the existence of the local-ether model)
Ctrl+F, "dome" ... nope.  Still nothing has ever taken ether density measurements near or at the Dome.


So, any comment on why radar suggests Venus is significantly farther away from Earth than the Moon?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 20, 2019, 10:52:43 AM
if we consistently measure light in a vacuum to be a roughly fixed speed, then it can still be used as a measuring rod, within that degree of measurable error

The speed of light is variable. A fact accepted by most relativists: anisotropy in the physical, local speed of light.

If it takes a round trip of about two and a half seconds for light to travel from earth to the moon and back to earth, then that indeed is a measurement that is completely inconsistent with Near Moon Theory.

Not at the speed of light. The density of ether increases greatly near the Dome, thus the speed of light will diminish by a corresponding amount once it encounters those layers of aether/ether.

Why?
By how much?
If this slow-down is only near the 'dome', then wouldn't the effect be consistent and therefore able to be accounted for in measuring the distance to objects far from the dome? For example, if a round-trip for a radar signal to and from the Moon is 2.5 seconds, then if a radar signal takes 6 1/2 minutes to reach Venus and back, the slow-down due to 'aether' near the 'dome' could at best result in less than 2.5 seconds of that 6 1/2 minutes. Thus Venus is still many, many times further away than the Moon is.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 11:15:52 AM
Here is the DUFOUR-PRUNIER experiment, carried out with BOTH rotating and stationary paths:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

The varying speed for the GPS signals was proved by Professor Ruyong Wang:

(https://image.ibb.co/gFef8n/wa1.jpg)

As for the existence of the dome, you must understand the implications of the RUDERFER experiment which proved the local-ether model.

How is this local-ether model distributed?

(https://image.ibb.co/mio417/ether1.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mcsa8n/ether1b.jpg)

Remember, the existence of this local-ether model was proved by the RUDERFER experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 20, 2019, 11:52:50 AM
Physicists are beginning to realize now, after more than 100 years have passed since the statement made in 1905 by Einstein, that the so-called postulate of the constancy of light is just that, a simple opinion with no scientific proof behind it.
Sure, except the mountains of evidence supporting it.
And it is just constant, in an inertial frame, in a vacuum.

“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"
Care to finish the quote?
He was talking about one specific property, not in general.
It is quite obvious that radio waves are not like sound waves in air for many properties.
Sound waves are longitudinal waves.
This has no capability of being polarised.

Due to the fact that light waves can be polarised, that demands that light consists of transverse waves.
This then requires that any medium for its propagation must be cohesive, and be solid or liquid.

You need the equation for superluminal longitudinal waves:
When discussing the propagation of light, why would we need the equation for something travelling faster than light?

The density of ether increases greatly near the Dome
Do you mean the aether that was shown to be impossible due to the numerous contradictions?

Do you have any evidence for your wild speculation?

Posting a bunch of sources that show you are wrong doesn't help your case.
Just where do any of them claim there is a dome or that the speed of light shrinks so much that the moon can be as close as required in your model?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 11:53:11 AM
Cool, I'm sure what you've described is 100% accurate.  Like you, I will ignore the complication that you're completely mixing up the rotation of a frame of reference with the rotation of a hypothetical medium of light.

So how fast would something have to spin to see a difference in minutes for a round-trip radar bounce?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 12:25:27 PM
So how fast would something have to spin to see a difference in minutes for a round-trip radar bounce?

The spin can be the same, however the density of ether is all that matters.

Due to the fact that light waves can be polarised, that demands that light consists of transverse waves.

You still don't get it.

Longitudinal strings of bosons travel/propagate through transverse subquark waves.

This is what Tesla was talking about: non-Hertzian waves.

The transverse waves are just ripples in the sea of ether.

Tesla avoided these ripples by sending the signals directly through the longitudinal strings of bosons: true wireless.

Sure, except the mountains of evidence supporting it.

Completely wrong: the original set of Maxwell's equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, thus superluminal speeds can be easily attained.

Einstein based his statement on the Heaviside-Lorentz equations.

Do you mean the aether that was shown to be impossible due to the numerous contradictions?

Have you forgotten the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?

That is why relativists are FORCED to accept the local-ether model, which is a fact of science.


Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 12:42:43 PM
Okay, so if we're not talking about rotation, why did you bring it up?  Whatever, don't answer that.  Answer this instead:

What is causing the ether density fluctuation such that no radar reflects off the Dome, radar reflects off the Moon on the order of seconds, and radar reflects off Venus on the order of minutes?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Ozymandias74 on November 20, 2019, 12:51:32 PM
Okay, so in 1946, the distance to the Moon was first measured using radar. It wasn't 3,000 miles. Since then, we have measured the distance to many objects in the solar system with radar including Venus, Mars and Mercury. These weren't done once, but dozens maybe hundreds of times. None of them were 3,000 miles away. Do you know what was oddly not detected with radar ranging? A dome.

It's also not that difficult to reproduce. Sure, it will take a little bit of money to construct a radar system capable of ranging the Moon. But not as much as you might think. Easily affordable by one of the more successful Flat Earth Youtube personas.

So... how about it? Show us the dome!


Mirrors were left on the moon, its possible to bounce lasers off the moon and measure the distance to the moon very precisely using these mirrors.   Probably not with at home equipment, you would probably have to rent time at an observatory, but it can be done.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 20, 2019, 12:55:54 PM
This is what Tesla was talking about: non-Hertzian waves.
No, what Tesla was talking about was the penetrating ability of different waves, where he claimed that similar to sound waves, radio waves with shorter wavelengths should be more penetrating.

Again, the fact that the waves can be polarised requires them to be transverse waves.

Completely wrong: the original set of Maxwell's equations
An equation proves nothing.
All the available evidence shows the speed of light is invariant in inertial reference frames.

Have you forgotten the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?
There is none.
If you want to spam your ignorance of the Saganac effect, go back to a thread on it.

That is why relativists are FORCED to accept the local-ether model, which is a fact of science.
No, it isn't.
It is your delusional fantasy.

Again, what evidence do you have for your magic aether dome?
Especially considering that aether has been refuted due to the contradictions it requires.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 01:19:46 PM
What is causing the ether density fluctuation such that no radar reflects off the Dome, radar reflects off the Moon on the order of seconds, and radar reflects off Venus on the order of minutes?

The density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.

Mirrors were left on the moon, its possible to bounce lasers off the moon and measure the distance to the moon very precisely using these mirrors.

No.

The "mirror" is a very small satellite which orbits in front of the Moon, on our side of the Dome, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.

An equation proves nothing.

It proves everything since the original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under Galilean transformations.

(https://image.ibb.co/koWr3y/md1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cSTM3y/md2.jpg)

We proceed to solve the common Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12).

(https://image.ibb.co/k98M3y/md3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/n87EOy/md4.jpg)

This is the classic solution of Maxwell’s equation for a planar electromagnetic wave. As expected, the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic waves is the nominal speed of light c since there is no motion relative to the RCS (due to the restriction in the derivation of the common form of Maxwell’s equations).

What happens when a radiation source moves with respect to the RCS? It follows from the assumption of the universal validity of Maxwell’s equations (1.20) and (1.21) (namely: that they are valid in any inertial coordinate system) that the speed of propagation of any electromagnetic wave in all inertial coordinate systems is constant

and equals to the nominal speed of light c [solution (1.23) to equation (1.21)]. Thus, the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves being constant in all inertial coordinate systems is not necessarily a measured observation. It is an assumption, a consequence of the assumed universal validity of the common Maxwell’s equations even for dynamic systems.

Suppose that a radiation source moves at a speed u in the positive direction of the x axis of the RCS. As engineers (hopefully with some common sense), and in agreement with the Galilean transformation where velocity vectors are additive, we would expect the electric field vector, of the propagating planar electromagnetic wave parallel to the x axis, to have the following form with respect to the RCS:

(https://image.ibb.co/hFwcAd/md5.jpg)

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
There is none.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/

(https://image.ibb.co/g4fu5d/sa1.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/mAOgkd/sa2.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/cEyxQd/sa3.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/htkoWJ/sa4.jpg)


Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.

You have to deal with the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which you are not.


LISA Space Antenna

(https://image.ibb.co/ivHjjS/lisa2.jpg)

The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary. Or you have to accept the local-ether model.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 20, 2019, 01:31:56 PM
What is causing the ether density fluctuation such that no radar reflects off the Dome, radar reflects off the Moon on the order of seconds, and radar reflects off Venus on the order of minutes?

The density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.
Very convenient that the density of ether around Venus changes perfectly to accommodate the heliocentric model.  And doubly convenient that the density of ether around Mercury changes perfectly to accommodate the heliocentric model.  And Mars.  And Jupiter.  And Jupiter's moons.  And Saturn and Saturn's moons.  Oh, and comets and asteroids.

The changes in ether density to alter the speed of light matches exactly in conjunction to heliocentric orbital mechanics.  Even though the heliocentric model is based primarily on orbital observations, not direct radar ranging.  Wow!

And what's event more spectacular is that the ether density from one luminary doesn't interfere with the ether density from another.  It's almost as if ether density has nothing at all to do with radar ranging.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 20, 2019, 01:36:44 PM
Here is the SCHROETER EFFECT, the fact that the Morning Star and the Evening Star are two different planets:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 20, 2019, 02:11:34 PM
If I took a drink every time Sandokhan said 'sagnac' or 'allais', I'd be dead.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 20, 2019, 02:39:38 PM
Quote
Here is the SCHROETER EFFECT, the fact that the Morning Star and the Evening Star are two different planets:
Does Schroeters effect explicitly say anything about the morning and evening star being two different planets?  From what I have read it simply describes a very slight phase anomaly where the phase of Venus shows as being slight off exactly half when it should appear like that.  And one possible reason for such an anomaly is the atmosphere of Venus.  Just as the ashen light is.

Schroeter effect doesn't say anything about different planets. So I don't know where you have got that from as "fact".

Quote
If I took a drink every time Sandokhan said 'sagnac' or 'allais', I'd be dead.

If I had a Ł or a $ for everytime the words Sagnac or Orbital or You must explain to your readers or You have not done your homework are said, I would be a multi-millionaire by now.

Quote
The "mirror" is a very small satellite which orbits in front of the Moon, on our side of the Dome, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Even Hollywood would struggle to think that one up.  Fascinating idea.  Totally ridiculous but fascinating. 
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 20, 2019, 02:52:45 PM
There is none.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System". How is any of that material on the Sagnac effect even slightly relevant to "Radar ranging in the Solar System"?

Now just what is your distance from Earth to the Moon and to Venus because a radar echo from the moon returns on about 2.5 seconds and from Venus around 6.5 minutes.

How is that possible?

You post this:
What is causing the ether density fluctuation such that no radar reflects off the Dome, radar reflects off the Moon on the order of seconds, and radar reflects off Venus on the order of minutes?

The density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.
Evidence please!

Quote from: sandokhan
Mirrors were left on the moon, its possible to bounce lasers off the moon and measure the distance to the moon very precisely using these mirrors.

No.
Even there were no mirrors left on the moon radar and laser echos have been received from the moon before those retro-reflectors!
Obviously you haven't done your homework!

Quote from: sandokhan
The "mirror" is a very small satellite which orbits in front of the Moon, on our side of the Dome, using the Biefeld-Brown effect.
No!
Evidence please!
Especially as the distance to the moon measured by the earlier radar and lasers agrees with the far more precise measurement obtained after the retro-reflectors were installed on the moon by both the Russians and the Americans!

No evidence and your claims must be dismissed as simply dreamed up excuses!

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 20, 2019, 05:14:28 PM
Dr. Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics, also chastised the diagram shown above, purporting to illustrate the transverse plane wave traveling through 3-space. In endnote 24 of his noteworthy editorial, Dr. Romer takes that diagram to task as follows:

"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."
So? But he says nothing to support you ideas.

Have you ever bothered to exactly what Dr Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics about "that dreadful diagram"? Probably not.
I cannot see where he is criticising current EM theory just "that dreadful diagram" for trying to show so much that it becomes quite misleading.

Here take a look, if you'll forgive a little copy-n-paste:
Quote from: Dr Robert H. Romer
24.  Here’s another of my reform efforts, as far as I know. (https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254)
You all know that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or of time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. Two mutually perpendicular sinusoids, one for E and one for B, both firmly attached to the x axis and apparently in a “perspective” view, are supposed to represent a plane monochromatic linearly polarized wave. Arrows are all over the place, some denoting x, y, and z axes, some E, and some B.

Physicists have trouble enough trying to show three quantities on a two-dimensional piece of paper, let alone nine or more. For examples of this sort of diagram, from two current and widely used texts, see Paul A. Tipler, Physics For Scientists and Engineers (Worth, New York, 1991), 3rd ed., Extended Version, p. 951, or David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Kenneth S. Krane, Physics (Wiley, New York, 1992), 4th ed., Extended Version, Vol. 2, p. 877.
<< Read the rest on the site. >>
Please show where Dr. Robert H. Romer has the slightest objection to current EM propagation theory.
His objection is simply about "that dreadful diagram" and he shows not a trace of support for your ideas.


Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 20, 2019, 06:08:50 PM
What is causing the ether density fluctuation such that no radar reflects off the Dome, radar reflects off the Moon on the order of seconds, and radar reflects off Venus on the order of minutes?

The density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.
So, according to your Advanced Flat Earth Theory what are the distances to the Moon and to Venus.

I ask because the return time for a radar echo to the moon is roughly 2.5 seconds as in:
Quote
SP-4218 To See the Unseen - Chapter One - A Meteoric Start (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch1.htm)
[9] The Signal Corps tried several times, but without success. "The equipment was very haywire," recalled DeWitt. Finally, at moonrise, 11:48 A.M., on 10 January 1946, they aimed the antenna at the horizon and began transmitting. Ironically, DeWitt was not present: "I was over in Belmar having lunch and picking up some items like cigarettes at the drug store (stopped smoking 1952 thank God)." The first signals were detected at 11:58 A.M., and the experiment was concluded at 12:09 P.M., when the Moon moved out of the radar's range. The radio waves had taken about 2.5 seconds to travel from New Jersey to the Moon and back, a distance of over 800,000 km. The experiment was repeated daily over the next three days and on eight more days later that month.

But the return times from Venus of about 5 minutes and 6.5 minutes have been measured:
Quote
SP-4218 To See the Unseen - Chapter Two - Fickle Venus (https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4218/ch2.htm)

Venus or Bust
Kingston's maser was installed at Millstone Hill just in time for the inferior conjunction of Venus. However, a klystron failure left only 265 kilowatts of transmitter power available for the experiment. On 10 and 12 February 1958, the radar was pointed to detect Venus, then some 45 million kilometers (28 million miles) away. The radar signals took about five minutes to travel the round-trip distance. In contrast, John DeWitt's signals went to the Moon and back to Fort Monmouth, NJ, in only about 2.5 seconds.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dick Goldstein wanted to use the Venus radar experiment as his thesis topic at Caltech, but his advisor, Hardy Martel, was highly skeptical. The inability of Lincoln Laboratory to detect Venus was widely known. Although he thought the task indisputably impossible, Martel finally agreed to accept the topic, but with a firm admonition: "No echo, no thesis."

[41] On 10 March 1961, a month before inferior conjunction, the Goldstone radars were pointed at Venus. The first signals completed the round-trip of 113 million kilometers in about six and a half minutes. During the 68 seconds of electronic signal integration time, 1 of 7 recording styluses on Goldstein's instrument deviated significantly from its zero level and remained at the new level.

To verify that the deflection came from Venus and was not leakage from the transmitter or an instability in the receiver, the transmitter antenna was deliberately allowed to drift off target. Six and a half minutes later, the recording stylus on Goldstein's instrument returned to its zero setting. The experiment was immediately repeated with the same result. JPL had achieved the first real-time detection of a radar signal from Venus. And Dick Goldstein had his dissertation topic.

So, from "Millstone Hill just in time for the inferior conjunction of Venus. . . . On 10 and 12 February 1958, the radar was pointed to detect Venus, then some 45 million kilometers (28 million miles) away. The radar signals took about five minutes to travel the round-trip distance."

Then "On 10 March 1961, a month before inferior conjunction, the Goldstone radars were pointed at Venus. The first signals completed the round-trip of 113 million kilometers in about six and a half minutes."

So however could your "density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon" account for not only such a massive difference but quite a variable return time from Venus?

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 12:52:58 AM
It proves everything
No, it proves nothing as it is just an equation.
You can make up an equation for any old nonsense. It wont make it correct.
What you need is evidence, and that is something you don't have.

Your derivation (which you have presumably just stolen from someone) is just as invalid as what you claim of Einstein (but lacks the empirical evidence to back it up).

You make a baseless assumption and try to run with it.

There is none.
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:
That's right. There is none. No where in your source does it claim that there is any actual missing Sagnac effect.

Like I said, take your Sagnac lies where they belong.


Now, like I said, where is the evidence for this magic dome of yours made of a material which can't exist?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 01:13:58 AM
derivation... is ... invalid

You are making a fool of yourself.

The derivation starts exactly from the integral equations published by two of the top textbooks of the 20th century:

Arnold S (1971) Electrodynamics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, USA
Smirnov VI (2014) A course of higher mathematics. Pergamon Press, USA

Maxwell's equations in integral form.

Then, it's a straightforward calculation:

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

as what you claim of Einstein

This is what Einstein claimed:

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

A. Einstein, 1905

Not Maxwell's equations, but the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Maxwell's original set of equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, as has been directly proven in the above derivation.

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply only to a static system.

Maxwell's original set of equations apply to dynamical systems as well.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 01:23:21 AM
There is none. No where in your source does it claim that there is any actual missing Sagnac effect.

Let's put your word to the test.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever
. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.



Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.


THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

LISA Space Antenna

(https://image.ibb.co/ivHjjS/lisa2.jpg)

The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary. Or you have to accept the local-ether model.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 02:09:41 AM
derivation... is ... invalid
Wow, needing to cut down the post that much.
At that point you may as well just make it say anything.

How about you try and actually address what has been said?
Better still, how about you provide evidence of your magic dome of impossibility?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 02:38:36 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Sandys most recent post in this discussion is a virtual carbon copy of several other posts he published under the solar energy source discussion under FE Debate.  It certainly looks essentially identical.

So if Sandy want's to persist in his analysis of Orbital Sagnac effects and LISA Space antennas etc, then perhaps he should post them under their own thread and stop infecting other discussions in which those topics are totally irrelevant.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 03:35:02 AM
derivation... is ... invalid
<< The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System". Irrelevant material deleted >>
So you are making a fool of yourself.

There is none. No where in your source does it claim that there is any actual missing Sagnac effect.
<< The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System". Irrelevant material deleted >>
Are we to assume that you have no answer to the vastly different radar echo return times even though the Moon and Venus are presumably at similar distances from Earth in your "Advanced flat Earth Theory".

At least, according to your theory Venus is certainly closer than the Sun because we see regular see Venus transit the Sun.
And you seem to support that in Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun « Message by sandokhan » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19790.msg367413;topicseen#msg367413)

Now post something relevant to the topic, eg answer Radar ranging in the Solar System « Reply #36 on: Today at 11:08:50 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83972.msg2217734#msg2217734)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 03:49:40 AM
Not me.

It was you who was unceremoniously dumped in AR, and everyone there took a swipe at you.

You are the inspector Clouseau of this forum, a bumbling and amateurish clown who pokes his nose into every thread. But it doesn't take long to painfully remind everyone that your tehnical "expertise" is woefully lacking, you get to be defeated in each and every discussion in which you ever participated, a very sad record.

You, the RE, brought the discussion to this very point: you are demanding to see the proofs of the existence of the Dome, of the local-ether model.

If those proofs are being provided, you then start to complain bitterly about the content of my messages, while your continuous trolling goes on unabated.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 03:56:36 AM
Not me.
So, you have no answer to return echoes from the Moon taking about 21/2 SECONDS an those from Venus taking from 5 to 61/2 MINUTES.

Even though, according to YOU, Venus is closer than 15 km (or is it 10 km?) from Earth.

Thought not!

Can we now claim that your aetheric claims pure guesswork and hence bunkum?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 04:01:35 AM
~15 kilometers?! Like less than two Everests?

What the hell?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 04:02:23 AM
Those issues were answered a long time ago.

Between the Moon and Venus/Mercury, you have the rotating ether field. Furthermore, you have another ether field spinning around Venus, while there is none swirling around the Moon.

None of you here are able to explain the Schroeter effect, which does prove my statements:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

The readings for the Morning and the Evening stars are totally DIFFERENT, and you cannot bring the Venusian atmosphere into the discussion.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 04:05:13 AM
.. I was going to say you couldn't even make this stuff up if you tried...  but evidently someone can!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 04:07:48 AM
.. I was going to say you couldn't even make this stuff up if you tried...  but evidently someone can!
Sheesh.

Let's see. It was about 16 kilometers to the office, and back. Depending on which bike I chose in the morning (and the time of the year), it took me between 40 to 50 minutes in total to cycle that distance. Did not know I can get to Venus in that time!

Live and learn...
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 04:15:55 AM
Visions of a silhouetted cyclist flying past Venus just like on ET come to mind...  sorry but just had to say that!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 04:23:23 AM
Visions of a silhouetted cyclist flying past Venus just like on ET come to mind...  sorry but just had to say that!
I lack the basket, but it is a nice picture!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 04:56:27 AM
Those issues were answered a long time ago.

Between the Moon and Venus/Mercury, you have the rotating ether field. Furthermore, you have another ether field spinning around Venus, while there is none swirling around the Moon.
Are you claiming that your totally unproven "rotating ether field" causes a FIVE MINUTE delay in the light propagation even though Venus is closer than 15 km from earth according to YOU!

Quote from: sandokhan
None of you here are able to explain the Schroeter effect, which does prove my statements:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
No, it does not prove anything of the kind. At the most is show an unexpectedly wider limb of Venus!

