*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)
Sure, it will take a little bit of money to construct a radar system capable of ranging the Moon
“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"
One of the top threads of all time: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://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"What has any of that to do with the topic, which happens to be "Radar ranging in the Solar System".
Nikola Tesla
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.
More on that from:QuoteTo See the Unseen, - Chapter Two - Fickle VenusFrom: 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)
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.
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.
Tesla sound waves in ether: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).}
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.
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)
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.
The speed of light is variable. A fact accepted by most relativists: anisotropy in the physical, local speed of light.
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?
“ .. 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.
Nothing has ever taken ether density measurements near or at the Dome.Ctrl+F, "dome" ... nope. Still 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)
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.
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.
“It being a fact that radio waves are essentially like sound waves in the air"Care to finish the quote?
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 DomeDo you mean the aether that was shown to be impossible due to the numerous contradictions?
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!
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.
Completely wrong: the original set of Maxwell's equationsAn equation proves nothing.
Have you forgotten the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT?There is none.
That is why relativists are FORCED to accept the local-ether model, which is a fact of science.No, it isn't.
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?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 density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.
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.
If I took a drink every time Sandokhan said 'sagnac' or 'allais', I'd be dead.
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.
There is none.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"?
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.
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?Evidence please!
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.Even there were no mirrors left on the moon radar and laser echos have been received from the moon before those retro-reflectors!
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.No!
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:So? But he says nothing to support you ideas.
"…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."
24. Here’s another of my reform efforts, as far as I know. (https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254)Please show where Dr. Robert H. Romer has the slightest objection to current EM propagation theory.
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. >>
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?So, according to your Advanced Flat Earth Theory what are the distances to the Moon and to Venus.
The density of ether around Venus is much higher than that around the Moon.
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.
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.
It proves everythingNo, it proves nothing as it is just an equation.
There is none.That's right. There is none. No where in your source does it claim that there is any actual missing Sagnac effect.
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:
derivation... is ... invalidWow, needing to cut down the post that much.
derivation... is ... invalidSo you are making a fool of yourself.
<< The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System". Irrelevant material deleted >>
There is none. No where in your source does it claim that there is any actual missing Sagnac effect.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".
<< The topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System". Irrelevant material deleted >>
Not me.So, you have no answer to return echoes from the Moon taking about 2^{1}/_{2} SECONDS an those from Venus taking from 5 to 6^{1}/_{2} MINUTES.
.. I was going to say you couldn't even make this stuff up if you tried... but evidently someone can!Sheesh.
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!
Those issues were answered a long time ago.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!
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:No, it does not prove anything of the kind. At the most is show an unexpectedly wider limb of Venus!
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.Where does Schroeter mention that "the Morning and the Evening stars are totally DIFFERENT".
Listen to Newton: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.
Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:
1. Terrestrial gravity
2. Planetary/stellar gravity
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)
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?
There are several strings of bosons: x-rays, gamma rays, visible light, thermal energy, gravitational energyOne 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.
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.pdfI'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
You cannot escape reality by claiming terrestrial gravity is attractive.But in reality gravity seems to do what it says on the tin, no?
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.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 those proofs are being provided, you then start to complain bitterly about the content of my messages, while your continuous trolling goes on unabated.
Those issues were answered a long time ago.You mean they were dismissed by you simply asserting that it is all fine.
None of you here are able to explain the Schroeter effect, which does prove my statements:It does nothing of the sort.
Newton believedI don't care what he believed, but since you do so much, Newton believed that Earth was round and orbited the very distant sun.
Question: does a ray of light split into its component colors?That question is full of semantics.
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.
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))
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.
<< Totally irrelevant! >>
You haven't got a clue as to what you are saying.Projecting again I see.
You are repeating what you have read, long time ago, in a certain textbook.
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.
If this were the case, then in the photograph below, there should beAnd there you go showing just why you are wrong.
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.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140305015809im_/http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Images/prisma-lightSpectrum-goethe.gif)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.
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.
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.
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
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.
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)
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.
giberishHow 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.
You have just been shown that Kepler FAKED/FUDGED all of his entries in the Nova Astronomia.No, it isn't!
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.
giberishHow 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.
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.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.
Certainly not me
But it doesn't.But it does. That is the only way to explain what is actually observed.
I have derived the GLOBAL SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA.You mean you repeatedly failed.
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?
But Tenderloin ain’t nice, man.
You are just rejecting reality with no rational basis at all.Stop being lazy and start using the "Quote" function!
<< Irrelevant to the topic, which is "Radar ranging in the Solar System"! >>Incorrect! This isn't too bad an illustration:
Instead it splits each individual beam coming into it.
But it doesn't.