Quote from: sandokhan
The readings for the Morning and the Evening stars are totally DIFFERENT, and you cannot bring the Venusian atmosphere into the discussion.
Where does Schroeter mention that "the Morning and the Evening stars are totally DIFFERENT".

I'll call that rubbish until you come up with some evidence far better than "the Schroeter effect".

You mentioned the "Venusian atmosphere", not I but I'll "bring the Venusian atmosphere into the discussion" if I so choose.

Now, please come up with some plausible explanation as to why radar echoes take over 5 minutes to return from Venus when it is closer to Earth than the Sun.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 05:04:37 AM
Listen to Newton:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

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

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

The LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is completely proven by RUDERFER's theorem, which is the modern version of Newton's ideas on the subject.

Venus has a spinning ether field, the Moon does not.

Where does Schroeter mention that "the Morning and the Evening stars are totally DIFFERENT".

You were offered the bibliographical references which tell you that you are wrong and that you haven't done your homework on the subject at all.

Unless you can explain the Schroeter effect, I win.

Official astronomy science:

"In 1793, J. H. Schroeter reported, for the first time, observing the southern limb of the planet Venus remaining concave up to about eight days before or after its conjunction with the Sun, according to his best estimate.

In general, the time difference between the time of theoretical dichotomy and the time of observed dichotomy is about four to six days."

The various theoretical interpretations of this long-standing anomaly, whether they be atmospheric, kinematic or optical, have not been able to explain the basic Schroeter effect: they cannot explain in any way the extended Schroeter effect.


Nonetheless, the phase anomaly of Venus is much wider than the Schroeter's effect, and can produce differences of ± 0.10 for all phases from near 0.1 Phase to 0.9 Phase; and not just at 0.5 Phase alone.


Eastern elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000080.000.html

Western elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000081.000.html


Notable differences observed:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000082.000.html


The superb analysis of the Schroeter effect in the context of geocentrism:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726101423/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Schroter.htm (it includes a different proof of the fact that the Schroeter effect can only take place within the geocentric context, many other quotes concerning the Schroeter effect)

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 05:16:06 AM
I don’t think you win even if someone here cannot explain something to you. Needs a bit wider audience than that.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 05:17:17 AM
Listen to Newton:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity
My understanding is that the idea of terrestrial gravity being different from whatever the planets orbiting the sun was not uncommon at the time.  However, it was in fact Newton (and colleagues) who unified them in his Principia.  As I've said before, it would be a lot less embarrassing for you if you googled your wild claims first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation)

Perhaps you should Listen to Newton and realize the heliocentric model explains and predicts the motions of the planets, including the planet earth, as well as can be measured.

By the way, that still doesn't explain whatsoever how ether density would affect radar ranging with such an extreme effect.  You keep getting lost in your own posts!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 05:23:55 AM
Perhaps you should Listen to Newton and realize the heliocentric model explains and predicts the motions of the planets, including the planet earth, as well as can be measured.

You must be joking.

Here is the derivation of KEPLER'S FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION from NEWTON'S HYPOTHESIZED LAW OF GRAVITATION:

(https://image.ibb.co/hKmYdn/fake1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hOnH4S/fake2.jpg)

But the entire Nova Astronomia was faked/falsified, each and every entry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical."

"The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind."

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 05:24:38 AM
Wait a second.  Sandokhan, does ether density affect light exactly equally at all wavelengths?  And this would be light across the spectrum at least from visible to radio.

In real life, when light is refracted and slowed in a medium, such as water, the different wavelengths are refracted to different amounts.  That's why you see chromatic aberrations in water or glass or other transparent media.

But apparently your ether density theory doesn't account for this.  Otherwise, we'd see obvious color warping around the Moon.  Whoops!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 05:32:39 AM
Here is the derivation of KEPLER'S FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION from NEWTON'S HYPOTHESIZED LAW OF GRAVITATION:

(https://image.ibb.co/hKmYdn/fake1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/hOnH4S/fake2.jpg)

That is pretty funny, man.  Maybe you should read through the course where you stole those images from.
http://radio.astro.gla.ac.uk/a1dynamics/

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 05:36:30 AM
Not funny at all.

Kepler fudged/faked each and everyone of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.

That first law of planetary motion can be derived from Newton's law of gravitation.

One is as fake as the other.

does ether density affect light exactly equally at all wavelengths?

https://books.google.ro/books?id=3sT0flMVEzcC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=ether+affects+light+at+all+wavelengths&source=bl&ots=V2xzYi4DMw&sig=ACfU3U2mWuyYB1jFW3ISbvfgjl4tDg3lhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHlL_2s_vlAhVYQkEAHS_2CSYQ6AEwEHoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=ether%20affects%20light%20at%20all%20wavelengths&f=false
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 06:01:34 AM
I'm not sure what you want me to glean from that pseudoscience book.  That page isn't talking about slowing down light in ether.  It's discussing the author's incorrect understanding of light observed from a source or observer in relative motion.  (Are you implying that the motion of the luminaries is causing the ether density changes which causes radar slowdown in lockstep to the expected ranging results from the heliocentric model?)

By the way, there's a big difference from "affects light at all wavelengths" and "affects light at all wavelengths exactly equally".

So I'll leave it up to you to derive an ORBITAL SAGNAC CORIOLIS ALLAIS RADAR SUBQUARK PARADOX to explain away how slowing down light results in optical dispersion in all cases except near the unobserved Dome.  Can't wait to read about it!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 06:16:03 AM
You have just been shown that Kepler FAKED/FUDGED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.

It doesn't get much worse than that.

Yet here you are ignoring this crucial evidence, at least as it relates to your own beliefs.

Everything you know about heliocentrism is based on KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES.

But to you it's no problem, which speaks volumes about your true intentions.


Refraction through a medium composed of ordinary matter is DIFFERENT than refraction through pure ether.

That is why you do not see chromatic aberrations "around" the Moon.

The local-ether model is a fact of science.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 06:35:18 AM
Look through a low power achromatic (doublet, one element crown glass the other flint glass) telescope or indeed a cheap pair of binoculars at the Moon and you will see definite chromatic aberration (false colour) around the edge.

Look at the Moon through a apochromat telescope (three element objective) and you will see very little chromatic aberration. 

An achromatic telescope simply brings the focal points of red and blue light into a near common focus while an apochromat telescope adds a third element to the objective lens which brings the green light to the same common focus and thus eliminates colour in the image.  You can also get a 'semi-apo' telescope where the front element is made of FPL-53 or ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) flourite glass.

If it wasn't for the brain we would see terrible chromatic aberration around the Moon because optically the human eye is very poor.  The brain corrects all the false colour effects for us, inverts the image for us to make it the right way up.

Chromatic aberration has absolutely nothing to do with the ether at all. Mainly because the ether doesn't exist except it seems in Sandys universe.  But what do I know after studying astronomy and optics for over 40 years?  Take either mine or Sandys word for it which ever suits you.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 06:43:02 AM
Question: does a ray of light split into its component colors?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 06:51:17 AM
If its a monochrome (single wavelength) ray of light then no it doesn't. If its a ray of white light covering the whole of the optical waveband (400-700nm) then it will do if you pass it through a glass prism or similar, or indeed a reflection or transmission diffraction grating.

The human eye is not sensitive enough to distinguish the different wavelengths (we see them as colours) of light under natural conditions.  The extent of refraction (slowing down) of light varies with wavelength (least for red, greatest for violet). This disperses the different wavelengths (colours) more and therefore makes them visible. The reverse happens if you pass a dispersed ray back through another prism of transmission grating and recombines the different wavelengths to form 'white' light again.

Newton performed this experiment and this showed him the colours were a property of light itself rather than simply an optical effect.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 06:54:23 AM
Indeed, a small amount of chromatic aberration should be expected due to refraction from the atmosphere and a larger amount from whatever lenses you're using.  However, to slow down light on the order of seconds, the degree of chromatic aberration would be extreme.


Does a ray of light split into its component colors?  Do you mean when refracting through a prism or something?  You and I both know the answer to that.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 07:01:29 AM
If its a ray of white light covering the whole of the optical waveband (400-700nm) then it will do if you pass it through a glass prism or similar, or indeed a reflection or transmission diffraction grating.

This disperses the different wavelengths (colours) more and therefore makes them visible. The reverse happens if you pass a dispersed ray back through another prism of transmission grating and recombines the different wavelengths to form 'white' light again.

Newton performed this experiment and this showed him the colours were a property of light itself rather than simply an optical effect.


Does a ray of light split into its component colors?  Do you mean when refracting through a prism or something?  You and I both know the answer to that.

Completely wrong.

You see, ether optics is very different than what you have been led to believe by Newton.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015809/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/GoetheColour.html

Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism, it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.


What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism. If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.


(https://web.archive.org/web/20130116025123im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/ColourProjection.jpeg)

The physicists explain it thus - the colourless light already contains the seven colours within itself - and when we make the light go through the prism, the prism really does no more than to fan out and separate what is already there in the light, - the seven colours, into which it is thus analyzed.

A look through the prism shows that we do not see the light in seven colours. The only place you can see any colour is at some edge or border-line.

If we let light pass through the space of the room, we get a white circle on a screen. Put a prism in the way, and the cylinder of light is diverted, (Figure IIc), but what appears is not the series of seven colours at all, only a reddish colour at the lower edge, passing over into
yellow, and at the upper edge a blue passing over into greenish shades. In the middle it stays white.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20150406161136im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/prisma-lightSpectrum-goethe.gif)


This is the subquark:

(http://www.weare1.us/Babbitt%20color.jpg)

There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 07:05:39 AM
You asked. I answered you.  If you don't want to accept what I have told you then that's up to you. I base my answers on my experience and clearly you base your answers on something else.

If what I have said is 'completely wrong' then all the books on physics I have ever read and all the websites describing the properties of light are wrong as well.  And I doubt that somehow.

This seems to back up what I have said.

https://i.stack.imgur.com/e6RMH.jpg

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 09:08:27 AM
Every time you're backed into a corner, you just make up new physics.  This is why you're my favorite flat eather.  You're the only one who truly understands that in order for the earth to be flat, you have to throw out all of established science and history.

There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy.
Would you claim, then, that x-rays and visible light (and radio?) are fundamentally different "kinds" of light?  Not just different frequencies/wavelengths/energies of the same phenomenon?  Alternately, is "gravitational energy" on the same spectrum as visible light?

Also, what do you make of the fact that white light from your computer screen is literally just a combination of red, green, and blue light?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 21, 2019, 09:19:04 AM
Quote
There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energy
One type of boson is a photon which is the carrier (gauge boson) for the electromagnetic force.  All the above are different types of electromagnetic radiation (i.e. forms of energy). For thermal energy we usually say infra red of course.  I believe gravitational waves have now been detected so the above is basically correct.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 09:22:47 AM
You're the only one who truly understands that in order for the earth to be flat, you have to throw out all of established science and history.

What is established history?

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/catalog?f%5Bcollection%5D%5B%5D=zb871zd0767

Glen McLaughlin, California as an Island Collection, 708 items

G. McLaughlin published 249 of these maps in "The Mapping of California As An Island: An Illustrated Checklist ". The entire collection includes over 750 maps.

So, unless there was a colossal stone skipping project (either at the end of the 18th century, or at the beginning of the 19th century) using either ball lightning technology or massive labor for the necessary land mass, historians are going to have to accept the undeniable fact that before 1760 AD California was indeed an island, and that a tremendous geological upheaval pushed the Pacific coast eastward about 200 miles during the same time period.

Why do people accept a personal opinion founded on no experimental evidence whatsoever (Newton's ideas on gravity), or a legally and philosophically weak document (the Constitution) which apparently cannot be changed, and not more than 700 maps which do feature California as an island before 1760 AD?


Subquark ether physics:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110 (two consecutive messages)

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 09:38:19 AM
It's also possible that people make mistakes and mistakes get copied until they are corrected later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_California

By the way, does it bother you that your anu physics is based on someone's ESP account?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 10:04:01 AM
“California is undoubtedly an island. Why, I have had in my office mariners who have sailed round it.”

Herman Moll, 1711 AD

(England's foremost cartographer of his day, geographer to the King)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2169877#msg2169877 (the best analysis of Johannes Vingboons' map, two consecutive messages)


We all have this micro-psi abilities that are exhibited during dreams; some people are able to retain these psychic powers during daytime.

The proofs are 100% accurate, otherwise I would have never mentioned the subject.

Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge):

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.

(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/reasons%20why%20Besant's%20&%20Leadbeater's%20claims%20are%20genuine.gif)

(http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/images/Comparison%20of%20micro-psi%20&%20scientific%20discoveries.gif)

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 10:11:53 AM
So Venus is ~15 kilometers away, and California was an island 300 years ago?

That is just insane.

Best you keep it Sagnac. That you can get away with keeping to esoteric formulae and forgotten tomes. I actually think those are pretty cool. Might use that stuff in some pen-and-paper RPG scenarios. (Should work quite well with Cthulhu by Gaslight, for example.)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 10:28:49 AM
Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.

Or compared to the process of transforming a car into an airplane analogy.

M. Frank-Kamenetskii (Unraveling DNA): "It is clear, therefore, that you need a drastic refitting of the whole of your machine to make the car into a plane. The same is true for a protein. In trying to turn one enzyme into another, point mutations alone would not do the trick. What you need is a substantial change in the amino acid sequence. In this situation, rather than being helpful, selection is a major hindrance. One could think, for instance, that by consistently changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually prove possible to change the entire sequence substantially and thus the enzyme's spatial structure. These minor changes, however, are bound to result eventually in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but it has not yet begun its 'new duties.' It is at this point that it will be destroyed—together with the organism carrying it"

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 10:44:00 AM
Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.
That wouldn't make much sense... unless... there was some sort of force directed towards the center of that sphere... 🤔

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf
I'm glad you linked that.  Dobyns' response absolutely crushes Phillips' pleading. And then Phillips' response back could be summarized as "yeah well that's you're opinion."  ;D
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 10:54:32 AM
You cannot escape reality by claiming terrestrial gravity is attractive.

Please describe the attractive mechanism.

"The combination of insight and error in the Theosophical data can be explained much more parsimoniously by presuming the visions of Occult Chemistry to be hallucinations, informed not only by the practitioners' knowledge of chemistry, but by some information gained through "micro-psi" or other anomalous means as well."

Y.H. Dobyns

Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?  Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."

"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic  nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.

During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!

Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.

Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investiga­tions, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.

The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.

At this point it is worth clearly distinguish­ing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.

The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.

As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.

Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.

The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spec­trograph!

From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Fran­cium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 11:37:03 AM
You cannot escape reality by claiming terrestrial gravity is attractive.
But in reality gravity seems to do what it says on the tin, no?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 11:39:52 AM
You, the RE, brought the discussion to this very point: you are demanding to see the proofs of the existence of the Dome, of the local-ether model.
If those proofs are being provided, you then start to complain bitterly about the content of my messages, while your continuous trolling goes on unabated.
You aren't providing any proofs. You are just appealing to the same refuted nonsense where you blatantly misrepresent what these papers are saying and linking to the same spam.

If you want to provide it as proof, you would need to actually understand what the papers are presenting. They are all using a heliocentric solar system and none are claiming any problem with it. None are claiming there is anything missing in reality based upon this model.

So all it is proof of is that the current system works.


Those issues were answered a long time ago.
You mean they were dismissed by you simply asserting that it is all fine.

Do the math to show how we get this delay.

None of you here are able to explain the Schroeter effect, which does prove my statements:
It does nothing of the sort.

It is just another example of you trying to use whatever you can to pretend you have a case.

Newton believed
I don't care what he believed, but since you do so much, Newton believed that Earth was round and orbited the very distant sun.
So why don't you listen to Newton and accept the reality of a round, rotating Earth, orbiting the sun?
Especially as what you are saying is pure fantasy.

Question: does a ray of light split into its component colors?
That question is full of semantics.
Non-monochromatic light is composed of many many colours, which can be separated by the principles of refraction and diffraction.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism. If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.
Wrong. I know as I have done this many times, and use instruments which rely upon this.
If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.
If instead you take a crappy prism which isn't thick enough then it will not split enough and thus you will end up with a region of red on one side, a region of blue on the other and something mostly white in the middle.

With some modern lights, you don't get the full spectrum, instead you see regions that are illuminated and regions that are missing, as the light doesn't actually produce the full spectrum.

You can also use a diffraction grating, which is much cheaper, but which suffers from higher order diffraction.

And now that you are completely unable to rationally defend your claims you are just runing wildly off into more and more nonsense.
If you want to discuss gravity, do it in another thread.


Now again, where is the evidence for your magic impossible dome?
How does it manage to slow down light so much and so differently that it produces the observed times?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 12:09:54 PM
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015809im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/prisma-lightSpectrum-goethe.gif)

vs.

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/e6RMH.jpg)

You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.

You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.

If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.

Completely wrong.

"Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism,
it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism.
If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of
colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects.

When light shines through a prism, we are simply projecting a picture
whose aperature has edges -- there is darkness outside this circular patch,
and relatively light within it. We notice that it is at the edges between
the light and dark areas where Colours first make their appearance.

When the aperature is sufficiently small so that the edges meet in
the middle to form the green -- only then can you see a continous spectrum.
A wider aperature brings us to the primal phenomenon -- a reddish/yellow
on some edges, and a bluish/cyan on the others.

The continuous spectrum with green in the middle arises only where
the (blue-cyan and yellow-red) edges come close enough to overlap.

We no longer see the original phenomenon when we make so small a circle
that the colours extend inward from the edges to overlap in the middle
to form what is called a 'continuous spectrum', while with the larger
circle, the colours formed at the edges stay as they are.

Thus, this is the primal phenomenon -- that Colours arise at the borders
where Light and Dark work together, and the Spectrum is a secondary,
compound phenomenon.

In the 1780's a number of statements as to the way colours arise came to
Goethe's notice. Of the prismatic phenomena, it was commonly held by
physicists that when you let colourless light go through a prism the
colourless light is split up. For in some such way the phenomena were
interpreted.

If we let a cylinder of colourless light impinge on the screen, it shows a
colourless picture. Putting a prism in the way of the cylinder of light,
we get the sequence of colours: red, orange, yellow, green, blue - light
blue and dark blue, - violet.

The physicists explain it thus - the colourless light already contains the
seven colours within itself - and when we make the light go through the
prism, the prism really does no more than to fan out and separate what is
already there in the light, - the seven colours, into which it is thus
analyzed.

A look through the prism shows that we do not see the light in seven
colours. The only place you can see any colour is at some edge or
border-line.

If we let light pass through the space of the room, we get a white circle
on a screen. Put a prism in the way, and the cylinder of light is
diverted, (Figure I), but what appears is not the series of seven
colours at all, only a reddish colour at the lower edge, passing over into
yellow, and at the upper edge a blue passing over into greenish shades. In
the middle it stays white.

Goethe now said to himself: It is not that the light is split up or that
anything is separated out of the light as such. In point of fact, I am
projecting a picture, - simply an image of this circular aperture. The
aperture has edges, and where the colours occur the reason is not that
they are drawn out of the light, as though the light had been split up
into them. It is because this picture which I am projecting - the picture
as such - has edges. Here too the fact is that where light adjoins dark,
colours appear at the edges. It is none other than that. For there is
darkness outside this circular patch of light, while it is relatively
light within it.

The colours therefore, to begin with, make their appearance purely and
simply as phenomena at the border between light and dark. This is the
original, the primary phenomenon. We are no longer seeing the original
phenomenon when by reducing the circle in size we get a continuous
sequence of colours. The latter phenomenon only arises when we take so
small a circle that the colours extend inward from the edges to the
middle. They then overlap in the middle and form what we call a continuous
spectrum, while with the larger circle the colours formed at the edges
stay as they are. This is the primal phenomenon. Colours arise at the
borders, where light and dark flow together.

Subsequent to this, Goethe's went on to make more exact observations
which further call this 'splitting up of the light' by a prism into question:

- Begin with a circular slit from which Light shines through a PRISM.
- Light is deflected upwards.
- The projection is not an exact circle, but rather elongated.
- The upper portion is edged with Blue.
- The lower portion is edged with Red.

- Taking into account the observation that Light passing through
  any medium is dimmed. In this case, there is a dimming of light
  within the prism.

- Therefore, we have to do not only with the cone of light that is here
  bent and deflected, but also with this new factor - the dimming
  of the light brought about by matter.

- Into the space beyond the prism not only the light is shining,
  but there shines in, there rays into the light the quality of dimness
  that is in the prism.

- This dimming is deflected upward in the same direction as the light.

- Here then we are dealing with the interaction of two things:
  i) the brightly shining light, itself deflected,
  ii) then the sending into it of the darkening effect that is poured
      into this shining light. Only the dimming and darkening effect is
      here deflected in the same direction as the light.

- The Outcome is that in the upward region the bright light is infused
  and irradiated with dimness, and by this means the dark or bluish colours
  are produced.

- Downwards, the light outdoes and overwhelms the darkness and there arise
  the yellow shades of colour.

- Simply through the fact that the prism on the one hand deflects the full
  bright cone of light and on the other hand also deflects the dimming of it,
  we have the two kinds of entry of the dimming or darkening into the light.
  We have an interplay of dark and light, not getting mixed to give a grey but
  remaining mutually independent in their activity.

- The material prism plays an essential part in the arising of the
  colours. For it is through the prism that it happens, namely that on the
  one hand the dimming is deflected in the same direction as the cone of
  light, while on the other hand, because the prism lets its darkness ray
  there too, this that rays on and the light that is deflected cut across
  each other. For that is how the deflection works down here. Downward, the
  darkness and the light are interacting in a different way than upward.
 
  Colours therefore arise where dark and light work together.


This is what happens in reality:

(https://web.archive.org/web/20130116025123im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/ColourProjection.jpeg)

Everything you thought you knew about the universe turned out to be very wrong.

And you still don't get it that you don't stand a chance with me here.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Macarios on November 21, 2019, 12:21:06 PM
Ok:

Quote
The F-15 can climb to 30,000 feet (9,100 m) in around 60 seconds.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle))

It means 60,000 feet (18.2 km) in 2 minutes.
Let's say another 2 minutes back.
Venus is at 15 km, radar pulse takes 5-6 minutes to go there and back.
Radio waves travel at the speed of light.
It clearly means that F-15 can fly faster than light. :)

Another thing: if Sun is at 12 km and Venus at 15, how can we see those Venus transits? :)
How high is Mercury?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 12:37:54 PM
Nowhere nearly as insane as having four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of sphere.
Agreed, water is a liquid and anyone suggesting that "four trillion billion liters of water" can be "glued next to the outer surface of sphere" simply has to be bordering on insane.

A liquid simple cannot be glued!

But have you ever lifted a 1 litre bottle of say Mountain Dew - this sort of thing? (https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_da0ac9aa-5b90-4c94-b55d-9f21eefdae0d?wid=488&hei=488&fmt=pjpeg)
You will find it weighs about 1.125 kg meaning that there is some force of 1.125 kg.force (about 11 N if a scientist like yourself prefers).

Now put that bottle of say Mountain Dew down on the ground and try to lift it up again.
Is it difficult? Of course not! All you have to apply is a force of a bit over 11 N.
Is it "glued next to the outer upper surface of" the Earth. Of course not!

Now take a 1 litre jug down to the ocean's edge and scoop up 1 litre of sea-water. That wasn't hard, all it took to lift was about 10 Newtons.
Was that sea-water "glued next to the outer upper surface of" the Earth. No.

Well, every one those "four trillion billion liters of water" is held to the surface of the Earth by a similar force caused by what we chose to call "gravity".

Was that so hard to understand and does that sound in any way " insane"?
Quote from: sandokhan
<< Totally irrelevant! >>
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.
You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.
Projecting again I see.
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.

Completely wrong.
If you wish to assert it is completely wrong you need to justify your claims, because all the available evidence shows you are wrong.

And no, providing a picture of a prism which doesn't split the light enough because it isn't adequate or isn't actually a prism doesn't make your case.

If you wish to even try to use that picture what you need to start with is providing an explanation of how those colours appear at the edge.
Meanwhile I have already provided a reason that it would appear like that.
Repeatedly asserting the same falsehoods will not help you.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.
And there you go showing just why you are wrong.
The prism doesn't magically collimate and converge the light into an infinitely thin beam and then split it.
Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.
What this means is if you have a large light source, then that arrives as multiple beams which are then each split, with the result out the other end being a combination of those spectra.
As it is large, in the middle you will have multiple spectra overlapping and thus produce white light again.

But even in this post you are effectively admitting that you are completely wrong and that a prism will split light into its component colours.
But the more important part is why this issue was actually raised, the index of refraction is different for each wavelength.
This is what produces the separation.
This would also mean that each wavelength of light would produce a different range due to a different index of refraction slowing it down.

If it was just due to the edges, then there would be no need for a prism and it would occur all the time.
Also, if it was just due to the edges, there is no reason for red to appear on one side and blue on the other.
This only makes sense when you accept that the prism has a different index of refraction for each wavelength of light and thus the red, long wavelength is refracted to a different extent than the blue, short wavelength.
So the explanation you provide makes no sense at all.

Now again:
Where is the evidence for your magic impossible dome?
How does it manage to slow down light so much and so differently that it produces the observed times? (Do an actual calculation to show it).
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 01:00:00 PM
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015809im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/prisma-lightSpectrum-goethe.gif)

vs.

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/e6RMH.jpg)

You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.
You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.

If you look through a proper prism with the required thickness, then light will be split into its component wavelengths. And no, it isn't seven colours, they are just arbitrary names. It is a spectrum.

Completely wrong.
I'll agree that the diagrams (NOT photographs) are misleading and that the resolution of the spectrum is determined by the width of the beam but most of what you say is total poppy-cock so I deleted it.

Quote from: sandokhan
And you still don't get it that you don't stand a chance with me here.
And you still don't get it that you don't know one tenth as much as you think you do and understand even less.

You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.
Anyone looking through your famous "Advanced Flat Earth Theory" and host of "Paradoxes" can see case after case of a total failure of your own logical abilities leading to the most ludicrous hypotheses.
One such as the Sun being 600 m in diameter and 15 km away all based on a few photographs.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 01:06:45 PM
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.

Certainly not me, but YOU.

You cannot accept reality, this is a fact.

You have denied four times the existence of the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, only to be painfully reminded of the contrary.

And you have done this right here in front of everyone else.

A fact which should be very worrisome to you.

Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.

But it doesn't.

""Newton surmised that when we see a colour spectrum emerge from a prism,
it is due to 'the splitting of light into its component colours'.

If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should be
a spectrum with GREEN in the middle. Yet, since the aperature through which
the light is shining is large, we get no such spectrum, we only get colour
at the edges. In an attempt to isolate the phenomena, Newton decided to
narrow the aperature which results in the spectrum we are now familiar with,
and which he used as a basis for his Optiks.

What Newton failed to do, was to take a look through the prism.
If you actually do this, the white areas do not split into a rainbow of
colour as might be expected -- you only see colour at the edges of objects."

(https://web.archive.org/web/20130116025123im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/ColourProjection.jpeg)

Here is another experiment carried out at Cal State Long Beach, where the WHITE LIGHT  is seen coming out of the prism:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/kyotocolor.html

(https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114im_/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/prism.gif)

In your hare-brained analysis you are assuming A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.

However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE.

Listen to Newton:

In order to explain refraction, in fact, Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light (when overtaken) is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission" (causing refraction and diffraction).

You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.

Perhaps I do.

I have derived the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA, the first of its kind.

I have derived the RIEMANN ZETA ZEROS using only basic arithmetic and a novel way of the use of the two zeta functions.

I have derived the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.

Results which are as good as any provided by what you assume to be the best scientists available.

You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 21, 2019, 01:25:16 PM
Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

If the Sun has a diameter of 600 meters, then what does that make the diameter of Venus?

(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/venus-transit.jpg?1)


why on Earth would it take a radar signal 6 and 1/2 minutes to travel 15 km and back again when radar routinely picks up objects over 100 km away nearly instantaneously?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 21, 2019, 01:28:49 PM
I think the problem here is that in his calculations, he's using pi instead of phew.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 01:29:24 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (part II)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 21, 2019, 01:43:13 PM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025 (part II)

I just did a quick(and remarkably basic) math using the ratio of the distance from the Earth to ISS and the Earth to the Sun and compared it to the size of the ISS and the size of the Sun and the size seems about right. The width(longest dimension) of the ISS ought to appear about 1/35th the diameter of the Sun.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 01:49:31 PM
Sure, but your pal also did a quick (and remarkably basic) math calculation where he linked the value of the orbital angular velocity with the sun's gravity at the surface.

Orbital angular velocity = ZERO (missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT)

Therefore, a(sun) also equals ZERO.

The FE Sun's diameter has to be smaller than the radius of the Earth itself, smaller than the distance between the two tropics, smaller than this distance divided by 180, and finally smaller than the annual precession figure (1.5 km/year).

If you want to choose a figure for the diameter of the Sun which is less than 1.5 km and at the same time different than 636 meters (1000 sacred cubits), be my guest.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 21, 2019, 01:55:29 PM
Sure, but your pal also did a quick (and remarkably basic) math calculation where he linked the value of the orbital angular velocity with the sun's gravity at the surface.

Orbital angular velocity = ZERO (missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT)

Therefore, a(sun) also equals ZERO.

The FE Sun's diameter has to be smaller than the radius of the Earth itself, smaller than the distance between the two tropics, smaller than this distance divided by 180, and finally smaller than the annual precession figure (1.5 km/year).

If you want to choose a figure for the diameter of the Sun which is less than 1.5 km and at the same time different than 636 meters (1000 sacred cubits), be my guest.


And yet, it's diameter appears 35 times the width of the ISS; currently cruising around the Earth at a distance of 400 km. Even if The Sun were at the same distance(unlikely), that would still give it a diameter of over 3500 meters. That diameter would only be larger the further away from the ISS the Sun actually is.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sokarul on November 21, 2019, 02:29:39 PM
giberish
How many times are you going to post this nonsense? You know I already destroyed you on this and you had to know I would be back to do it again.

EM radiation is quantized. When an electron goes from an excited state to a less exited state aphoton is created. These will usually be in the energy range of X rays and lower. Gamma rays come from nuclear processes. We know this. We know it has a certain wavelength. we know certain wavelengths lead to different colors. Mixing can lead to other colors. We know all this.

People use this to perform various tasks. You already know I use different wavelengths to analyze samples.

(https://i.imgur.com/gsl4Til.jpg)


See all the different wavelengths and what element it corresponds to? EM radiation is well understood. 
 

Think you are still right?

Come find me at:
http://icpinformation.org/Winter_Conference.html

Until then STFU. You have nothing.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 02:39:47 PM
You have just been shown that Kepler FAKED/FUDGED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.

It doesn't get much worse than that.

Yet here you are ignoring this crucial evidence, at least as it relates to your own beliefs.

Everything you know about heliocentrism is based on KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES.
No, it isn't!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on November 21, 2019, 03:11:59 PM
giberish
How many times are you going to post this nonsense? You know I already destroyed you on this and you had to know I would be back to do it again.

EM radiation is quantized. When an electron goes from an excited state to a less exited state aphoton is created. These will usually be in the energy range of X rays and lower. Gamma rays come from nuclear processes. We know this. We know it has a certain wavelength. we know certain wavelengths lead to different colors. Mixing can lead to other colors. We know all this.

People use this to perform various tasks. You already know I use different wavelengths to analyze samples.

(https://i.imgur.com/gsl4Til.jpg)


See all the different wavelengths and what element it corresponds to? EM radiation is well understood. 
 

Think you are still right?

Come find me at:
http://icpinformation.org/Winter_Conference.html

Until then STFU. You have nothing.

ooh! Spectroscopy! Fun!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 21, 2019, 03:16:55 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/dSUrVYk.png)

Something about this doesn't seem to fit with reality.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 21, 2019, 09:13:46 PM
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 10:09:13 PM
Are you sure that what you call "KEPLER'S LIES and FAKED ENTRIES" are not observations where Tycho Brahe made simple mistakes - as we all do at times.

Very sure.

The author of your reference did not do his homework at all.

Here is how Kepler intentionally FABRICATED/FUDGED/FAKED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia:

(https://image.ibb.co/ndKidb/kpl1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/kenTdb/kpl2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/ch4oBw/kpl4.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fFVH4G/kpl5.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jT9Ydb/kpl6.jpg)

Kepler faked/fudged/falsified the entire set of data obtained from Brahe, and used the ellipse to calculate the final entries for his tables.

Kepler FAKED THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA, and announced to the world he got it from a nonexistent elliptical orbit.

The elliptical orbit WAS NOT based on observational astronomical data.

It was simply written in by Kepler.

As such, his book is a work of FICTION.

No science involved.

The observational input is nil.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

Kepler used the elliptical hypothesis to calculate the tables.


That is not the same as computing the Mars-Sun distances from Brahe's observational data (directly from observations).

Moreover the longitudes in Kepler's tables were calculated with the aid of the area law of the ellipse AND NOT from direct observational values.


Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?


“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical
."

Kepler faked his entire set of data to match the ellipse.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit.


(http://image.ibb.co/iQwvTm/kpl8.jpg)

DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.

He faked all of the entries.


(https://image.ibb.co/kenTdb/kpl2.jpg)

KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.

(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)

For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=16&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

The only sheer work involved was that of faking and replacing the correct entries by fudged entries.

Kepler simply replaced everything with data which suited his purpose.

Is this what you call science?

There was no observational input at all.

None whatsoever.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)


Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 10:40:03 PM
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.
Certainly not me
No, certainly you. That is your normal debate tactic. Reject reality and spout mountains of spam. Especially with your favourite brand of nonsense on the Sagnac effect.

Like I said, if you want to discuss your ignorance of the Sagnac effect then do so in a thread on it.

But it doesn't.
But it does. That is the only way to explain what is actually observed.
On the edges you see minimal overlap and thus see the colours.
In the middle there is considerable overlap and you see white.

Meanwhile, your explanation makes no sense at all.

Again, if it was just due to the aperture, you wouldn't need the prism at all, and more importantly, there wouldn't be red or blue on ether side as there is no reason for it to appear there.
The only reason to have red on one side and blue on the other is for refraction or diffraction to occur, and to bend the 2 wavelengths by a different amount, i.e. the mainstream explanation.

Again, repeating the same spam wont help you.
Ignoring the refutations of your claims wont help you.
Instead it just reinforces that you are rejecting reality and don't care about the truth at all.

Listen to Newton:
[/quote]
Fine, lets listen to Newton.
Newton clearly believed in a RE, which rotated and orbited the sun.
So lets listen to Newton and discard all your nonsense.

Don't want to, THEN STOP APPEALING TO NEWTON!

I have derived the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.
You mean you repeatedly failed.

And of course you now resort to the same pathetic off topic spam.

Are you capable of staying on topic for more than 5 posts?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 21, 2019, 10:53:24 PM
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.

That is the only way to explain what is actually observed.
On the edges you see minimal overlap and thus see the colours.
In the middle there is considerable overlap and you see white.


Not at all.

We have a double torsion of subquark waves: the colors on the outside and the aether in the middle.

The only reason to have red on one side and blue on the other is for refraction or diffraction to occur, and to bend the 2 wavelengths by a different amount, i.e. the mainstream explanation.

The local-aether model is a fact of science.

Then, the SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE, and we have an alternative explanation, the very one embraced by Newton.

In order to explain refraction, in fact, Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light (when overtaken) is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission" (causing refraction and diffraction).


You mean you repeatedly failed.

Let's put your word to the test.

2[(v1l1 - v2l2]/c2 = 4AωsinΦ/c2

Proof:

(http://image.ibb.co/fPWNAn/ahasag4.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/d6svVn/ahasag5.jpg)
(http://image.ibb.co/kF7137/ahasag6.jpg)


2[(V1L1 + V2L2]/c2)] = 2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2

Proof:

V1 = VcosΦ1
V2 = VcosΦ2
L1 = LcosΦ1
L2 = LcosΦ2


Dr. Massimo Tinto, Principal Scientist at CALTECH, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)


Formula for the orbital SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Massimo Tinto, from CALTECH: 2VL

Formula for the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Daniel Shaddock, from CALTECH: 4Aω/c2


The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 21, 2019, 10:57:29 PM
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.
Is that why you have never managed to and instead just resort to repeating the same spam and repeatedly trying to derail the topic?

You don't actually bother to address anything that is on topic and instead just repeat the same refuted spam on the Sagnac effect and provide one line of nonsense as if it is an explanation.

Why is red on one side, blue on the other and white in the middle?
Why is a prism needed to produce this?
Why does reducing the gap so you don't have significant overlap produce a spectrum instead?

You have no explanation for any of that.
Meanwhile, mainstream science actually explains it and shows the index of refraction depends upon the wavelength.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 21, 2019, 10:58:25 PM
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.

Don't be capping on the Tenderloin, that's where the action is.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 21, 2019, 11:42:15 PM
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.
Stop being lazy and start using the "Quote" function!
Quote from: sandokhan
<< Irrelevant to the topic, which is "Radar ranging in the Solar System"! >>
Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.

But it doesn't.
Incorrect! This isn't too bad an illustration:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d139c1a4f8926ffc5d57829b942d9290-c)
But the spectrum should be continuous and not made of discrete bands as in that diagram.

Let's not bother much with Newton because in his time they had little idea of the nature of light!
Quote from: sandokhan
Here is another experiment carried out at Cal State Long Beach, where the WHITE LIGHT  is seen coming out of the prism:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/kyotocolor.html
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160312043114im_/http://web.csulb.edu/~percept/prism.gif)
Fine, that seems as it should be.
What looks to the eye like white light can be made from three discrete wavelengths as modern TV's and other displays do.
A wide beam of three discrete wavelengths, red, green and blue, enter the prism and on exiting the prism the take a short distance separate enough to show the individual colours.

Quote from: sandokhan
In your hare-brained analysis you are assuming A CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT.
The velocity of light is close enough to being a constant between the earth and the Moon, Venus, Mercury or the Sun except for a slight reduction of rarely more than 0.03% in the atmosphere, see Refractivity of Air (https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/air_refr.html).

Quote from: sandokhan
However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE.
Who's ever denied that "the speed of light is VARIABLE"? But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Quote from: sandokhan
Listen to Newton:
Let's not because in Newton's time little was know about the nature of light.
Newton did estimate the refraction due to the atmosphere from astronomical refraction observations but it wasn't until almost a century later that "fairly accurate measurements first became available a century later, through the work of Arago and Biot (https://aty.sdsu.edu/bibliog/bibliog.html#BiotArago1806Y)."

Quote from: sandokhan
You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.

Perhaps I do.
What total rubbish caused by an incurable case of the dreaded Dunning-Kruger-Syndrome! Doesn't it get a tad uncomfortable sitting on the "Peak of you-know-what ::)"!

Quote from: sandokhan
You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.
Remember this?
Certainly but there's nothing in there to prove that the Sun is 600 m in diameter so I'll delete all irrelevant material!
Quote from: sandokhan
If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"
Quote from: sandokhan
Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.
Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."

Your powers of logical deduction are appalling!
Quote from: sandokhan
Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
What total utter garbage! You claimed that the Sun was 15 km from Earth and 600 m in diameter long before you distorted anything I said!

Would you please explain in detail your logic in deriving the values in:
Quote from: sandokhan
Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Reply #296 on: June 04, 2016, 10:38:17 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1795032#msg1795032)
SUN/BLACK SUN/MOON/SHADOW MOON/JUPITER: some 600 meters in diameter (we could choose 1000 sacred cubits, 636 meters)

MERCURY: some 30 meters in diameter

And here long before I was around:
Quote from: sandokhan
Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Reply #44 on: April 24, 2010, 07:22:59 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg955618#msg955618)
In order to avoid situations like this ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38120.0 ) the FAQ must be modified to include the latest and best proofs provided in the alternative FAQ, flat earth maps, orbit/size of the sun, movements of the satellites, and much more.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The size (diameter) of the Sun, and the Earth - Sun distance in the FAQ must be modified to read: diameter of the Sun - 600 meters (to be elegant, we use 1000/PHI ~618 meters), Earth - Sun distance 10 - 12 km. HERE ARE THE PROOFS ::), real time videos of the ISS/Mercury Sun transits, also the ISS Moon transit.

FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no? « Reply #7 on: February 22, 2010, 03:03:43 AM » (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg910271#msg910271)
FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no? « Reply #36 on: February 27, 2010, 03:13:34 AM » (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36686.msg913547#msg913547)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 12:02:03 AM
Quote
However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE

Yes it is variable, but not in the way or to the extent that Sandy insists. As light passes through mediums of different density (air to glass or air to water or vice versa) then the speed of light will change. That's what we call refraction. 

By the way just out of interest dos anyone actually understand all these fantastic equations that Sandy keeps on posting?  If so could they please explain so I can try and understand them!  I'm happy that Sandy is a mathematical genius but not all of us are.  If he actually understands them then perhaps he could explain them in PLAIN English.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 12:29:58 AM
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.

It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck:

(https://i.imgur.com/noUejQE.png)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 01:12:34 AM
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack? And he is answering them PERSONALLY, as we can see very clearly.

Is this not proof that we are dealing with one and the same person?

Has there ever been an instance where one user answered the messages meant for someone else, in such a precise manner?


But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.

Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"

Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."


Not according to your own message.

You EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity.

Let me remind you of the very precise facts.


You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.


It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 01:27:11 AM
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 01:29:16 AM
Quote
Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).

So, obviously that the planets are even smaller than that.

Since you are so confident that you are right about all that you say.  Why don't you compile an article or paper on it and try and approach Nature magazine.  As I'm sure you know very well, and to quote from their website:

Quote
Nature is the world’s foremost international weekly scientific journal and is the flagship journal for Nature Research. It publishes the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions.

Seems like the natural place for you to challenge the views of the mainstream scientific community which you are so keen to do. Show them all how they have been wasting their careers up to now and prove to them who is the real boss!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 01:37:31 AM
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Ammizaduga Venus tables which show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."



If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged.


VENUS' ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506

VENUS' CARBON DIOXIDE AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938793#msg1938793

VENUS' NEON KRYPTON AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 01:49:00 AM
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, I know very little about Venus. But are you really saying that Venus is this big:

(https://i.imgur.com/No0qHBw.png)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 02:01:49 AM
I think I have had bigger meals than that.

I dub myself "World Eater".

Oh, and Go 'Bama! Roll Tide!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 02:15:36 AM
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack? And he is answering them PERSONALLY, as we can see very clearly.

Is this not proof that we are dealing with one and the same person?
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!

Quote from: sandokhan
But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!

Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.
Oh really? What is "the DENSITY OF THE ETHER" near the Moon and near Venus and how did YOU measure it?
Please show the properties of your imaginary ether that might cause c to fall to 50 m/s.

Quote from: sandokhan
Nothing in that, whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not could possibly be construed to mean that "a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO"

Whether the GPS satellites ARE (or are) NOT registering/recording the missing or not (missing) ORBITAL SAGNAC bears no relation to whether or not "the Earth is not orbiting the Sun."


Not according to your own message.

You EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity.
No, I never "EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity."
I would never do such a thing because one simply cannot equate angular velocity, with dimensions Time-1, with  surface gravity, with dimensions Length •Time-2.

Since you are talking of an adsurdity I'll ignore the rest.

Quote from: sandokhan
You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.
No, I did not! Nothing I wrote could possibly come up with a "diameter of the Sun is 600 meters".