Here is another experiment carried out at Cal State Long Beach, where the WHITE LIGHT is seen coming out of the prism:Fine, that seems as it should be.
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.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).
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!
Listen to Newton:Let's not because in Newton's time little was know about the nature of light.
You seem to think that you know more than every astronomer, physicist, mathematician and everybody else ever born, but you don't.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 ::)"!
Perhaps I do.
You, on the other hand, have provided the BEST PROOF that indeed the diameter of the Sun is 600 meters.Certainly but there's nothing in there to prove that the Sun is 600 m in diameter so I'll delete all irrelevant material!
Remember this?
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"
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."
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.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!
By your own analysis, a(sun) = ZERO.
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
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)
However, as you have been reminded previously, the speed of light is VARIABLE
It is very easy to debunk your failed statements.
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Question: why is rabinoz answering the responses provided to jackblack? And he is answering them PERSONALLY, as we can see very clearly.No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"
Is this not proof that we are dealing with one and the same person?
But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!Oh really? What is "the DENSITY OF THE ETHER" near the Moon and near Venus and how did YOU measure it?
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"No, I never "EQUATED the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity."
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.
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".
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/s^{2} anything else is your own twisted logic!
It's hard to escape the fact that if your calculations are correct, Venus would be able to fit on a flatbed truckAnd why would that be, pray tell?
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).
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
A star cannot be compressed so much that it becomes smaller than its own Schwarzschild radius.
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.
But can Venus really be so small that it could be loaded up onto a flatbed truck and hauled away?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!
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":
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:
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
"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...
No it is "not proof that you are dealing with one and the same person"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!
Now start using the "Quote" function provided!
<< Already answered! >>
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
to even suggest that the sun is only 600 m in diameterSo no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter" and neither have you so stop talking rubbish.
You PROVED this to be true.
<< Nothing that I posted or you posted PROVES that the sun is 600 m in diameter >>
I think I'll ignore Velikovsky’s interpretations of the "Venus tablets of Ammizaduga", thank you.I can note them but they do not PROVE that "THE UPPER AGE LIMIT OF VENUS IS 2000 YEARS"!
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.
Anthony Feldman further informs us in this general context: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!
“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].
<< 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!
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
So no, I did not PROVE "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter"Stop repeating utter balderdash! Nothing I said PROVES "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
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.
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.
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.
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.
But not from almost 300,000 km/sec down to 50 m/s or whatever!Then start proving it and doing the equations to show just how much it is slowed down.
Everything depends on the DENSITY OF THE ETHER.
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.
You PROVED this to be true.Lying about what people have done doesn't help your case in any way.
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
Yes, we all remember it, from the thread were you repeatedly refuted and then fled because you were completely incapable of defending your claims.And there you go projecting again.
Here is the thread:
You were unable to provide any arguments at all: just simple grunts of desperate denials designed to fool your viewers.
it takes less than 15 seconds to defeat youIf that was the case you would have defeated me long ago, instead of just repeating the same pathetic spam and insults.
Nothing I said PROVES "that the sun is only 600 m in diameter".Stop proving you total incompetence! One cannot legitimately "EQUATE the orbital angular velocity with the solar surface gravity"!
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.
More of the usual Sandokhanian garbage, dream on!In fact we might even think that you are a FE in disguise: you have served the FES very well.
No, Mr Sandokhan, it does NOT "REST ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT"!Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
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.Everything from this point on is YOUR words, not mine!
The surface gravity of the Sun is about 274 m/s2This 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)
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
"We shall see that the Clayton model can yield reasonably correct results when applied to the sun."Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:
. . . . . . . . . .
M = 1.989 x 10^{30} kg
G = gr^{2}/m(r)
1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
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.
This is the subquark:
(http://www.weare1.us/Babbitt%20color.jpg)
Or read all about it in American Polarity Therapy Association Theory and Basic Principles of Polarity Therapy (http://www.weare1.us/Polarity_Principles.html).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
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.
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.
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:Quote1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 10^{30} kg and the radius is 6.96 x 10^{8} m
And your next equation can be rearranged to g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2}.
Hence from your own equation and your own references g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2} = (6.67 x 10^{-11} x 1.99 x 10^{30})/6.96 x 10^{8})^{2} = 274.0 m/s^{2}.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
words...
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
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:What?!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
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?
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
Commercial and military planes fly at a lower altitude than that revealed to the public:No, they do not and there is nothing in that post of yours that proves otherwise.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044464#msg2044464
Re: Advanced Flat Earth TheoryFirst, 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.
« 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)
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".
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!
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."
Full moon over Mt. EverestWhyever 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!
(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)
I KNOW what I have done!Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:Do you realize what you have done again?Quote1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 10^{30} kg and the radius is 6.96 x 10^{8} m
And your next equation can be rearranged to g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2}.