Quote from: sandokhan
You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.
Stop talking utter balderdash! I showed that the Sun's surface gravity was 274 m/s2 anything else is your own twisted logic!

Quote from: sandokhan
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truck

The Sun, stars, planets are much smaller in FET; they have to be.

Remember that the diameter of the Sun has to be less than the distance between the tropics divided by 180, in fact less than 1.5 km (total annual solar precession).
And why would that be,  pray tell?

There's not the slighteat connection  between the "diameter of the Sun" and "the distance between the tropics divided by 180".

If you disagree, prove it!

And I suggest that one day you leave your dungy basement and watch a sunrise and note that the angular size of that Sun is roughly 0.5°.
Now whatever the shape of the earth that has to be more than a few thousand kilometers away, let's say > 5000 km - it would be more like 15,000 km on the usual flat Earth model.

At noon when the sun is near overhead the sun, when observed through a filter to protect your eyes you will find that the angular Suze of the Sun is still about 0.5°.

But how would this real life, easily made observation, fit with your 600 m diameter Sun only 15 km above the Earth?

The obvious answer is that it simply does not fit your model in the slightest!

Now stop pretending that you know more than every astronomer from Aristarchus of Samo to say William Herschel, Pierre-Simon Laplace and Georges Lemaître - you've proven that you don't.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 02:34:22 AM
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!


You responded VOLUNTARILY to someone's else responses.

The fact that you now have to rely on the "quote function" means you haven't got a clue as to what is happening, yet you claim to know reality.

No, I never "EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity."

But you did, and I have you on record.

No, I did not! Nothing I wrote could possibly come up with a "diameter of the Sun is 600 meters".

But it is everything you wrote, as I shall immediately prove to you.

I showed that the Sun's surface gravity was 274 m/s2 anything else is your own twisted logic!

Not at all.

YOU EQUATED THE ORBITAL ANGULAR VELOCITY WITH THE SOLAR SURFACE GRAVITY.

You did this to yourself.

Are you calling THE MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, "twisted logic"?

Now, it is my pleasure to let you know that you did indeed prove that a(sun) = ZERO.

You actually have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 02:43:57 AM
This is interesting. The Schwarzschild radius is the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. In other words it is effectively the radius at which a body of a given mass effectively becomes a black hole.

We have measured the mass of the Sun very precisely and if you insert that mass into the equation for calculating the Schwarzschild radius (=2GM/c^2) you get 2,816 metres or 2.816km.  Obviously that gives a diameter of just over 5.5km

So that makes Sandys assertion of 600 metres not just wrong but actually physically impossible by quite a considerable amount.  A star cannot be compressed so much that it becomes smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Shifter on November 22, 2019, 03:00:26 AM
A star cannot be compressed so much that it becomes smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.

That is literally the definition of a black hole  ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
Quote
Any object whose radius is smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body (a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole".

Black holes can be classified based on their Schwarzschild radius, or equivalently, by their density. As the radius is linearly related to mass, while the enclosed volume corresponds to the third power of the radius, small black holes are therefore much more dense than large ones. The volume enclosed in the event horizon of the most massive black holes has an average density lower than main sequence stars.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 03:05:26 AM
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?

You'd be surprised at just how little you know about Venus.

Ammizaduga Venus tables which show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":
I'm amazed that you dare link the names of Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky in that way, as though Carl Sagan supports Immanuel Velikovsky's ridiculous ideas!
Quote
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky's unconventional theories of the origin of the solar system have generated immense interest and bitter controversy. One of his best know critics has been Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornel University.
Look at a little of what Carl Sagan says about Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision:


Quote
Carl Sagan’s criticisms of Worlds in Collision (https://www.velikovsky.info/carl-sagan-s-criticisms-of-worlds-in-collision/)

Sagan’s “Ten Problems” summarized
Introduction
The Uniformitarians and the Catastrophists
The Method of Concordances in Myth and Legend
Velikovsky’s Principal Hypothesis
  • Problem I. The Ejection of Venus by Jupiter
  • Problem II. Repeated Collisions among the Earth, Venus, and Mars
  • Problem III. The Earth’s Rotation
  • Problem IV. Terrestrial Geology and Lunar Craters
  • Problem V. Chemistry and Biology of the Terrestrial Planets
  • Problem VI. Manna Problem
  • VII. The Clouds of Venus
  • Problem VIII. The Temperature of Venus
  • Problem IX. The Craters of Venus
  • Problem X. The Circularization of the Orbit of Venus and Nongravitational Forces in the Solar System

I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

Quote from: sandokhan
     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

But I've no doubt that any of those you are quoting, including Velikovsky, from would consider you quite unbalanced of mind to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 03:11:41 AM
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"

Now start using the "Quote" function provided!


<< Already answered! >>
Now you provide evidence that the Sun's diameter is 600 m and it is 15 km above the Earth because you claimed that long before I said anything about it!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 03:19:23 AM
to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter

You PROVED this to be true.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

You can't ignore these very well-known facts of astrophysics:

VENUS' ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506

VENUS' CARBON DIOXIDE AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938793#msg1938793

VENUS' NEON KRYPTON AGE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336

THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS.

A fact proven directly, and profusely illustrated with bibliographical references.

The problem with Venus’ atmosphere is argon-36. Argon-36 is a primordial product from ancient times. “The atmosphere of Venus contains as much argon-36 as you would expect to find in the planet’s original atmosphere” (according to M. McElroy, Pioneer experimenter in the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 1979, p. A6). If Venus were 4.6 billion years old, its Argon-36 would have decayed to a level comparable to that found on the Earth. Venus has hundreds of times as much Argon-36 as the Earth. In fact, it has what appears to be exactly the amount of Argon-36 that Venus would have if it were born in the last few thousand years.

Neglecting for a moment the effect of trace gases in Venus’ atmosphere, CO2, CO, and O2 are nonreactive with each other and we therefore expect a fairly rapid transition (on geologic time scales) of the CO2 atmosphere to one dominated by CO and O2. CO2 would disappear from the upper atmosphere within a few weeks, and from the entire middle atmosphere in a few thousand years.

John and Walter Gould specifically state:

“Pioneer Venus showed that the atmosphere as a whole consists of about 98% carbon dioxide, 1-3% nitrogen with a few parts per million . . . of helium, neon, krypton and argon. Although the amounts of neon, krypton, and argon are small they indicate very much greater amounts of primordial neon, krypton, and argon than those found in the Earth’s atmosphere. This is currently raising problems concerning the established view of the origin of the solar system.”

Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context:

“A recent discovery about the composition of the Venusian atmosphere has cast doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system. The theory suggests that the Sun and planets formed at the same time [4.6 billion years ago].

“The inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – are thought to be small because the Sun drew their lighter constituents away. If this idea is correct, the closer a planet is to the Sun, the less likely there is to be lighter gases in its atmosphere. But in the atmosphere of Venus, the opposite is true. In particular, there seems to be 500 times as much argon gas and 2,700 times as much neon as in the atmosphere of Earth.

“So far, scientists cannot explain why these gases were not drawn away from the planet during the birth of the solar system . . . Further discoveries about Venus may soon force a revision of the most basic ideas about how the Sun and planets formed.”

In terms of their noble gases – neon, krypton and argon, Venus is unique. While a
stable solar system, wherein if Venus was born in its present orbit, it should have less of these gases than the Earth. It has 2,700 times as much neon and krypton exhibits a similar tendency.293

There is no explanation in terms of a stable solar system that accounts for the ratios of these noble gases.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 03:21:21 AM
So, if we wanted, we could blow it out of the sky with, for example, a 155mm howitzer?

That is ridiculous. How can anyone think that?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 03:40:21 AM
Ovid, Metamorphoses (transl. F. J. Miller), Book II:

"The chariot of the sun, driven by Phaethon, moved "no longer in the same
course as before." The horses "break loose from their course" and "rush aimlessly, knocking
against the stars set deep in the sky and snatching the chariot along through uncharted ways."
The constellations of the cold Bears tried to plunge into the forbidden sea, and the sun's chariot
roamed through unknown regions of the air. It was "borne along just as a ship driven before the
headlong blast, whose pilot has let the useless rudder go and abandoned the ship to the gods and
prayers."

"The earth bursts into flame, the highest parts first, and splits into deep cracks, and its moisture is
all dried up. The meadows are burned to white ashes; the trees are consumed, green leaves and
all, and the ripe grain furnishes fuel for its own destruction. . . . Great cities perish with their
walls, and the vast conflagration reduces whole nations to ashes."

"The woods are ablaze with the mountains. . . . Aetna is blazing boundlessly . . . and twin-peaked Parnassus. . . . Nor does its chilling clime save Scythia; Caucasus burns . . . and the heaven-piercing Alps and cloud-capped Apennines."
The scorched clouds belched forth smoke. Phaethon sees the earth aflame. "He can no longer
bear the ashes and whirling sparks, and is completely shrouded in the dense, hot smoke. In this
pitchy darkness he cannot tell where he is or whither he is going." "It was then, as men think, that the peoples of Aethiopia became black-skinned, since the blood was drawn to the surface of their bodies by the heat."
"Then also Libya became a desert, for the heat dried up her moisture. . . . The Don's waters
steam; Babylonian Euphrates burns; the Ganges, Phasis, Danube, Alpheus boil; Spercheos' banks
are aflame. The golden sands of Tagus melt in the intense heat, and the swans . . . are scorched. .

. . The Nile fled in terror to the ends of the earth . . . the seven mouths lie empty, filled with dust;
seven broad channels, all without a stream. The same mischance dries up the Thracian rivers,
Hebrus and Strymon; also the rivers of the west, the Rhine, Rhone, Po and the Tiber. . . . Great
cracks yawn everywhere. . . . Even the sea shrinks up, and what was but now a great watery
expanse is a dry plain of sand. The mountains, which the deep sea had covered before, spring
forth, and increase the numbers of the scattered Cyclades."

Phaeton is the Morning Star.

This is the world-wide cataclysm that Venus and Typhon (Mercury) can cause at the end of a world age.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 04:19:06 AM
to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameter

You PROVED this to be true.
<< Nothing that I posted or you posted PROVES that the sun is 600 m in diameter >>
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter" and neither have you so stop talking rubbish.

The sun simply cannot be 600 m in diameter and only 15 km above the Earth!

Quote from: sandokhan
I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga",  thank you.

You can't ignore these very well-known facts of astrophysics:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939336#msg1939336

THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS.
I can note them but they do not PROVE that "THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS"!

But what if it did? The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" and the age of Venus is quite irrelevant to that!

Quote from: sandokhan
Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context:

“A recent discovery about the composition of the Venusian atmosphere has cast doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system. The theory suggests that the Sun and planets formed at the same time [4.6 billion years ago].
So what? The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" and "doubt on the popular theory accounting for the formation of the solar system" is quite irrelevant to that!

Quote from: sandokhan
<< All quite irrelevant to "Radar ranging in the Solar System". >>
Stop wasting time by posting with totally irrelevant material and start posting something on topic!

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 04:32:23 AM
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter"

You sure did, so it's too late to file a complaint now.

The sun simply cannot be 600 m in diameter

According to you, IT SURE IS!

You PROVED, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a(sun) = ZERO.

It's your own doing, you should be proud of your achievement.

You actually have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.

Remember this?

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg)

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU are now guilty of having provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


You have just proven that indeed the diameter of the Sun is some 600 meters.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 04:37:35 AM
Shit. Rab just proved you can kill Venus with a fist. It's all over now.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 04:40:36 AM
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter"

You sure did, so it's too late to file a complaint now.

The sun simply cannot be 600 m in diameter
Stop repeating utter balderdash! Nothing I said PROVES "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter".

Then post something on the topic, "Radar ranging in the Solar System".

But you can't do that so you have to keep up this totally irrelevant baloney!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 04:48:19 AM
Shit. Rab just proved you can kill Venus with a fist. It's all over now.
No, Sandokhan claims that I proved that the sun was 600 m in diameter and that's a bit big to kill with a human fist.
But undoubtedly the Half Tiger Man, Sandokhan, Flat Earth Sultan and Flat Earth Scientist (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_12598_1353668970.png) could smash that with one karate blow of his mighty fist!
He seems to claim he is smarter than all the astronomers that ever lived so we should take note! But I do wish he'd post something on the topic!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 04:48:59 AM
Nothing I said PROVES "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter".

Everything you said in that message proves that a(Sun) = ZERO, thus you have provided the very best proof that indeed the diameter of the Sun is only 600 meters.

Your achievement is crystal clear: you EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity in a single equation.

In fact we might even think that you are a FE in disguise: you have served the FES very well.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

https://image.ibb.co/mpRKjS/lisa5.jpg

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 05:39:08 AM
Quote
If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Not that this still has anything to do with the main topic of the question still but of course the value of g on the Sun has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Earth is orbiting it or not.  g = GM/r^2. In the Suns case using M as 1.9x10^30kg and r= 6.9x10^8m gives a value for g(Sun) as 266.18m.s2.  Where does that involve whether the Earth is orbiting the Sun or not?

You will note that there is only one M and only one r here. The Suns mass and radius. So we only need concern ourselves with the Sun. The value of what you call a(Sun) is therefore totally independent of whether the Earth is orbiting it or not.  The only way what I call g(Sun) would change is if the mass or the radius of the Sun changed.

Notice  also there is no mention of Sagnac effects or indeed GPS satellites here either!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Macarios on November 22, 2019, 06:18:06 AM
Nothing I said PROVES "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter".

Everything you said in that message proves that a(Sun) = ZERO, thus you have provided the very best proof that indeed the diameter of the Sun is only 600 meters.

So, if you say that the Sun is at the height of 12 km,
and we see the Sun having angular diameter of 0.5 degrees,
then what is the physical size of the Sun?

What is your claim on this?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Yes on November 22, 2019, 08:26:17 AM
🤔 What's the ether density near the sun, I wonder.  Ether density changes have all sorts of magically convenient effects near the Moon and Venus.  I guess one could use this to explain any discrepancies at all.

Sun doesn't shrink in angular size as it travels away from you?  That's because of changes in ether density.  Can't prove it wrong.

Sun illuminates the tops of clouds and buildings during the day, and the bottoms of clouds and ceilings during dawn and dusk?  Obviously the ether density is shifting the relative angular sagnac effect.

Midnight Sun in near the poles?  Changes in the ether density at extreme latitudes causes illumination.

Ether magic is also why the black sun can't be seen at any time except during a solar eclipse.  And ether density changes at that time also hide the moon, coincidentally.

Do you feel bad at what you see when you look in a mirror?  Don't worry, that's just ether density shifts that is causing the unsightly appearance.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 22, 2019, 12:38:32 PM
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack?
Because this is a public forum, and everyone is free to object to your garbage.
They are not messages intended for one person.
They are factually incorrect claims about reality.

If you want a private conversation, use the PM function.

But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!
Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.
Then start proving it and doing the equations to show just how much it is slowed down.
Also, does the wavelength also matter?
If so, HOW?

So far all you have done is made a bunch of baseless assertions with absolutely no substance behind them; and spam a bunch of nonsense to try and derail yet another thread.

How about you start dealing with what has been said?
I asked a few simple questions you seemed completely incapable of answered (just like normal).

Again, if you wish to claim that it isn't due to refraction through a prism you need to provide a viable alternative.
You have no justification for why the prism is needed if it is just an effect of the aperture.
You have no justification for why red is on one side and blue is on the other.
You have no justification for your claim at all.

Meanwhile, mainstream science can explain it just fine.

Remember this?
Yes, we all remember it, from the thread were you repeatedly refuted and then fled because you were completely incapable of defending your claims.
If you wish to discus it, go back there.

You PROVED this to be true.
Lying about what people have done doesn't help your case in any way.
It just shows just how far detached from reality you are.

Now are you actually capable of addressing the topic and backing up your insane claims for once in your life?

You wish to claim that the radar ranging is compelled wrong because your magic dome of impossibility magically slows down light so much (and without dependence upon wavelength) to produce the observed values.

How does this work with the moon and Venus give such vastly different times?
Can you show the math to produce these times, or just dismiss it?

Can you provide a rational objection, with justification, to the fact that the refractive index of materials is dependent upon wavelength, such as by explaining what is observed when light passes through a prism?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 12:56:44 PM
Yes, we all remember it, from the thread were you repeatedly refuted and then fled because you were completely incapable of defending your claims.

Here is the thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.0

You were unable to provide any arguments at all: just simple grunts of desperate denials designed to fool your viewers.

Everyone here can see that you are trolling this forum: now, it takes less than 15 seconds to defeat you, no matter what the subject is which comes up for discussion.

Just take a look at your delusional way of thinking, you were defeated on each and every page of that thread, in no ambiguous way, yet here you are parading in front of us.


I can prove immediately that the Earth is completely stationary, and there's nothing you can do about it.

On a stationary Earth, I can make any claim I want, concerning any subject matter. You bring up "mainstream science", I am telling you that this mainstream science is based on the notion of a constant speed of light: real science begins with a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT, as clearly exemplified by Maxwell's original set of equations.

Your pal has just linked the orbital angular velocity to the solar surface gravity.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.


Dr. Massimo Tinto, Principal Scientist at CALTECH, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)


Formula for the orbital SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Massimo Tinto, from CALTECH: 2VL

Formula for the rotational SAGNAC EFFECT derived by Dr. Daniel Shaddock, from CALTECH: 4Aω/c^2

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Nobody even looks in your direction, you are useless here.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 22, 2019, 01:24:45 PM
Yes, we all remember it, from the thread were you repeatedly refuted and then fled because you were completely incapable of defending your claims.
Here is the thread:
You were unable to provide any arguments at all: just simple grunts of desperate denials designed to fool your viewers.
And there you go projecting again.

You were repeatedly asked to defend your claim of 600 m, yet were completely incapable of doing so.
If you wish to change that, go back to the thread and defend your claims. Stop bringing it up here.

Here you need to defend your insane claims of a magical impossible aether magically slowing down light to virtually standstill speeds and magically effecting it by vastly different amount for different objects to make it seem like the known model of the solar system is correct. It is as if you have nature conspiring against you.

it takes less than 15 seconds to defeat you
If that was the case you would have defeated me long ago, instead of just repeating the same pathetic spam and insults.
Your idea of "defeating" seems to be repeating the same refuted spam from a long dead thread where you have already been defeated and were completely incapable of even beginning to justify your insane claims.

If you need to completely ignore what has been said on the topic and just repeatedly spam then you have no chance of defeating anyone as you aren't even trying to.

If you want to even try to defeat me here you need to explain why the prism is needed, why red appears on one side, why blue appears on the other, and why reducing the width of the beam of light allows the spectrum to be obtained.
That is something you are yet to even attempt, likely because you know you can't.

Reposting the same Sagnac nonsense is just you showing you have been defeated.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 01:30:57 PM
Newton has already explained to you what is going on, but you won't listen.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

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

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

The LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is completely proven by RUDERFER's theorem, which is the modern version of Newton's ideas on the subject.

In order to explain refraction, in fact, Newton's Opticks (1704) postulated an "Aethereal Medium" transmitting vibrations faster than light, by which light (when overtaken) is put into "Fits of easy Reflexion and easy Transmission" (causing refraction and diffraction).

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 01:50:45 PM
Here you need to defend your insane claims of a magical impossible aether magically slowing down light to virtually standstill speeds and magically effecting it by vastly different amount for different objects to make it seem like the known model of the solar system is correct. It is as if you have nature conspiring against you.

The US NAVY not only makes the very same claims, but it has already built such devices.

Tesla offered the first blueprint of such an ether shield, which can produce INVISIBILITY for an object as large as a ship.

"For an answer, we need to review a 2018 patent awarded to a Navy scientist, Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, which is titled: “The High Energy Electromagnetic Field Generator” (HEEMFG).

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus for generating an impenetrable defensive shield to Sea and Land as well as Space-based military and civilian assets, protecting these assets from such threats as Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles, Radar Evading Cruise Missiles, Top Attack for Main Battle Tanks (land and sea based systems), as well as counteracting the effects of solar-induced Coronal Mass Ejections or defending critical military satellites in an ASAT role (space based system).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/

The scientist behind the HEEMFG is no rogue inventor but works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) on advanced technology concepts. On two occasions, Dr. James Sheehy, the Chief Technology Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, a US Navy affiliated organization, has intervened on behalf of Dr. Pais’ patent applications deeming them “operable” .

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194598#msg2194598


GERTSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT: GRAVITON-PHOTON CONVERSION

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194420#msg2194420

The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich can be used to create electron-positron pairs torsion fields (dextrorotatory subquarks-laevorotatory subquarks) out of the ether wave lattice. This torsion field will then act as a shield against the normal flow/propagation of ether waves (gravitational and electromagnetic), forming an invisible ball lightning sphere around the spacecraft.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Nothing I said PROVES "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter".

Everything you said in that message proves that a(Sun) = ZERO, thus you have provided the very best proof that indeed the diameter of the Sun is only 600 meters.

Your achievement is crystal clear: you EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity in a single equation.
Stop proving you total incompetence! One cannot legitimately "EQUATE the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity"!
As I explained before angular velocity has the dimensions Time-1 and surface gravity has the dimensions Length.Time-2!

So they can never be equated! I may have quite legitimately derived solar surface gravity from the Sidereal yea, the distance from earth to Sun and the Radius of Sun.

And the values I use were, I believe, from YOU own reference!

Quote from: sandokhan
In fact we might even think that you are a FE in disguise: you have served the FES very well.
More of the usual Sandokhanian garbage, dream on!

Quote from: sandokhan
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!
Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
No, Mr Sandokhan, it does NOT "REST ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT"!
Have YOU lost the ability to read and understand plain English? Did you not read, "And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity."

Can't YOU understand what another means!

Quote from: sandokhan
If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
Everything from this point on is YOUR words, not mine!

But it does not follow that simply that "If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) . . . . IS EQUAL TO ZERO" because YOU ignore another way to calculate gsun!

I posted this before but, as usual, you ignored it!
The surface gravity of the Sun is about 274 m/s2
Let's put your word to the test.
Here is a reference which does illustrate the correctness of the Clayton model:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=ue2D__e06XkC&pg=PT146&lpg=PT146&dq=clayton+model+accuracy+stellar+pressure&source=bl&ots=nw7jNgMv4i&sig=ACfU3U1JJ5IALZvJlJw3avQmR0XQXHjnnQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicyeGX0uflAhURPFAKHWMuBi0Q6AEwBnoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=clayton%20model%20accuracy%20stellar%20pressure&f=false
This book? The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition by A. C. Phillips (https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Physics+of+Stars%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781118723272)
Quote from: sandokhan
"We shall see that the Clayton model can yield reasonably correct results when applied to the sun."
. . . . . . . . . .
M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
G = gr2/m(r)
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
And your next equation can be rearranged to gsun = G x m(r)/r2.

Hence from your own equation and your own references gsun = G x m(r)/r2 = (6.67 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/6.96 x 108)2 = 274.0 m/s2.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again

Now run away with you ridiculous claim that I proved you 600 m diameter Sun - nothing I posted ever came up with such a value.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 22, 2019, 02:45:27 PM
To quote directly from Principia, Newton stated that:

Quote
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Where in this statement is there any indication about Newton stating about there being planetary/terrestrial gravity and stellar/celestial gravity?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: markjo on November 22, 2019, 05:41:19 PM
This is the subquark:

(http://www.weare1.us/Babbitt%20color.jpg)

No, that's Babbitt's Ultimate Physical Atom.
https://theosophy.wiki/en/Ultimate_Physical_Atom
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 06:03:35 PM
This is the subquark:

(http://www.weare1.us/Babbitt%20color.jpg)

No, that's Babbitt's Ultimate Physical Atom.
https://theosophy.wiki/en/Ultimate_Physical_Atom
Or read all about it in American Polarity Therapy Association Theory and Basic Principles of Polarity Therapy (http://www.weare1.us/Polarity_Principles.html).

I looks as though sandokhan's subquark is whatever you like to make it. So I choose "A buxom ladies crocheted swim-suit".
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 22, 2019, 06:04:48 PM
Newton has already explained to you what is going on, but you won't listen.
I don't really care what someone long ago said.
But again, if you want to appeal to Newton, that means accepting that Earth is a round object, which rotates and orbits the sun.
If you don't want to accept that then stop appealing to Newton.

Here you need to defend your insane claims of a magical impossible aether magically slowing down light to virtually standstill speeds and magically effecting it by vastly different amount for different objects to make it seem like the known model of the solar system is correct. It is as if you have nature conspiring against you.
And yet you make absolutely no attempt to do so, and instead just spam more nonsense.

No where in that post of yours do you make any attempt at actually providing this aether exists or that this dome exists or that it can magically slow down light.
Instead you just appeal to a patent and yourself, pasting some text and pretending it proves it.
Grow up.

And of course, you completely ignored the other issue regarding the prism.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 10:00:06 PM
No where in that post of yours do you make any attempt at actually providing this aether exists

I have already done so, but you cannot escape your cognitive dissonance.

The LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is a fact of science: you have at your disposal the necessary and precise references.

Instead you just appeal to a patent and yourself

No.

Here we can see that you hate SCIENCE, since I have presented the GERTSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT (the conversion of a photon into a graviton).

Here are the references:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194420#msg2194420

The transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave when the electromagnetic wave propagates through a constant transverse magnetic field.

Inverse GZ effect: the birth of an electromagnetic field under the action of metric perturbation (equivalent of GW action) in the strong magnetic field.

Light passing through a strong magnetic field will produce a gravitational wave via wave resonance.


That patent belongs to the US NAVY.

It is being used at the highest possible level in mainstream science.

“The High Energy Electromagnetic Field Generator” (HEEMFG).

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus for generating an impenetrable defensive shield to Sea and Land as well as Space-based military and civilian assets, protecting these assets from such threats as Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles, Radar Evading Cruise Missiles, Top Attack for Main Battle Tanks (land and sea based systems), as well as counteracting the effects of solar-induced Coronal Mass Ejections or defending critical military satellites in an ASAT role (space based system).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/

The scientist behind the HEEMFG is no rogue inventor but works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) on advanced technology concepts. On two occasions, Dr. James Sheehy, the Chief Technology Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, a US Navy affiliated organization, has intervened on behalf of Dr. Pais’ patent applications deeming them “operable” .
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 10:06:50 PM
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
And your next equation can be rearranged to gsun = G x m(r)/r2.

Hence from your own equation and your own references gsun = G x m(r)/r2 = (6.67 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/6.96 x 108)2 = 274.0 m/s2.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again

Do you realize what you have done again?

Now, you have linked the VALUE OF G with the RADIUS OF THE SUN with g(solar surface).

Since you previously had connected g(solar surface) with the orbital angular velocity, now we have even more proofs that heliocentrism is completely wrong: YOU HAVE INVALIDATED THE VALUES OF G AND OF THE RADIUS OF THE SUN currently used.

You are a FE in disguise: nobody else could have done such a wonderful job to help FET.

So they can never be equated! I may have quite legitimately derived solar surface gravity from the Sidereal yea, the distance from earth to Sun and the Radius of Sun.

But it does not follow that simply that "If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) . . . . IS EQUAL TO ZERO"


But it does: you linked the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity. In one equation.

It is your doing: a wonderful achievement which now proves that a(sun) ACTUALLY EQUALS ZERO.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 10:16:29 PM
words...

If the sun is 15 km high and passenger planes fly approximately 12 km high, being that they are just 3 km below the Sun, why don't they all burst into flames due to what must be an incredibly intense heat?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 10:25:48 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 10:57:31 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

There's nothing in your link that indicates Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public. In other words, no evidence for such a claim. So without evidence, commercial airliners fly just below your Sun. Why don't they burst into flames from the intense heat?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 22, 2019, 11:01:08 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
What?!

Ever been on a plane, have you?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 11:14:54 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

There's nothing in your link that indicates Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public. In other words, no evidence for such a claim. So without evidence, commercial airliners fly just below your Sun. Why don't they burst into flames from the intense heat?

I retrieved the links from archive.org.

Now, the videos can be viewed:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 22, 2019, 11:36:50 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

There's nothing in your link that indicates Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public. In other words, no evidence for such a claim. So without evidence, commercial airliners fly just below your Sun. Why don't they burst into flames from the intense heat?

I retrieved the links from archive.org.

Now, the videos can be viewed:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464

Still broken and still no evidence. So why don't the planes burst into flames so close to the Sun?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 11:37:29 PM
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
No, they do not and there is nothing in that post of yours that proves otherwise.

All I see is some stuff based on unproven hypotheses, conspiracy theories and claims like this:
Quote from: sandokhan
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #512 on:
April 04, 2018, 01:01:13 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464)

EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818 (part I)

The Earth-Sun distance was first estimated to be somewhere around 25 km (in stark contrast to the 3000 mi distance claimed by the UA proponents). Using a variety of proofs, estimates and calculations, that distance was reduced to 12-15 km. Now, more proofs showing that this distance can be even lower, some 10 km.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The height of Mt. Everest has to be lower than the official estimate since the basic triangulation method does not take into account the different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*ql_mBFyTqTH8BG2p_jYDUw.jpeg)
First, your "EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II" is patently ridiculous because the angular size of the Sun is known to be the same (a little over 30 seconds of arc) wherever it is viewed from on Earth.
How would that be possible when the distance to YOUR sun could vary from 10 km to thousands of kilometres?

Your own reference does not mention "the different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether". All it says about ether is
Quote
The classical scientists such as Aristotle, Rene Descartes, Sir Isaac Newton and others believed that the light of the stars reaching us on earth crept spreading through a medium the so-called “Luminiferous Ether”. However various kinds of experiments had been made, among other was an experiment conducted by the American Scientists Michelson and Morrey in the 19th century, and all of those experiments failed to detect the presence of luminiferous ether, so that the ether is deemed non-existent. There is a possibility that luminiferous ether truly exists, but it cannot be proven.
You are again adding to the content of your reference. In other words, your own reference does not provide any support for your hypothesis "does not take into account the different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether".

Why don't you trust and accept your own references?

Quote from: sandokhan
But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device which is the source of energy for the Biefeld-Brown effect.
That's not a "fact"! It's no more than an unproven, unsupported hypothesis!
Quote from: sandokhan
An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.
And again, this is no more than another hypothesis, "Both methods  do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves."

Then you show these photos but why?
Quote from: sandokhan
Full moon over Mt. Everest
(http://amc-nh.org/committee/excursions/trips/20121117%20Trekking%20Nepal%20on%20our%20own/1500_Kaitrin%20and%20Grigory_20121126_15.jpg)      (https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3453/3298788895_9d6a1eabeb_b.jpg)
Whyever did you post those? There don't give any clue as to the distance of the moon from the Earth or support your ideas in the slightest!

But I will admit that the one on the right is a beautiful photograph an shows graphic evidence that the sun does indeed rise from below the horizon - but you accept tahe anyway.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 22, 2019, 11:52:55 PM
Use https://archive.org/ with (www.youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo), remove the space between youtube. and com, it was saved on March 20, 2018.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

First, your "EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II" is patently ridiculous because the angular size of the Sun is known to be the same (a little over 30 seconds of arc) wherever it is viewed from on Earth.
How would that be possible when the distance to YOUR sun could vary from 10 km to thousands of kilometres?


THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is a fact of science: I have already provided the bibliographical references.

That's not a "fact"! It's no more than an unproven, unsupported hypothesis!

But it is a fact since GPS satellites do not record/register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, nor the SOLAR GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL.

We also have the exact formula for the Biefeld-Brown effect: the power source for satellites.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 22, 2019, 11:58:50 PM
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
And your next equation can be rearranged to gsun = G x m(r)/r2.

Hence from your own equation and your own references gsun = G x m(r)/r2 = (6.67 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/6.96 x 108)2 = 274.0 m/s2.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again
Do you realize what you have done again?
I KNOW what I have done!

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, you have linked the VALUE OF G with the RADIUS OF THE SUN with g(solar surface).
And I know that I did NOT " linked the VALUE OF G with the RADIUS OF THE SUN with g(solar surface)"!

G is a universal constant and I took the value from YOU own reference!
"The VALUE OF G was taken from YOU reference, "Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf)" and I do have a copy.

"The RADIUS OF THE SUN" was taken from YOUR own reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and I do have a copy!

Read this again!
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
.
So all that I've done is to use values that YOU gave (via your references) to calculate that the surface gravity of the Sun, gsun = 274 m/s2.

This would be a lot less painful and frustrating if YOU went back to elementary school and learnt you read so that you might READ you own references and not "cherry-pick" what you think are the juicy morsels that support your hypotheses.

PS Take a hint! Only use references that support your hypotheses because, horror of horrors, you readers may even read your references!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 12:15:59 AM
Use https://archive.org/ with (www.youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo), remove the space between youtube. and com, it was saved on March 20, 2018.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

First, your "EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II" is patently ridiculous because the angular size of the Sun is known to be the same (a little over 30 seconds of arc) wherever it is viewed from on Earth.
How would that be possible when the distance to YOUR sun could vary from 10 km to thousands of kilometres?

You didn't answer the question attached - Try again!
Your "EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II" is patently ridiculous because the angular size of the Sun is known to be the same (a little over 30 seconds of arc) wherever it is viewed from on Earth.
How would that be possible when the distance to YOUR sun could vary from 10 km to thousands of kilometres?

Quote from: sandokhan
THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is a fact of science: I have already provided the bibliographical references.
"THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is" NOT "a fact of science". That is not how science works few things are claimed as "facts". Maybe "THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL" could be called a "theory".

But that's quite irrelevant anyway because C.C Su obviously believes that the Earth rotates on its, just look at even the title of this paper:
REINTERPRETATION OF FIZEAU’S EXPERIMENT WITH MOVING MEDIUM IN ACCORD WITH THE SAGNAC EFFECT DUE TO EARTH’S ROTATION by C.-C. Su (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf).
Why don't you believe your own references?

Quote from: sandokhan
That's not a "fact"! It's no more than an unproven, unsupported hypothesis!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 23, 2019, 12:31:31 AM
Use https://archive.org/ with (www.youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo), remove the space between youtube. and com, it was saved on March 20, 2018.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

Your links still don't work and still no evidence. But here's a Balloon at 38k feet filming a Delta flight whizzing by it. That height would put them just below the Sun yet both are not on fire. Why is that?

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:28:34 AM
Your links still don't work

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

Then, use the link as usual and wait. You will see that the video will appear on-screen, the link will now read "web.archive.org...). Click on the arrow and you'll be able to watch it.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

But here's a Balloon at 38k feet filming a Delta flight whizzing by it.

That's a weather balloon.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

Take a look at what the pressure of ether can do to simple sealed plastic container:

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

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:36:10 AM
"THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is" NOT "a fact of science". That is not how science works few things are claimed as "facts".

But it is a fact of science.

The RUDERFER experiment proves it (the first NULL RESULT IN ETHER DRIFT THEORY):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

That is why the reviewers at the Bulletin of American Physical Society, IOP, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves, have published the results obtained by Dr. C.C. Su.

Remember your other alternative: if you don't want to accept the local-ether model, then the EARTH IS STATIONARY.

Note that the author clearly recognizes that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun but to continually deny both of these.

Dr. C.C. Su has adopted the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL, which defies Newtonian Mechanics and TSR/TGR.

Everyone involved in the publication of his papers knows this very well: there is nothing that they can do SINCE THE GPS SATELLITES DO NOT RECORD THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You have to also adopt the local-ether model.

Again, you cannot have the Earth orbiting the Sun, and at the same time have no ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT registered by the satellites.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:39:51 AM
I KNOW what I have done!

Exactly!

Now, there can't be any denying on your part.

You have linked the orbital angular velocity, the G constant, the radius the Sun and the solar surface gravity into ONE EQUATION.

Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
And your next equation can be rearranged to gsun = G x m(r)/r2.

Hence from your own equation and your own references gsun = G x m(r)/r2 = (6.67 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/6.96 x 108)2 = 274.0 m/s2.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again

Since you previously had connected g(solar surface) with the orbital angular velocity, now we have even more proofs that heliocentrism is completely wrong: YOU HAVE INVALIDATED THE VALUES OF G AND OF THE RADIUS OF THE SUN currently used.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 23, 2019, 01:50:02 AM
Your links still don't work

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

Then, use the link as usual and wait. You will see that the video will appear on-screen, the link will now read "web.archive.org...). Click on the arrow and you'll be able to watch it.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

But here's a Balloon at 38k feet filming a Delta flight whizzing by it.

That's a weather balloon.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

Take a look at what the pressure of ether can do to simple sealed plastic container:

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

Again, there is nothing in those links you provided that show any proof that planes don't fly at the altitude as claimed by, well, everyone in the airplane business. Have you ever been on a jet plane? And I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft. You have provided no such evidence for your claim. So again, how can an airliner flying just 10k ft below the Sun not be on fire?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 02:05:56 AM
But I have.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

Then, use the link as usual and wait. You will see that the video will appear on-screen, the link will now read "web.archive.org...). Click on the arrow and you'll be able to watch it.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon


The author of the video is in a jet plane and he is filming a balloon right below.

He called the owner of that balloon and found that the altitude was 4,000 ft.

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 23, 2019, 02:24:04 AM
But I have.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

(remove the spaces between www. and youtube. and youtube. and com)

Then, use the link as usual and wait. You will see that the video will appear on-screen, the link will now read "web.archive.org...). Click on the arrow and you'll be able to watch it.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

The author of the video is in a jet plane and he is filming a balloon right below.

He called the owner of that balloon and found that the altitude was 4,000 ft.

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.

No you have not, nothing of the sort. The guy in the video is just sitting there in the cab of some construction crane talking about how he doesn't believe in this or that. Your video shows nothing, no evidence.

I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft. You have provided no such evidence for your claim. So again, how can an airliner flying just 10k ft below the Sun not be on fire?

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 02:25:55 AM
"THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is" NOT "a fact of science". That is not how science works few things are claimed as "facts".

But it is a fact of science.
So you say! But science does not have "facts" like that!

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why the reviewers at the Bulletin of American Physical Society, IOP, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves, have published the results obtained by Dr. C.C. Su.
Just because "the reviewers at the Bulletin of American Physical Society, IOP, Journal of Electromagnetic Waves, have published the results obtained by Dr. C.C. Su" does not make it a "fact of science"!

Also the rotation of the Globe is fundamental to Dr. C.C. Su's argument so you must accept that  the Earth is a rotating Globe, OK.

If you disagree then is General Relativity a "fact" of science?
Quote from: Kuantay Boshkayev, Jorge A. Rueda, Remo Ruffini, and Ivan Siutsou
ON GENERAL RELATIVISTIC UNIFORMLY ROTATING WHITE DWARFS, Published 2012 December 21 • © 2013. The American Astronomical Society. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 762, Number 2 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/762/2/117/meta)
Abstract
The properties of uniformly rotating white dwarfs (RWDs) are analyzed within the framework of general relativity. Hartle's formalism is applied to construct the internal and external solutions to the Einstein equations. The white dwarf (WD) matter is described by the relativistic Feynman-Metropolis-Teller equation of state which generalizes that of Salpeter by taking into account the finite size of the nuclei, and the Coulomb interactions as well as electroweak equilibrium in a self-consistent relativistic fashion. 
But I would not claim that even General Relativity is a "fact" of science because science does not have facts like that.

Quote from: sandokhan
Remember your other alternative: if you don't want to accept the local-ether model, then the EARTH IS STATIONARY.
Rubbish!  That in no ways follows. You powers of logical deduction are woeful.
It is not simply an either or situation, get used to it!
 
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 02:40:52 AM
But I have.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180320190251/https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=O6Lk7xlWCjo

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.
So what?
I've done the same with a GPS unit with an inbuilt aneroid altimeter. The cabin is pressurised to the pressure equivalent of about 8000 ft!

Then when I turn GPS reception on it uses the GPS derived altitude and that was close to the altitude the plane was cruising at.
The pressure altimeter the pilots have read, of course, outside air pressure.

But the pressure altitude planes observe is not always exactly the geometric altitude but is close.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 02:58:16 AM
The guy in the video

So it does work.

Now, on the web.archive.org you cannot fast forward the video, so you have to let it play.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

The author of the video is in a jet plane and he is filming a balloon right below.

He called the owner of that balloon and found that the altitude was 4,000 ft.

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.

I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft.

Please explain how the altitude was determined. GPS? Altimeter?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 03:00:05 AM
I've done the same with a GPS unit with an inbuilt aneroid altimeter. The cabin is pressurised to the pressure equivalent of about 8000 ft!

Not while filming a balloon which is right below the jet plane, flying at 4,000 ft.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 03:06:27 AM
Also the rotation of the Globe is fundamental to Dr. C.C. Su's argument

No.

Dr. C.C. Su is FORCED to accept a local-ether model (just like you have to), since the alternative is unacceptable to modern science, i.e. that the Earth is stationary.

That in no ways follows.

Obviously, if the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is MISSING, the Earth is stationary.

If you want the Earth in orbit around the Sun, you need the GPS satellites to register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

But I would not claim that even General Relativity is a "fact" of science because science does not have facts like that.

TGR is an incomplete theory.

Hermann Weyl used non-riemannian geometry to unify gravity and electricity: electrogravity.

FACT: the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.

(https://i.ibb.co/5YW8CPH/bie1.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/M8576CJ/bie2.jpg)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 04:16:56 AM
Also the rotation of the Globe is fundamental to Dr. C.C. Su's argument

No.
Dr. C.C. Su is FORCED to accept a local-ether model (just like you have to), since the alternative is unacceptable to modern science, i.e. that the Earth is stationary.
That is simply your claim with no evidence but just face the facts that his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.

Quote from: sandokhan
That in no ways follows.
Obviously, if the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is MISSING, the Earth is stationary.
If you want the Earth in orbit around the Sun, you need the GPS satellites to register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


But I would not claim that even General Relativity is a "fact" of science because science does not have facts like that.
TGR is an incomplete theory.
[/quote]
Your words but why then is General Relativity accepted as the best current theory.


Quote from: sandokhan
Hermann Weyl used non-riemannian geometry to unify gravity and electricity: electrogravity.
Let's be a little more precise shall we?
Quote
from: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (http://Hermann Weyl)
Weyl’s metric independent construction not only led to a deeper understanding of the mathematical characterization of gravity, it also prepared the way for new constructions and generalizations in differential geometry and the general theory of relativity. In particular, it led to
  • The development of the geometry of paths, first introduced by Weyl in 1918.
  • Weyl’s discovery of the causal-inertial method which prepared the way to empirically determine the spacetime metric in a non-circular, non-conventional manner.
  • Weyl’s generalization of Riemannian geometry in his attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism.
  • Weyl’s introduction of the concept of gauge in the context of his attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism.
I find this part interesting because from what I'd read Einstein would have preferred to include Mach's principle into General Relativity but was unable to.

Hermann Weyl's approach to Mach's principle seems close to the modern view of General Relativity.
Quote
  • 4.4 The Laws of Motion, Mach’s Principle, and Weyl’s Cosmological Postulate
    • 4.4.1 The Laws of Motion and Mach’s Principle
    • 4.4.2 Weyl’s Critique of Einstein’s Machian Ideas
In fact, if John D. Norton's "Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity: Relativity of Inertia ('Mach's Principle')" (https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html#L4669) is correct it would seem that Einstein's and Hermann Weyl’s views on Mach's Princilple were not all that different.


Elsewhere I see you refer to 3. On the theory of gravitation by Hermann Weyl (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/1917-Weyl-en.pdf)
From the little I've read of that in the time available, in that publication, Hermann Weyl is not unifying gravitation and electromagnetism (attractive as that might be) but is simply drawing analogies between gravitation and electromagnetism.

There never seems to be any conflict between Hermann Weyl and Einstein's General Relativity.

Quote from: sandokhan
FACT: the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.
(https://i.ibb.co/5YW8CPH/bie1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/M8576CJ/bie2.jpg)
It might be a fact that you have shown " the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" but that in no way makes that a fact of science!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 05:52:07 AM
his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.

This is not the first time you have made contradictory statements.

But G is not a universal constant.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation.
That's all quite irrelevant because we know that the whole "universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation.".
But G is still regarded as "universal constant" and is used with the same value everywhere, including in Clayton's equation.

You have just made TWO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.

because we know that the whole "universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation."

But G is still regarded as "universal constant"


That is why nobody takes your messages seriously any longer.

If the universe DOES not obey Newton's law of gravitation, then obviously G can no longer be regarded as a constant.


his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.

You are trolling the upper forums.

Dr. C.C. Su proved that the GPS satellites do not record/register the orbital Sagnac effect.

At this point in time the Earth is stationary.

In order to escape this frightening conclusion, relativists are making use of MLET, modified Lorentz ether theory, a local-ether model.

It might be a fact that you have shown " the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" but that in no way makes that a fact of science!

But it does.

It was tested at the Honda R&D Institute by Dr. Takaaki Musha:

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 confirm that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real.

The exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT is derived directly using Hermann Weyl's formidable 1917 paper:

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


The unification of electromagnetism and gravity was taken to an even higher level by Dr. M.E. Gertsenshtein and by Dr. Y.B. Zel'dovich:

Wave resonance of light and gravitational waves

http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_014_01_0084.pdf

Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field

http://jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_038_04_0652.pdf

GERTSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT: GRAVITON-PHOTON CONVERSION

This is pure ELECTROGRAVITY.

The transformation of an electromagnetic wave into a gravitational wave when the electromagnetic wave propagates through a constant transverse magnetic field.

Inverse GZ effect: the birth of an electromagnetic field under the action of metric perturbation (equivalent of GW action) in the strong magnetic field.

The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect can be used to create electron-positron pairs torsion fields (dextrorotatory subquarks-laevorotatory subquarks) out of the ether wave lattice.

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a method and apparatus for generating an impenetrable defensive shield to Sea and Land as well as Space-based military and civilian assets, protecting these assets from such threats as Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles, Radar Evading Cruise Missiles, Top Attack for Main Battle Tanks (land and sea based systems), as well as counteracting the effects of solar-induced Coronal Mass Ejections or defending critical military satellites in an ASAT role (space based system).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10135366B2/

The scientist behind the HEEMFG is no rogue inventor but works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) on advanced technology concepts. On two occasions, Dr. James Sheehy, the Chief Technology Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, a US Navy affiliated organization, has intervened on behalf of Dr. Pais’ patent applications deeming them “operable” .

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Macarios on November 23, 2019, 08:35:01 AM
M(earth): 5.972 × 10^24 kg
g(earth): 9.81 m / s^2

M(sun): 1.989 x 10^30 kg = 3.33 x 10^5 M(earth)
g(sun): 274 m / s^2 = 28 g(earth)

HOW can this show that "Sun orbits Earth and not Earth orbits Sun"? :)
It is obvious that the Sun is much bigger and the barycenter is near the Sun's center.

It doesn't prove your claim of "Sun nearly 10 km above the ground" at all.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 08:44:25 AM
The Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect is the Biefeld-Brown effect on steroids.

Not only do we get the antigravitational/electrogravitational effect, but also an electromagnetic wave will be transformed into a gravitational wave.

Mathematically it is fully justified.

And the graviton-photon conversion can even be intensified with the Li-Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194548#msg2194548
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sokarul on November 23, 2019, 11:21:18 AM
The original video was removed from YouTube because the uploaded realized you can’t use an instrument dependent on air pressure in a plane’s cabin.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 23, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
No where in that post of yours do you make any attempt at actually providing this aether exists
I have already done so, but you cannot escape your cognitive dissonance.
No, you haven't.
You just resort to your same spam.

you have at your disposal the necessary and precise references.
You are not a valid reference.
Your baseless claims lend no weight to your claims.

The times you do sometimes link to actual scientific articles, they don't back up your claims at all.

I have presented
I already explained what you presented.

You have presented no actual evidence. No actual references. No attempt at explaining the problems raised.

on board measurement using an altimeter
Was this altimeter exposed to the outside of the aircraft?
Or was it a GPS based one?
If not, it is useless.
The cabins of modern aircraft are pressurised so a barometer will not give the correct altitude.
Maybe that is why the video is no longer on youtube, because the creator is embarrassed with the level of stupidity in it?

Then, use the link as usual and wait.
Nope, we get:
Quote
Hrm.
The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.
Try again.

Both methods do not take into account
So what you are saying that even the method you want to use doesn't work.

Take a look at what the pressure of ether can do to simple sealed plastic container:
You mean look at what air pressure can do?
Air pressure is quite well understood.
No need for any of your nonsense.

Now how about you stop with the spam and deal with the topic at hand?

Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?
Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?

You are in no position to ask for any kind of an explanation, not when you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 23, 2019, 12:24:43 PM
<irrelavent off topic garbage>
You are in no position to ask for any kind of an explanation, not when you cannot even explain <off topic>.
You are in here, making many claims regarding the nature of light to try and reject reality as clearly shown by radar ranging.
As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask for an explanation.

You try to reject the results indicating a very large (and very large difference in) distance to the moon and Venus.
You do this by appealing to a magical dome made of an impossible material magically changing the speed of light for all wavelengths of light equally.
What is your evidence for this? Absolutely nothing.
As such, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask for evidence of this fantasy, including the math showing how these numbers are reached.

When it is pointed out that the refractive index is dependent upon wavelength, you appeal to the results of light passing through a prism which clearly shows this to be the case, yet claim it has nothing to do with it.
Yet when it is clearly explained why the results are what they are, you just ignore it and repeat the same assertions.
So again, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for an explanation.

So my requests are perfectly fine.

Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

If you don't have any you can just admit you have no idea and are just rejecting mainstream science because it shows you are wrong.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 12:31:26 PM
his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.

This is not the first time you have made contradictory statements.
Try again!
But that's quite irrelevant anyway because C.C Su obviously believes that the Earth rotates on its, just look at even the title of this paper:
REINTERPRETATION OF FIZEAU’S EXPERIMENT WITH MOVING MEDIUM IN ACCORD WITH THE SAGNAC EFFECT DUE TO EARTH’S ROTATION by C.-C. Su (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf).

Look at even the title of Dr Su's paper! Can't you read "IN ACCORD WITH THE SAGNAC EFFECT DUE TO EARTH’S ROTATION"?

Quote from: sandokhan
But G is not a universal constant.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation.
That's all quite irrelevant because we know that the whole "universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation.".
But G is still regarded as "universal constant" and is used with the same value everywhere, including in Clayton's equation.

You have just made TWO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.
No! I have not! Please learn to understand what is written and stop translating into what you would like it to mean.

Quote from: sandokhan
because we know that the whole "universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of "universal" gravitation."

"The universe DOES NOT obey Newton's law of universal gravitation" because Newton's law of universal gravitation is known to become progressively less accurate as we approach huge masses.

That failure of Newton's law of universal gravitation is quite accurately explained by Einsteins General Relativity.

Quote from: sandokhan

But G is still regarded as "universal constant".
There is not the slightest thing contradictory in that. For a start, Isaac Newton never even mentioned the Universal Gravitational Constant G!

But, in modern science, G is certainly regarded as a "universal constant".
It appears in a number of places but in particular still General Relativity appears in General Relativity, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lb1zio68ck3y3v5/General%20Relativity%20Equation.png?dl=1).

And I was just perusing a paper "Electromagnetic and gravitational waves in a stationary magnetic field by Ya. B. Zel'dovich".
Took at the very first equation in it:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/zzen9c9bq9z7psy/Electromagnetic%20and%20gravitational%20waves%20in%20a%20stationary%20magnetic%20field%20by%20Ya.%20B.%20Zel%27dovich%20Eqn%201.png?dl=1).
I do believe that the Universal Gravitational Conatant even appears in the equations for the Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect! Have you ever heard of that?

Now stop talking rubbish!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 12:42:38 PM
G is valid only right here on Earth.

Not anywhere else.

You want to apply G to outer space, you better PROVE that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun.

This is the reason why when you relate the orbital angular velocity and the solar surface gravity and G and the radius of the Sun in a single equation you get nonsensical results.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 01:01:48 PM
Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?
There isn't any because gravitation is not inherently an attractive mechanism! Learn a little about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. You might even learn something from the publication based on Hermann Weyl lectures at Stanford on General Relativity.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Who says that there is any "missing orbital Sagnac effect"?

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?
It wasn't "fabricated data" but places where Tycho Brahe had erroneous angle observations, many due to an incomplete understanding of astronomical refraction very close to the horizon. Tycho Brahe was one of the first do study astronomical refraction and first used observations of the Sun's angle and later on Jupiter's but found that they didn't agree.
Many of his observations of Mars were from very close to the horizon because he was trying to use diurnal parallax to measure the distance to Mars.
Tycho Brahe was an excellent astronomer but had no telescope, only huge quadrants and an armillary sphere.

Quote from: sandokhan
You are in no position to ask for any kind of an explanation, not when you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity.
See what JackBlack says about that but please explain:
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:17:10 PM
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses. Perhaps you can fool yourself, but not your readers.

The "four trillion billion liters of water staying glued" to anything! Go down to the beach and sit and watch the waves and the tide - nothing "glued" there.

That's not an explanation, that's nothing at all.

You can't explain how water stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

There isn't any because gravitation is not inherently an attractive mechanism! Learn a little about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine.

Please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere using TGR.

Who says that there is any "missing orbital Sagnac effect"?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever
. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.



Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.


THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

LISA Space Antenna

(https://image.ibb.co/ivHjjS/lisa2.jpg)

The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).

(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.



The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING. Then, the Earth is stationary. Or you have to accept the local-ether model.

The  Biefeld-Brown effect in a perfect vacuum is quite unproven anyway.

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 systčme commence ŕ entrer ŕ 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://i.ibb.co/Mgmj583/brvac.jpg)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:19:49 PM
It wasn't "fabricated data" but places where Tycho Brahe had erroneous angle observations, many due to an incomplete understanding of astronomical refraction very close to the horizon. Tycho Brahe was one of the first do study astronomical refraction and first used observations of the Sun's angle and later on Jupiter's but found that they didn't agree.
Many of his observations of Mars were from very close to the horizon because he was trying to use diurnal parallax to measure the distance to Mars.


You still don't get it.

Kepler FAKED his entire set of data, regardless of what Tycho Brahe observed.

The author of your reference did not do his homework at all.

Here is how Kepler intentionally FABRICATED/FUDGED/FAKED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia:

(https://image.ibb.co/ndKidb/kpl1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/kenTdb/kpl2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/ch4oBw/kpl4.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fFVH4G/kpl5.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/jT9Ydb/kpl6.jpg)

Kepler faked/fudged/falsified the entire set of data obtained from Brahe, and used the ellipse to calculate the final entries for his tables.

Kepler FAKED THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA, and announced to the world he got it from a nonexistent elliptical orbit.

The elliptical orbit WAS NOT based on observational astronomical data.

It was simply written in by Kepler.

As such, his book is a work of FICTION.

No science involved.

The observational input is nil.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

Kepler used the elliptical hypothesis to calculate the tables.


That is not the same as computing the Mars-Sun distances from Brahe's observational data (directly from observations).

Moreover the longitudes in Kepler's tables were calculated with the aid of the area law of the ellipse AND NOT from direct observational values.


Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?


“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical
."

Kepler faked his entire set of data to match the ellipse.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit.


(http://image.ibb.co/iQwvTm/kpl8.jpg)

DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.

He faked all of the entries.


(https://image.ibb.co/kenTdb/kpl2.jpg)

KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.

(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)

For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=16&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

The only sheer work involved was that of faking and replacing the correct entries by fudged entries.

Kepler simply replaced everything with data which suited his purpose.

Is this what you call science?

There was no observational input at all.

None whatsoever.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

(https://image.ibb.co/js8vPG/kpl3.jpg)

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 01:32:17 PM
G is valid only right here on Earth.
Not anywhere else.
Incorrect! Both of your own references "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) use G in their analysis of the pressure distribution in stars including the Sun.

And I'll accept their word before yours any day!

Quote from: sandokhan
You want to apply G to outer space, you better PROVE that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun.
That't funny then! All of your own references by Dr C.C. Su, Dr A. C. Phillips and Rick Bradford seem to "assume" that "that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun" - funny that.

Quote from: sandokhan
This is the reason why when you relate the orbital angular velocity and the solar surface gravity and G and the radius of the Sun in a single equation you get nonsensical results.
No, I never got any "nonsensical results", YOU DID!

And your own references all use the expression g(r) = G x M(r)/r2 and using the correct values for G, mass of sun and radius of sun you get gsun = 274 m/s2.


G is valid only right here on Earth.
Incorrect! All of your own references regard G as universal! Tnis also includes the work on the Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect.

Look, if you expect anyone to take you seriously (and no one seems to) find references that support your hypotheses.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:40:14 PM
All of your own references by Dr C.C. Su, Dr A. C. Phillips and Rick Bradford seem to "assume" that "that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun" - funny that.

You cannot assume the Earth is rotating around its own axis, if there is NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites.

That is why Dr. C.C. Su is practically forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

No, I never got any "nonsensical results"

But you did, SINCE YOU ASSUMED A CERTAIN VALUE FOR THE ORBITAL ANGULAR VELOCITY.

You have linked the orbital angular velocity, the G constant, the radius the Sun and the solar surface gravity into ONE EQUATION.

Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
Quote
1.4 THE SUN
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property   
Value
Mass    Mo = 1.99 x 1030 kg
Radius    Ro = 6.96 x 108 m
In Ricks Cosmology Tutorial: Chapter 11  Stellar Structure Part 1 (http://www.rickbradford.co.uk/Chapter11_StellarStructurePart1.pdf) we find "The central pressure from Equ.(22) is also given above (using G = 6.67 x 10-11 in MKSA units)"
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 1030 kg and the radius is 6.96 x 108 m
And your next equation can be rearranged to gsun = G x m(r)/r2.

Hence from your own equation and your own references gsun = G x m(r)/r2 = (6.67 x 10-11 x 1.99 x 1030)/6.96 x 108)2 = 274.0 m/s2.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again

Since you previously had connected g(solar surface) with the orbital angular velocity, now we have even more proofs that heliocentrism is completely wrong: YOU HAVE INVALIDATED THE VALUES OF G AND OF THE RADIUS OF THE SUN currently used.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.

All of your own references regard G as universal!

G is valid only right here on Earth.

Not anywhere else.

You want to apply G to outer space, you better PROVE that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun.

This is the reason why when you relate the orbital angular velocity and the solar surface gravity and G and the radius of the Sun in a single equation you get nonsensical results.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on November 23, 2019, 01:44:25 PM
Why do you continue to spam post?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 01:47:45 PM
Explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Everything I post is directly related to the issues raised by the RE.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 23, 2019, 02:03:13 PM
Explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Everything I post is directly related to the issues raised by the RE.

You have not done your homework. And clearly have never been on a plane before.

Again, there is nothing in those links you provided that show any proof that planes don't fly at the altitude as claimed by, well, everyone in the airplane business.

And I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft. I can provide a lot more evidence than your guy sitting in a crane cab video blabbing on about stuff. If you want, I could overwhelm you with evidence. Just say the word and I'll open up the floodgates.

You have provided no such evidence for your claim. So again, how can an airliner flying just 10k ft below the Sun not burst into flames?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 23, 2019, 02:27:55 PM
Quote
Explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Everything I post is directly related to the issues raised by the RE.

Firstly that is easy to explain if you model the Earth as a sphere with a centre of gravity in the centre of that sphere. That means naturally that each one of the molecules contained in those four trillion billion litres of water is being pulled towards the centre of the Earth.

Secondly in that case you have a much less clear understanding of what RE is all about than you think you do.  None of the equations or other fancy stuff you repeatedly post can hide that to the rest of us. 

Your main problem, which is so obvious to everyone else is that you simply refuse to accept anything other than what lies within your own very narrow belief spectrum. You will dismiss that comment of course, but hey we are all used to that aren't we! 

Where did you learn all that fancy maths stuff anyway? which university or universities did you go to?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 02:54:40 PM
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses. Perhaps you can fool yourself, but not your readers.

The "four trillion billion liters of water staying glued" to anything! Go down to the beach and sit and watch the waves and the tide - nothing "glued" there.
That's not an explanation, that's nothing at all.
You can't explain how water stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.
There is nothing meaningless at all! Do YOU drift off into space? Why not? The same reason that water does not drift off into space!

Quote from: sandokhan
There isn't any because gravitation is not inherently an attractive mechanism! Learn a little about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.
Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Quote from: sandokhan
Fine.
Please explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere using TGR.
If YOU insist.

Now YOU explain how "four trillion billion liters of water staying glued" to anything! Water CANNOT be glued to anything!

Quote from: sandokhan
Who says that there is any "missing orbital Sagnac effect"?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.
The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.
Really? From that paper, I get the impression that "it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations".

And the author also recognises that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun - why don't YOU accept that?

You did read this, I suppose?:
Quote
Abstract. – By examining the effects of rotational and orbital motions of the Earth on wave propagation in the global positioning system and an intercontinental microwave link, it is pointed out that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations, while the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. As the propagation mechanism in the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be different from that in the aforementioned ones, it is concluded that due to the Earth’s rotation, the shift in interference fringe in this famous experiment is not exactly zero. However, by virtue of the round-trip propagation path, this shift becomes second order and hence is too small to observe within the present precision.

And this:
Quote
Conclusion. – By examining the Sagnac effect in GPS and a transpacific microwave link, it is found that the Earth’s orbital motion has no influence on these earthbound wave propagations. However, the Earth’s rotation does contribute to the Sagnac effect. Thus the propagation mechanism in these microwave signals is actually in accord with the classical model with the unique propagation frame being an ECI frame. As the propagation mechanism
in the terrestrial Michelson-Morley experiment in no way can be different from that in GPS and intercontinental microwave link, it is concluded that by virtue of the round-trip Sagnac effect due to the Earth’s rotation, the shift in interference fringe in the Michelson-Morley experiment is not exactly zero, but is too small to detect. This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude.
These earthbound experiments along with the interplanetary ones then provide a support for the local-ether model of wave propagation recently presented.

What "missing orbital Sagnac"?

Note this: "This reinterpretation is fundamentally different from that based on the special relativity, although the difference is quite small in magnitude."
Su uses a Local Ether model to explain it whereas General Relativity might be better but the Institute of Physics does not censor well-written technically correct papers that differ from "modern science" because there is no such thing as a single body of knowledge "modern science".

If you want a Nobel prize just prove that General Relativity is incorrect in some way because either GR, Quantum mechanics or more like both are know to be incomplete.

And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an authir that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:
Quote
Abstract
Different explanations for the Sagnac effect are discussed. It is shown that this effect is a consequence of the relativistic law of velocity composition and that it can also be explained adequately within the framework of general relativity.

When certain restrictions on the rotational velocity are imposed, the Sagnac effect can be attributed to the difference in the time dilation (or phase change) of material particle wave functions in the scalar (or correspondingly vector) gravitational potential of the inertial forces in a rotating reference system for counterpropagating waves.

It is also shown that all the nonrelativistic interpretations of the Sagnac effect, which are unfortunately sometimes found in scientific papers, monographs and textbooks, are wrong in principle, even though the results they yield are accurate up to relativistic corrections in some special cases.
In brief, the Sagnac effect needs General Relativity for a complete explanation but other explanations, including Su's "Local Ether Model" can gives close results.

And I've ignored LISA again because the geometry of LISA is totally different from the GPS system.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 03:21:13 PM
All of your own references by Dr C.C. Su, Dr A. C. Phillips and Rick Bradford seem to "assume" that "that the Earth is rotating around its own axis, and that it is orbiting the Sun" - funny that.

You cannot assume the Earth is rotating around its own axis, if there is NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites.
I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".
And YOU have never proven that there isn't.

But you are great on these either/or choices when to should be looking for a better explanation and come up with such weird results in consequence.
A prime example is your 600 m diameter sun that is 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or 10 km above the Earth. 

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Dr. C.C. Su is practically forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.
No it is not. That has nothing to do with the case!
That "the Earth is rotating around its own axis" and orbiting the sun has been regarded as close enough to proven for centuries - get up to date!

Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
But two authors that YOU have quoted from, Hermann Weyl and Grigorii B Malykin, do accept General Relativity which is needed to accurately explain the Sagnac Effect.

Various ether models have been used to explain different observations but it is General Relativity that "fits all".

Quote from: sandokhan
No, I never got any "nonsensical results"
Stop repeating the same old many times refuted and explained spam!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: MouseWalker on November 23, 2019, 07:59:16 PM
Quote
In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


(https://image.ibb.co/iMSdB7/lisa3.jpg)

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Do you understand what you have done? YOU have just provided the BEST PROOF of my statement: the diameter of the Sun indeed has some 600 meters.

By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 23, 2019, 09:19:25 PM
The guy in the video

So it does work.

Now, on the web.archive.org you cannot fast forward the video, so you have to let it play.

16:15 - 18:52 real cruising altitude of aircrafts is around 7,500 ft; on board measurement using an altimeter; comparison of altitudes using a hot air balloon

The author of the video is in a jet plane and he is filming a balloon right below.

He called the owner of that balloon and found that the altitude was 4,000 ft.

Then, he presents FOUR different instances where the pilot says that the cruising altitude is 37,000 ft, while the altimeter in his hand shows ~7,700 ft.

I even presented evidence of a plane flying at nearly 40k ft.

Please explain how the altitude was determined. GPS? Altimeter?

I finally got to that part in the video. Btw, it's authored by Enslaved By No Media, a profound idiot. He also claims commercial airplanes are really only several feet in size, all in for chemtrails, planes don't run on fuel, and everyone in the airline industry is a fraud.
So in the video, he whips out his altimeter in the cabin and proceeds to measure the cabin pressure which shows him at 7100 feet. Airplanes are pressurized to between 6-8000 feet. Like I said, he is a profound idiot. If you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly.

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 09:31:39 PM
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a huge space version of LIGO. It 's purpose is to detect longer and weaker gravitational waves.

Quote from: NASA
WHAT is LISA? (https://lisa.nasa.gov)LISA is a space-based gravitational wave detector constructed of three spacecraft separated by millions of miles.

LISA's Size and Precision are Out of this World

LISA consists of three spacecraft that are separated by millions of miles and trailing tens of millions of miles, more than one hundred times the distance to the Moon, behind the Earth as we orbit the Sun. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime. We need a giant detector bigger than the size of Earth to catch gravitational waves from orbiting black holes hundreds of millions of times more massive than our sun. NASA is a major collaborator in the European Space Agency (ESA)-led mission, which is scheduled to launch in the early 2030s and we are getting ready for it now!

LISA's enormous detector size and orbit, trailing behind the Earth as it orbits the Sun, are illustrated here. Credit: AEI/Milde Marketing



Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: MouseWalker on November 23, 2019, 09:38:48 PM
what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is a huge space version of LIGO. It 's purpose is to detect longer and weaker gravitational waves.

Quote from: NASA
WHAT is LISA? (https://lisa.nasa.gov)LISA is a space-based gravitational wave detector constructed of three spacecraft separated by millions of miles.

LISA's Size and Precision are Out of this World

LISA consists of three spacecraft that are separated by millions of miles and trailing tens of millions of miles, more than one hundred times the distance to the Moon, behind the Earth as we orbit the Sun. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime. We need a giant detector bigger than the size of Earth to catch gravitational waves from orbiting black holes hundreds of millions of times more massive than our sun. NASA is a major collaborator in the European Space Agency (ESA)-led mission, which is scheduled to launch in the early 2030s and we are getting ready for it now!

LISA's enormous detector size and orbit, trailing behind the Earth as it orbits the Sun, are illustrated here. Credit: AEI/Milde Marketing

I should have addressed the question to  sandokhan I want his answer.
He uses it so much.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 09:55:59 PM
I finally got to that part in the video. Btw, it's authored by Enslaved By No Media, a profound idiot. He also claims commercial airplanes are really only several feet in size, all in for chemtrails, planes don't run on fuel, and everyone in the airline industry is a fraud.
So in the video, he whips out his altimeter in the cabin and proceeds to measure the cabin pressure which shows him at 7100 feet. Airplanes are pressurized to between 6-8000 feet. Like I said, he is a profound idiot. If you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly.

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
You're out of date ;D! The sun's  down to 10 km ::) now!
Quote from: sandokhan
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #512 on:
April 04, 2018, 01:01:13 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464)

EARTH-SUN DISTANCE: ~10 KILOMETERS II
There, right from horse's mouth!

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939818#msg1939818 (part I)

The Earth-Sun distance was first estimated to be somewhere around 25 km (in stark contrast to the 3000 mi distance claimed by the UA proponents). Using a variety of proofs, estimates and calculations, that distance was reduced to 12-15 km. Now, more proofs showing that this distance can be even lower, some 10 km.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The height of Mt. Everest has to be lower than the official estimate since the basic triangulation method does not take into account the different refractive indexes for each layer of aether and ether.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*ql_mBFyTqTH8BG2p_jYDUw.jpeg)

Chicken Little ... Sky is falling ...  by KidsFun
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 23, 2019, 10:23:08 PM
I should have addressed the question to sandokhan. I want his answer.
He uses it so much.
Thanks.
So sorry ;D! I'd love to see that answer too, but he'll have his excuses.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 10:37:12 PM
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.


I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".

Everyone here is laughing at you.

You simply do not understand what is going on.

You are refusing to accept reality.

The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT proves that IF the orbital Sagnac and the solar gravitational effect are MISSING, then the local-ether model exists.

No other options are available.

That is why Dr. C.C. Su was forced to accept this local-ether model, because otherwise the Earth is stationary.

Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Certainly one has to give up Einstein's version of relativity and totally embrace Lorentz' ether model.

Einstein's relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You need to the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL to even try to approach this problem.

And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an authir that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:

Dr. A.G. Kelly proved that G. Malykin was wrong on this one.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.

Completely wrong.

HERE IS THE DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors stipulate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

Therefore, everything that follows, Einstein's field equations, are based on the SAME ASSUMPTION.

And G is valid only here on Earth, not anywhere else.

That is why Hermann Weyl added the AFFINE CONNECTION/NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY in order to apply relativity to dynamical situations. AFFINE CONNECTION = ETHER FIELD.

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.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Proven in the above paper.


Now, let us go back to this statement, witnessed by all of you here.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, there is NO general relativity at all either.

What "missing orbital Sagnac"?

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 23, 2019, 10:55:41 PM
Sandokhan, how dare you peddle your faulty wares here? You tried to convince a peer group on another forum, and got locked out, right? So even though you know you are wrong, you continue as if it makes it okay?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 23, 2019, 11:10:18 PM
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses.
No, that would be you, repeatedly.

Now how about you try and back up your wild claims?
No where in those mountains of off topic spam do you make any attempt at justifying your claims.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 23, 2019, 11:24:29 PM
I have already explained each and everyone of these phenomenons: the local-ether model, Newton's explanation for the refraction of light (variable speed of light).

All it takes is to prove that the speed of light is superluminal: the original set of Maxwell's equation IS INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

But you are unable to accept these clear facts.

I even posted the references to the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT, the conversion of photons into gravitons.

Yet, you are not here to debate or to listen.

You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity at all.

Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?

Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 23, 2019, 11:56:33 PM
I have already explained each and everyone of these phenomenons
Can you read English?
If you could, you would know that I am not just asking for explanations, I am also asking for evidence.
You are yet to provide any evidence for your insane claims.

Also, you haven't explained what has been asked of you.

the speed of light is superluminal
Are you aware that is literally a direct contradiction?
You are saying the speed of light is faster than the speed of light, i.e. c>c.
This makes no sense at all.

the original set of Maxwell's equation
Are a collection of equations which cannot be used to make any insane claims about the very question of their applicability.

I even posted the references
Again, linking to yourself is not providing a reference.

You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain <off topic>
As already explained, as you are making a bunch of baseless claims, I am in a perfectly valid position to ask you for explanations and evidence.
You not liking the explanations and evidence for this quite unrelated to the topic at hand is irrelavent.

<More pathetic off topic garbage>
If you want to discuss all that off topic garbage, go make a thread on it.

If you want to discuss something in this thread, then try keeping it on topic.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

You repeatedly needing to avoid these with off topic garbage just shows you have no case.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:04:32 AM
I am also asking for evidence.
You are yet to provide any evidence for your claims.

You are saying the speed of light is faster than the speed of light, i.e. c>c.
This makes no sense at all.


Let me show you just how wrong you are.

Then, it follows that you are just as wrong about everything else.

I have already provided the proofs for the existence of the Dome (local-ether model), the modified speed of light to Venus (Gertsenshtein-Zel'dovich effect), the variable speed of light model of Newton for the refraction.

But you are here only to deny, not to listen.

Fine.

Here is the direct proof that the original set of equations of Maxwell is indeed INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

The derivation starts exactly from the integral equations published by two of the top textbooks of the 20th century:

Arnold S (1971) Electrodynamics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, USA
Smirnov VI (2014) A course of higher mathematics. Pergamon Press, USA

Maxwell's equations in integral form.

Then, it's a straightforward calculation:

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

as what you claim of Einstein

This is what Einstein claimed:

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

A. Einstein, 1905

Not Maxwell's equations, but the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Maxwell's original set of equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, as has been directly proven in the above derivation.

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply only to a static system.

Maxwell's original set of equations apply to dynamical systems as well.



insane claims

You repeatedly needing to avoid these with off topic garbage just shows you have no case.


The first thing you have to explain is terrestrial gravity.

Yet you are unable to do so.

Nothing is more insane, scientifically, than to claim that four billion trillion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 12:05:57 AM
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.
And that video is made by a complete retard that claims that planes run on compressed air etc, etc and YOU believe it ::).

Quote from: sandokhan
I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".

Everyone here is laughing at you.

You simply do not understand what is going on.

You are refusing to accept reality.
No, that's you and I suspect that it's you that "everyone here is laughing at"!

Quote from: sandokhan
The RUDERFER EXPERIMENT proves that IF the orbital Sagnac and the solar gravitational effect are MISSING, then the local-ether model exists.

No other options are available.
Really? Try General Relativity.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Dr. C.C. Su was forced to accept this local-ether model, because otherwise the Earth is stationary.
Dr. C.C. Su is forced to accept the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL only because he cannot accept Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Certainly one has to give up Einstein's version of relativity and totally embrace Lorentz' ether model.
Try  one has to give up using Einstein Special Relativity in case where General RElativity is necessary as Grigorii B Malykin clearly states.

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein's relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
Try Einstein's Special Relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Quote from: sandokhan
And you might know this paper by Grigorii B Malykin an author that YOU has resorted to. the abstract to his "The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations" by Grigorii B Malykin is:

Dr. A.G. Kelly proved that G. Malykin was wrong on this one.
He did - where? I think I'll accept G. Malykin, thank you!
Ir appears that neither you nor Dr. A.G. Kelly have heard of general Relativity!

Quote from: sandokhan
The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
That is why General Relativity is needed for an accurate analysis! Try General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri (https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1643)

Quote from: sandokhan
The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.
The Sagnac effect can be analysed approximately as a non-relativistic effect but General Relativity is needed to do that accurately..

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime in such a way that a geodesic, ie the path taken by an object in free-fall, is curved ever so slightly towards that massive object, the Earth.

Completely wrong.
Incorrect! And you own reference explains that quite thoroughly! Try actually reading it!

Quote from: sandokhan
HERE IS THE DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity
No, that is NOT a "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".
Had you even read the title or better read the paper you'd note that said "From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity" and NOT "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".

Quote from: sandokhan
From the very start, section 2, the authors stipulate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.
OK, so what?

Quote from: sandokhan
Therefore, everything that follows, Einstein's field equations, are based on the SAME ASSUMPTION.
Rubbish, because Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava do not derive Einstein's Theory of General Relativity from Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation.

Quote from: sandokhan
And G is valid only here on Earth, not anywhere else.
Rubbish! Your own references, including  Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava all use G as a Fundamental Universal Constant.

Quote from: sandokhan
That is why Hermann Weyl added the AFFINE CONNECTION/NON-RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY in order to apply relativity to dynamical situations. AFFINE CONNECTION = ETHER FIELD.
Stop putting your own twisted interpretations into your references!
Quote
Spacetime is not a medium in the sense of the old ether concept. No ether in that sense exists here. Just as the electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium but constitute independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, so, according to Weyl, the geometrical fields are independent irreducible physical fields.

Quote from: sandokhan
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.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

Proven in the above paper.
No! And if YOU think that is "Proven in the above paper" you either haven't read or haven't understood that paper.
General Relativity does NOT rely on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL but it does reduce to giving the same reults for low velocities and low enough masses.


Quote from: sandokhan
Now, let us go back to this statement, witnessed by all of you here.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!
I'll again ignore LISA because it's geometry is nothing like that of the GNSS.

Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 12:28:38 AM
Why are you asking JackBlack? Most of this has been explained plenty of times!

I even posted the references to the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVICH EFFECT, the conversion of photons into gravitons.
And what was the relevance of that? I didn't think you believed in relativity? have you had a change of heart or not even read the papers on it?

Quote from: sandokhan
Yet, you are not here to debate or to listen.
You must be joking! When you explain how you calculated you Sun's size and distance I might listen till then - not a chance!

Quote from: sandokhan
You are in no position to ask for anything since you cannot even explain terrestrial gravity at all.
Maybe JackBlack hasn't but I have and YOU refused to agree even though you own references seem to suourt my explanations.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for having four trillion billion liters of water staying glued to the outer surface of a sphere?
For a start "four trillion billion liters of water" DO NOT "stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere"! You cannot glue water!

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the attractive mechanism of gravity?[/b][/color]
I don't have one because gravitation is an inertial force, not an attractive force.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?
Maybe if you believed General Relativity you might find that there is none! C.C. Su found no "missing orbital Sagnac effect" with his local-ether model.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for the fact that the Biefeld-Brown effect defies newtonian mechanics?
I don't have to because it is quite unproven in a perfect vacuum.

Quote from: sandokhan
Where is your explanation for Kepler's fabricated data?
I don't need to. Whatever the case with Kepler's data it hasn't the slightest effect anything now. The motion of the planets is calculated using Newtonian Mechanics and/or General Relativity with nothing from Kepler.

JackBlack will probably have better answers because he's the scientist, not I!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:32:38 AM
You are trolling this forum.

Proving my point to the admin and to the mods: you are here only to deny, nothing else.

It's a little game to you.

And that video is made by a complete retard that claims that planes run on compressed air etc, etc and YOU believe it

The author of the video PROVES that the actual altitude of the airplane is some 7,000 ft at most.

He is filming the balloon right below, while at the same time he has an altimeter to prove it.

Don't you get it?

The cabin pressure IS the actual reading of the altitude.

He called the owner of the balloon and proved it.

Try Einstein's Special Relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You cannot.

Both Dr. A.G. Kelly and Dr. Post PROVE THAT the Sagnac effect is non-relativistic effect.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH STR

STR stipulates that the time t' recorded by an observer moving at velocity v is slower than the time to recorded by a stationary observer, according to:

to = t'γ

where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2 = 1 + v2/2c2 + O(v/c)4...

to = t'(1 + v2/2c2)


dtR = (to - t')/to = v2/(v2 + 2c2)

dtR = relativity time ratio



Now, to - t' = 2πr/c - 2πr/(c + v) = 2πrv/(c + v)c

dt' = to - t' = tov/(c + v)


dtS = (to - t')/to = v/(v + c)


dtS = Sagnac ratio


dtS/dtR = (2c2 + v2)/v(v + c)

When v is small as compared to c, as is the case in all practical experiments, this ratio
reduces to 2c/v.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.


See how easy it is to debunk your misinformed claims?


That is why General Relativity is needed for an accurate analysis! Try General relativistic Sagnac formula revised by Paolo Maraner · Jean-Pierre Zendri

The main term is the CORIOLIS EFFECT, followed by corrections.

Here is the entire discussion:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83165.msg2203699#msg2203699

No, that is NOT a "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".
Had you even read the title or better read the paper you'd note that said "From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity" and NOT "DERIVATION OF EINSTEIN'S FIELD EQUATIONS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION".


You are showing to everyone that you know nothing of Newtonian mechanics.

Nothing at all.

Newton's law of gravitation is developed into the POISSON EQUATION, then Einstein's field equations follow quite easily.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-bystep generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is
Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



Rubbish, because Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava do not derive Einstein's Theory of General Relativity from Newton's Universal Theory of Gravitation.

I have quoted you from the paper the statements which do prove that the authors derived the Einstein field gravitational equation directly from Newton's law of gravitation.

Which means you are denying reality.

You are trolling this forum.


Stop putting your own twisted interpretations into your references!

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


General Relativity does NOT rely on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL but it does reduce to giving the same reults for low velocities and low enough masses.

But it does exactly that: as proven in the paper I just referenced.

In most presentations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to
Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for
the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use
a bottom-up approach to obtain Einstein’s field equation from Newton’s universal
gravitation.

TGR is derived directly from Newton's law of attractive gravitation, using the Poisson equation.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-bystep generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is
Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



You have just been proven WRONG.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 24, 2019, 12:32:46 AM
So in the video

Yes, in the video while the pilot is claiming that the airplane is at cruising speed, the author is filming a balloon which can be seen right below. He called the owner of the balloon and found out that the maximum altitude is 4,000 ft.

No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence. Based upon his idiocy elsewhere, claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude, among his many other erroneous claims, it seems all made up.

And I have a million better examples proving that he is making it up. If you would like me to spill them all here I'll make your longest copy/paste post look like a paragraph. Just let me know.

So like I said, if you want to hang your hat on this guy and his ridiculously uninformed video as a premise for your theories feel free to lessen your credibility accordingly. Is that really what you want to do?

Now, how do planes not burst into flames when they are flying a mere 10k feet from the Sun?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:35:01 AM
No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence.

That is exactly what happened.

claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude

The cabin pressure is the actual altitude of the plane.

He is filming the balloon right below, at the same time.

The maximum altitude for that balloon is 4,000 ft.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 24, 2019, 12:38:05 AM
No, actually in the video the GUY, Enslaved By No Media, is claiming that the pilot is saying they just dropped to 36k ft to avoid turbulence. Then he cuts to the balloon. It's just him saying that, we never hear the pilot or any other evidence.

That is exactly what happened.

claiming that they are at 7000 ft when he's reading the cabin pressure of the plane and trying to pass it off as altitude

The cabin pressure is the actual altitude of the plane.

He is filming the balloon right below, at the same time.

The maximum altitude for that balloon is 4,000 ft.

How is the cabin pressure the actual altitude of the plane? You've never heard of a pressurized cabin?

Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video? If so, just say the word 'go'.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:40:08 AM
For a start "four trillion billion liters of water" DO NOT "stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere"! You cannot glue water!

They are GLUED to the outer surface of a sphere in your fantasy world.

However, you are unable to explain how this happens.

I don't have one because gravitation is an inertial force, not an attractive force.

You can no longer make this claim.

Newton's law of gravitation is developed into the POISSON EQUATION, then Einstein's field equations follow quite easily.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf


In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we
obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field.



C.C. Su found no "missing orbital Sagnac effect" with his local-ether model.

Let's put your word to the test.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever
. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.



Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:47:09 AM
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376

For your information, the jet engine was invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER, using double torsion physics.

(http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/picturesc/sch250.jpg)

In documents dated 1941, V. Schauberger describes how Professor Ernst Heinkel, the designer of the first successful jet-plane (first flight 27 Aug 1939), had illegally obtained sight of Viktor's preliminary applications at the Patent Office in Berlin through his patent attorneys, Lehmann-Harlens. Having studied them carefully, Heinkel then expressed his disinterest in them, but immediately inaugurated a covert research programme using this information in modified form to improve the performance of his 1,000 kph fighter, most probably the He 280. This was an indictable infringement of Viktor's still confidential application. Wishing to avoid discovery and in order to continue to make use of the unlawfully obtained data, Heinkel fraudulently attempted to have Viktor's patent restricted to the conversion of sea water into fresh water only, by having its application to aircraft and submarine propulsion disallowed.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170611101930/http://free-energy.xf.cz/SCHAUBERGER/Living_Energies.pdf

The story goes like this, as narrated by Schauberger and from his letter-correspondence:

At some point in time Schauberger met Heinkel. He mentioned his special "Turbine" for propulsion which shall have an extraordinary performance. Heinkel was interested and Schauberger explained the engine to him, drew sketches etc. He then said to Heinkel, that if he's interested in building a prototype, then he shall contact him for making an arrangement. But he didn't hear anything from him anymore, so he thought that Heinkel wasn't interested.

Much later Schauberger heard through the SS, that Heinkel actually built a prototype which flew over 1000km/h, but which had frequent completely unpredictable engine stalls, and that their technicians are out of ideas of how to fix this. When they explained to him, how Heinkel made the Piston-Engine/Turbine aggregate, he said, that he knew immediately what Heinkel was doing wrong, and that in this arrangement an engine stall would be logic.

http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/frankgermano_net/viktorschauberger_5.htm

Although Heinkel never had the honesty to reveal the source of the ideas for his invention, keeping all the kudos for himself, this jet plane was nevertheless built as a direct result of Viktor's theories. Viktor Schauberger is therefore the real father of the present jet age . He even went as far as to state that in order to develop and build fast-flying, supersonic aircraft successfully, the bodily forms of deep-sea fish should be copied. Today's 'stealth bombers' very much emulate these forms.

Viktor Schauberger patents:

http://www.rexresearch.com/schaub/schaub.htm#117749
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 24, 2019, 12:54:11 AM

Astronomers at the McDonald Observatory in Texas have been laser ranging the Moon for over 40 years.  I know that because when I went to the Texas Star Party which is held just a few miles away at the Prude Guest Ranch they organise tours of the observatory. During my particular visit the Moon was in the sky and they were able to demonstrate how its done and show us the result.  Takes just over 2.5 seconds for the laser to travel to the Moon and back again.

Distance is speed x time so 300,000km/s x 2.56 seconds.  You do the maths...

I saw Penn and Teller in Las Vegas.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 24, 2019, 01:08:15 AM
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:

Like this:



I've got a million more. Do you really want to hang your reputation on that guy and his absolutely, demonstrably, devastatingly ridiculous video? If you do, ok. But you do realize it greatly diminishes your authority as a scientist. It puts you in the league of simply a hack. Your choice. Let me know.

And let me know how planes around the planet are not on fire because they are too close to you 15km high sun.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 24, 2019, 01:16:47 AM
Let me show you just how wrong you are.
Go ahead.
Tell us how something can be faster than itself.


Then, it follows that you are just as wrong about everything else.
No, it doesn't.
Do you understand logical reasoning at all?
Someone being wrong about one thing doesn't automagically make them wrong about everything.

I have already provided the proofs for the existence of the Dome
No, you haven't.
You haven't provided proof of anything except your complete inability to rationally debate.

Here is the direct proof that the original set of equations
You can provide all the equations you want, it doesn't magically make these equations an accurate description of reality.
Showing a derivation, based upon assumptions will not help you at all.
You need evidence from REALITY that shows this to be true.

You making one assumption to try and pretend these equations prove something is no better than someone making a different assumption and having it show something else.
It proves nothing.

I already pointed that out, but of course, you completely ignored that.

The first thing you have to explain is <off topic>
If you want someone to help you with that, why don't you go start a thread on it?

You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.
Now rather than try and defend them, you just deflect.
You aren't even just shifting the burden of proof to try and have people prove you wrong, you are instead trying to completely derail the topic.

Now how about you try dealing with the topic and either defending your insane claims or admitting they are completely baseless?
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 01:51:53 AM
You can provide all the equations you want, it doesn't magically make these equations an accurate description of reality.
Showing a derivation, based upon assumptions will not help you at all.
You need evidence from REALITY that shows this to be true.


You are trolling the upper forums.

This is the EXACT SET OF EQUATIONS published by J.C. Maxwell, which are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

You ARE refusing to accept reality.

The derivation starts exactly from the integral equations published by two of the top textbooks of the 20th century:

Arnold S (1971) Electrodynamics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Academic Press, USA
Smirnov VI (2014) A course of higher mathematics. Pergamon Press, USA

Maxwell's equations in integral form.

Then, it's a straightforward calculation:

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We proceed with the application of the corrected Maxwell equations to a planar wave in vacuum where all coordinate systems are inertial. It follows from the assumption that all coordinate systems, including the RCS, are inertial that the velocity vector V in equations (1.1) and (1.2) is constant. Equations (1.1) and (1.2) become:

(https://image.ibb.co/jrhOiy/md6.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/m2Cjqd/md7.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fWU8GJ/md8.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/nuRzOy/md9.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/c7spOy/md10.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/f0AyGJ/md11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

as what you claim of Einstein

This is what Einstein claimed:

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

A. Einstein, 1905

Not Maxwell's equations, but the HEAVISIDE-LORENTZ EQUATIONS.

Maxwell's original set of equations are INVARIANT UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS, as has been directly proven in the above derivation.

The Heaviside-Lorentz equations apply only to a static system.

Maxwell's original set of equations apply to dynamical systems as well.


CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?

(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

Superluminal speeds proven right here for you.

Which means Newton's explanation for the refraction of beams through a prism is correct.

You haven't provided proof of anything except your complete inability to rationally debate.


But I have.

I have provided the references which PROVE the existence of the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

This ether is located above the atmosphere.

This is the Dome itself.

As for the speed of light to Venus, I have provided the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVISH EFFECT, where photons are converted into gravitons in the presence of a strong magnetic field.


You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.

Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.

Take a look at yourself: you are unable to provide any kind of an explanation for terrestrial gravity.

You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 01:57:41 AM
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?

Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:
Is your Google broken?
This is how re-fuelling is done: Schiphol: How planes are refuelled (https://news.schiphol.com/how-is-my-aircraft-refuelled/?)

That is from I massive underground system of fuel pipes.


Quote
StackExchange,  AVIATION: How much fuel does an A380 hold and where? (https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48425/how-much-fuel-does-an-a380-hold-and-where)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGzjWs3yTNhhgRMsmK6HYGNebXk170cC1BHGB5J0YuGzPTQhIccrm8qQYO&s=10)
The capacities of different tanks are1 (in liters):
  • Tail tank: 23,698
  • Inner tanks: 90,600
  • Mid tanks: 72,000
  • Feed tank 2 and 3: 28,130 each
  • Feed tank 1 and 4: 26,974 each
  • Outer tanks: 9,524 each

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376
I'll ignore that bit of unfounded misinformation!

Quote from: sandokhan
For your information, the jet engine was invented by VIKTOR SCHAUBERGER, using double torsion physics.
For your information you are a few decades too late!
Quote
Maxime Guillaume (https://www.revolvy.com/page/Maxime-Guillaume)

In aerospace, Maxime Guillaume held a French patent for a turbojet engine in 1921.

The first patent for using a gas turbine to power an aircraft was filed in 1921 by Frenchman Maxime Guillaume. ," French patent no. 534,801 (filed: 3 May 1921; issued: 13 January 1922).[1] His engine was to be an axial-flow turbojet, but was never constructed, as it would have required considerable advances over the state of the art in compressors.
[img wifth=400]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Guillaume%27s_1921_Axial_Flow_Jet_Engine.tiff/lossless-page1-440px-Guillaume%27s_1921_Axial_Flow_Jet_Engine.tiff.png[/img]
from Page 3 of Guillaume's patent

References
"Propulseur par réaction sur l'air (http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=FR534801&F=0&QPN=FR534801)" (in French). Espace.net. 3 April 1922. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
Then read this!
Quote
Whittle W.1X Engine. (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/whittle-w1x-turbojet-engine)
(https://airandspace.si.edu/sites/default/files/styles/slideshow_xlg/public/images/collection-objects/record-images/NASM-A19500082000_NASM2016-000438.jpg?itok=eVskT02s)
Sir Frank Whittle's jet aircraft engine was patented in 1932, and Power Jets, Ltd. formed in 1936. The Whittle Unit bench test engine first ran on April 12, 1937. In 1939, the British Air Ministry placed a contract for the W.1 engine to be flight tested on the new Gloster E.28/39 aircraft. During taxiing tests, the W.1X non-airworthy engine unofficially became the first British turbojet to be airborne when the E.28/39 made short, straight hops. The W.1 flew officially in the E.28/39 on May 15, 1941.

The W.1X and drawings of the W.2B production engine were delivered to the General Electric Company on October 1, 1941. GE's improved and uprated version, the IA, powered the first U.S. jet aircraft, the Bell XP-59A Airacomet on October 2, 1942. At the end of its useful life, the W.1X was returned to England. On November 8, 1949, the W.1X was presented to the Smithsonian by Power Jets, Ltd.
Whittle patented the operational jet engine first but Hans von Ohain and the Jet Engine of Henkel designed the first one flown.
Quote
Hans von Ohain and the Jet Engine (http://scihi.org/hans-von-ohain-and-the-jet-engine/)
The HeS.3B engine was installed in the He-178 airplane and the first turbojet-powered aircraft made its first flight on August 27th, 1939 at Heinkel Airfield near Rostock, Germany.[1] The pilot on this historic first flight of a jet-powered airplane was Flight Captain Erich Warsitz. A number of weeks after the first flight, Adolf Hitler was persuaded to observe a demonstration. Ohain stated that he seemed unfriendly, icy cold and unwell. He asked an assistant what was wrong. The assistant said that the demonstration had been too early, because “the Führer does not like to get out of bed before 11 a.m.” Hitler did not see the need for a new aircraft engine, commenting “why is it necessary to fly faster than the speed of sound?” 
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 24, 2019, 02:04:16 AM
Sun at 10 kilometers, and not enough fuel carried by planes.

Well, at least stuff like this acts as a strong case for RE.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Macarios on November 24, 2019, 02:38:21 AM
Agua Branca do Amapari, Brazil: 52 degrees west
Maua, Kenya: 38 degrees east
Distance between them: 10 000 km
Time: UTC 12h 28m
Sun seen from Agua Branca: 45 degrees above east horizon
Sun seen from Maua: 45 degrees above west horizon

Now you have your triangle, show us your "Sun above ground for about 10 km". :)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 24, 2019, 02:46:00 AM
You are trolling the upper forums.
You mean you are, as you always do.

This is the EXACT SET OF EQUATIONS published by J.C. Maxwell
Really? The exact set? Not any derivation based upon them and other assumptions? Because you have repeatedly stated it is a derivation, based upon an assumption. Such as here:

It follows from the assumption

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.
If that assumption is false then the conclusion is false.
More importantly, this assumption is effectively the very thing you are trying to prove by using these equations.
This means it is an entirely circular argument.

So you can do all you want with those equations, it still proves nothing and is in no way evidence of your claims.
It is no better than assuming 1>2, to try and prove 1>2.

Which means Newton's explanation for the refraction of beams through a prism is correct.
Why don't you provide an explanation yourself, which actually deals with the questions raised, because you are yet to address those questions at all.
Until you do, you have no explanation at all.

Again if you want to appeal to Newton, that means accepting Earth is a rotating round object which orbits the sun, i.e. you are completely wrong.
If you are rejecting that, then you are rejecting Newton and thus it is pointless to try and appeal to his authority.

I have provided the references
Again, links to more of your ramblings is not a valid reference.

You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.
Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.
So yet another insane claim from you.

Again stop trying to troll and spam with off topic nonsense and actually deal with the issues of this thread.
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 02:50:24 AM
<<  Irrelevant and off-topic! >>
You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.
That's been answered already! But the short answer is "Exactly the same thing that stops you from floating off into space, gravity! "

But why should anybody try to answer all that when you refuse to give the simplest of explanation to something fairly close to the topic?
Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 03:08:18 AM
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.

You mean that is not your claim as well?

That is, you agree that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC?

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.


You are trolling the upper forums, yet again.

That is the basic assumption made by Maxwell and BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1861.

The original set of Maxwell's equations leads to INVARIANCE UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

Take a look at your pathetic presence here: you have accepted the Heaviside-Lorentz equations with no problem at all, yet now you are in a uproar over the REAL SET OF MAXWELLIAN EQUATIONS.

You are showing to everyone here your true colors: you are refusing to accept reality.

Yes, this is the original set of Maxwell equations.

(https://image.ibb.co/gcfFwJ/md12.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/gpLyGJ/md14.jpg)

(https://image.ibb.co/dikXbJ/md15.jpg)

SUPERLUMINAL WAVES WITH GALILEAN INVARIANCE.

Fully proven.

So, Newton's explanation as to the refraction of light through a prism is correct.

I have provided the references which PROVE the existence of the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

This ether is located above the atmosphere.

This is the Dome itself.

As for the speed of light to Venus, I have provided the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVISH EFFECT, where photons are converted into gravitons in the presence of a strong magnetic field.


Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.

Take a look at yourself: you are unable to provide any kind of an explanation for terrestrial gravity.

You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.



That's been answered already!

You have not provided any kind of an explanation.

You claimed that gravity is not attractive.

Then, you tried to use general relativity, which however is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity, as plainly and directly shown in the paper quoted in my previous messages.

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 24, 2019, 03:27:36 AM
words...

You are trolling the upper forums, yet again. And you haven't done your homework.

How do planes not burst into flames when they are 10k ft from the sun? Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked, dismantled and dispensed with. It's sad you would rest your reputation on such a ridiculous video. Your call.

As well, have you figured out Macarios' triangle?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Timeisup on November 24, 2019, 03:27:45 AM
This is yet another very strange discussion where the person who posts all the mathematical formulae and continually quotes strange references appears to ignore commonly accepted principles and facts that can be checked by use of a simple telescope. Measuring is very much my thing and it's well known that radar can be used to measure and plot locations of objects both stationary and moving very precisely. I don't think there is anyone who would argue about the fairly basic principles of Radar which were first put to use here in the UK during the early part of WW2 to great effect. A source produces electromagnetic waves they travel in a specific direction and if they bounce off any object in their path the reflected waves are picked up and the position of the object doing the reflecting is determined. Since WW2 the technology has evolved greatly and is used in a wide variety of applications. Because it has been in use for over 80 years the underlying physics is well understood. I think that is a given. One of the areas where it is used is Astronomy as the original post mentioned. The moon being relatively close was an obvious target and the distance to the moon and its dimensions have been long established. The question regarding the distance to the moon is one that is not open for debate as which ever method you choose to use from one of the following:
Radar
Laser
Parallax
Using lunar eclipses
Experimentation involving hi res photography, GPS and the Moons occlusion of Regulus.
etc, as there are a number of other methods.
 Which ever method you choose you are going to come up with more or less the same answer. I always think if you approach a problem, the distance to the Moon, and you attempt to solve this by using a number of very different methods that all yield the same result within a fairly tight tolerance band then you can assume that the distance that was arrived at is a fairly accurate one.
To say the Moon is only a few Kilometres above the surface of the earth is just plain silly as this ignores all the know facts and the measurements arrived at by a number of different methods.
The distance to the moon is 384,400 Kilometres with a diameter of 1,737 Kilometres.

In regard to the jet engine, to set the record straight, this was first patented by Frank Whittle in 1930. ( apologies to  Maxime Guillaume 1921.)
This post was produced without resorting to pages of meaningless mathematical mumbo jumbo but rather just stuck to plain facts.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 03:40:41 AM
Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked

You haven't debunked anything at all.

The video starting at 15:20 shows very clearly the passage of the jet plane above a balloon whose maximum altitude is 4,000 ft. The altimeter shows some 7,000 ft.

That is the real altitude of that plane, which was flying at cruising speed.

These are the facts.

When and where did you debunk anything?

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 03:47:06 AM
You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.

That's been answered already!
You have not provided any kind of an explanation.
As YOU well know I have. If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.
But are YOU any more able to explain why "water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the surface of your earth"?

Quote from: sandokhan
You claimed that gravity is not attractive.
Yes.
Quote from: sandokhan
Then, you tried to use general relativity,
Yes.
Quote from: sandokhan
which however is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity, as plainly and directly shown in the paper quoted in my previous messages.
No, it is NOT! And the paper quoted in "your previous messages" does not "plainly and directly show" that General Relativity "is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity"

Have YOU even read the paper?
Just look at even the title, "From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity by Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava".

That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.
If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

Quote
The intrinsic curvature of four-dimensional spacetime must involve the second derivatives of the metric component g00 with respect to all spacetime coordinates.

Quote from: sandokhan

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Already done a number of times! Why should I keep repeating myself?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Shifter on November 24, 2019, 03:53:58 AM
JackBlack will probably have better answers because he's the scientist, not I!

Oh yeah. JackBlack thinks you're a poorly educated person as well as being a pretentious prick. You dont have any post nominals to put after your name so anything you have to say on the subject of science is rubbish

So not being a scientist but talking about science makes you a pretentious prick. Sorry. Those are JackBlacks words anyway, not mine
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 04:04:38 AM
If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.

You haven't explained anything at all!

This is the crux of the problem.

You tried to use relativity, but it is based totally on Newton's attractive gravity model.

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.

But are YOU any more able to explain why "water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the surface of your earth"?

The surface of the Earth is flat!

No, it is NOT! And the paper quoted in "your previous messages" does not "plainly and directly show" that General Relativity "is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity"

BUT IT DOES!

That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.

No, it derives Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

The authors derive Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

The Laplacian of g00 measures the curvature and is derived from the Poisson equation, which in turn is derived directly from Newton's attractive gravity model.


Now, the proof.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einstein’s field equation from Newton’s universal gravitation."


"Newton’s universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."


EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS BASED STRICTLY AND DIRECTLY ON THIS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY MODEL.

You claimed that attractive gravity does not exist.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, General Relativity is just as wrong.

Now, explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Nucleosynthesis on November 24, 2019, 04:32:55 AM
Five billion years is a bit of an exaggeration. Firstly the Earth is only 4.6 billion years old (geological rock analysis tells us that) and there was no water on Earth for about the few millions of years.  It was too hot.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 04:47:55 AM
If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, General Relativity is just as wrong.
Incorrect and your claiming that it is "just as wrong" is quite meaningless empty words.

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.
After you explain what "sphere" had  "four trillion billion liters of water" next to it for "five billion years" !
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 04:59:02 AM
That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.

No, it derives Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

The authors derive Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

The Laplacian of g00 measures the curvature and is derived from the Poisson equation, which in turn is derived directly from Newton's attractive gravity model.


Now, the proof.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.
"In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were GR does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.

But this is all meaningless semantics so stop wasting everybody's time and start explaining a few things yourself!
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Timeisup on November 24, 2019, 05:10:15 AM
Ah...I think I get it now. Am I right in thinking the aim of this forum to totally ignore the original point of discussion and then argue about all sorts of random things that you have little in the way of practical knowledge about other than what you have picked up along the way?

One question I have who on this forum has a Ph.D. in physics or is a working scientist.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 24, 2019, 05:33:13 AM
I think Ph.D. only means you are shilling for the (indoctrinated) institution(s).
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 06:18:08 AM
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Here is the reference which derives DIRECTLY in a straightforward manner Einstein's gravitational field equation from Newton's ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION MODEL.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

"Newton’s universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."

does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.


General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE 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.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space. What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

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

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

Exactly proven in this paper.

Einstein's gravitational field equation is derived directly from the attractive gravitation equation of Newton.

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einstein’s field equation from Newton’s universal gravitation."


Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Timeisup on November 24, 2019, 06:29:59 AM
I think Ph.D. only means you are shilling for the (indoctrinated) institution(s).

Are you saying that you would be quite happy to be operated on by someone who had no medical qualifications? as I'm assuming that you are equating academic learning as being somehow caught up in some conspiracy.
 
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Timeisup on November 24, 2019, 06:36:42 AM
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Here is the reference which derives DIRECTLY in a straightforward manner Einstein's gravitational field equation from Newton's ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION MODEL.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newton’s Universal Gravitation to Einstein’s Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

"Newton’s universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."

does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.


General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE 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.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

Exactly proven in this paper.

Einstein's gravitational field equation is derived directly from the attractive gravitation equation of Newton.

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einstein’s gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einstein’s gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einstein’s gravitational field equation.

The result is Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einstein’s general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einstein’s field equation from Newton’s universal gravitation."


Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Does anyone actually know what this poster is raving on about? The topic as I'm lead to believe is Radar Ranging in the Solar System. This person appears to ranting about random things on a topic he demonstrates he knows little to nothing about. It was he who early on derailed this discussion up this particular
Can you divulge your academic qualifications or do you, as I suspect just make your posts up as you go along, as there appears to be no logic in what you say. Your preference for quoting yourself is rather disturbing which appears to suggest that you are the only person who agrees with your own views.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rvlvr on November 24, 2019, 07:44:52 AM
Sandokhan posts here, and on the other FE forum. I saw he posted something in scienceforums.net, but the thread was locked for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 12:21:05 PM
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were
Go and learn about General Relativity and stop spamming the forum.

Now the topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" an gravitation is not relevant to the topic but this is:
Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.

So answer that to prove that you are a rational human being.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 24, 2019, 12:38:41 PM
Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Incorrect!
"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is extraordinarily accurate for velocities << c and masses that are "not too large".
When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

If YOU don't like it, tough cheese, as they say in the classics.

Now stop posting irrelevant material in this topic.

If you want to go on and on about gravitation make you own topic.
In that, you might start by explaining what holds your sun 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km (you seem to have NO idea which) above the Earth.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: sandokhan on November 24, 2019, 12:48:49 PM
"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.

When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

You still seem not to understand what is going on.

General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE 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.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space.
What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

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

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: JackBlack on November 24, 2019, 01:21:28 PM
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.
You mean that is not your claim as well?
No, it is your claim.
If you want to defend it, go ahead.
Otherwise, stop bringing it up and start dealing with your other claims.

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.

You are trolling the upper forums, yet again.
No, that would still be you.
You fully admit that it is based upon an assumption, the very assumption which you are trying to prove.

i.e. you may as well be saying this:
"I'm right. If you assume I am right, then it clearly shows that I am right."

It is entirely circular and proving nothing.

Equations will not help you there.
Instead what you need is evidence.
i.e. if you want to prop up the aether model (which is directly contradicted by your equations) then you need to show that the speed of light is dependent upon your speed relative to the aether.
if you want to prop up the ballistic model (which doesn't use the aether at all) then you need to show that the speed of light is dependent upon the speed of the source.

But you have done neither.

Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.
Sure there is. Someone repeatedly bringing it up in a thread where it doesn't belong and someone repeatedly trying to use themselves as a reference and pretending circular reasoning is valid and proves their assumption is true.


Now care to actually try and address the issues raised, rather than continuing to spam?
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: Stash on November 24, 2019, 02:08:22 PM
Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked

You haven't debunked anything at all.

The video starting at 15:20 shows very clearly the passage of the jet plane above a balloon whose maximum altitude is 4,000 ft. The altimeter shows some 7,000 ft.

That is the real altitude of that plane, which was flying at cruising speed.

These are the facts.

When and where did you debunk anything?

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread?

You have not done your homework again. The altimeter he shows is the pressurization of the cabin which is pressurized to an "altitude" between 6-8000 ft. Hence his reading of 7000.

Have you ever flown on a plane? Do you not understand why a cabin is pressurized? And do you really believe every pilot, ever air traffic controller, every manufacturer of aircraft thinks their plane is at one altitude when they are really at another one 10's of thousands of feet off? How would they calculate their fuel? How would planes not be crashing into each other left, right, and center if the true altitudes are that wrong?

That's your logic? And all based upon a video of some nut job who thinks planes don't use fuel, the windows should be bigger than they are for reasons, planes aren't really as big as we think they are, etc., etc., etc.,

He was measuring the cabin pressure. How do you not get that? I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently I was wrong.

Go ahead, hang your theories on that guy's miserable video. Your credibility as a scientist and thinker just plummeted.

In the mean time, here's a debunking of your video and everything Enslaved by No Media has ever said about aviation.

Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: rabinoz on November 25, 2019, 12:37:14 AM
<<  Off topic material deleted >>
See Sandokhan and Gravitation etc (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84049.0)
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on November 27, 2019, 05:05:35 AM
~15 kilometers?! Like less than two Everests?

What the hell?

Like, if you drove around you would see the sun rise and recede faster than distant mountains. Holy shit that is easy to disprove.
He is a new kind of crazy, thinking he is smart behind his copy pasta
Title: Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
Post by: totallackey on November 27, 2019, 05:21:47 AM
Sandokhan, how dare you peddle your faulty wares here? You tried to convince a peer group on another forum, and got locked out, right? So even though you know you are wrong, you continue as if it makes it okay?
Getting locked out of an internet forum is proof of what?