Hence from your own equation and your own references g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2} = (6.67 x 10^{-11} x 1.99 x 10^{30})/6.96 x 10^{8})^{2} = 274.0 m/s^{2}.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again
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)"!
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:.Quote1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 10^{30} kg and the radius is 6.96 x 10^{8} m
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.You didn't answer the question attached - Try again!
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?
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."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".
That's not a "fact"! It's no more than an unproven, unsupported hypothesis!
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
Look in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:Quote1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 10^{30} kg and the radius is 6.96 x 10^{8} m
And your next equation can be rearranged to g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2}.
Hence from your own equation and your own references g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2} = (6.67 x 10^{-11} x 1.99 x 10^{30})/6.96 x 10^{8})^{2} = 274.0 m/s^{2}.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
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
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.
"THE LOCAL-ETHER MODEL is" NOT "a fact of science". That is not how science works few things are claimed as "facts".So you say! But science does not have "facts" like that!
But it is a fact of science.
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"!
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)But I would not claim that even General Relativity is a "fact" of science because science does not have facts like that.
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.
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.
But I have.So what?
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.
Also the rotation of the Globe is fundamental to Dr. C.C. Su's argumentThat is simply your claim with no evidence but just face the facts that his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.
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.
Hermann Weyl used non-riemannian geometry to unify gravity and electricity: electrogravity.Let's be a little more precise shall we?
from: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: (http://Hermann Weyl)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.
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.
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.
- 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
FACT: the exact formula for the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT.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!
(https://i.ibb.co/5YW8CPH/bie1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/M8576CJ/bie2.jpg)
But G is not a universal constant.That's all quite irrelevant 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.
But G is still regarded as "universal constant" and is used with the same value everywhere, including in Clayton's equation.
No where in that post of yours do you make any attempt at actually providing this aether existsNo, you haven't.
I have already done so, but you cannot escape your cognitive dissonance.
you have at your disposal the necessary and precise references.You are not a valid reference.
I have presentedI already explained what you presented.
on board measurement using an altimeterWas this altimeter exposed to the outside of the aircraft?
Then, use the link as usual and wait.Nope, we get:
Hrm.Try again.
The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.
Both methods do not take into accountSo 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?
<irrelavent off topic garbage>You are in here, making many claims regarding the nature of light to try and reject reality as clearly shown by radar ranging.
You are in no position to ask for any kind of an explanation, not when you cannot even explain <off topic>.
his paper would be meaningless if the Earth were stationary.Try again!
This is not the first time you have made contradictory statements.
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).
No! I have not! Please learn to understand what is written and stop translating into what you would like it to mean.But G is not a universal constant.That's all quite irrelevant 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.
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."
There is not the slightest thing contradictory in that. For a start, Isaac Newton never even mentioned the Universal Gravitational Constant G!
But G is still regarded as "universal constant".
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?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.
Where is your explanation for the missing orbital Sagnac effect?Who says that there is any "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?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.
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:
G is valid only right here on Earth.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.
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.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.
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!
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 in YOUR reference, "The Physics of Stars, 2nd Edition" by A. C. Phillips and find:Quote1.4 THE SUNIn 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)"
TABLE 1.2 The main physical properties of the sun. The measured properties are the mass,
radius, oblateness, photon luminosity, and surface temperature.
Property ValueMass M_{o} = 1.99 x 10^{30} kg Radius R_{o} = 6.96 x 10^{8} m
So from your reference the mass of the Sun is 1.99 x 10^{30} kg and the radius is 6.96 x 10^{8} m
And your next equation can be rearranged to g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2}.
Hence from your own equation and your own references g_{sun} = G x m(r)/r^{2} = (6.67 x 10^{-11} x 1.99 x 10^{30})/6.96 x 10^{8})^{2} = 274.0 m/s^{2}.
See "that value" again and orbital angular velocity has never been mentioned! - Funny that crops up again
Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s^{2}!
And here is another way to check that 274 m/s^{2} 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/s^{2}.
But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) = 0.005930 m/s^{2}.
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/s^{2} - 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!
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.
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.
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses. Perhaps you can fool yourself, but not your readers.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!
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.Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!
So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.
Fine.If YOU insist.
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"?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".
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.
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.
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.
AbstractIn brief, the Sagnac effect needs General Relativity for a complete explanation but other explanations, including Su's "Local Ether Model" can gives close results.
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.
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.I can if there is some other explanation for "NO ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT being registered by the GPS satellites".
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 it is not. That has nothing to do with the case!
No, I never got any "nonsensical results"Stop repeating the same old many times refuted and explained spam!
In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.what is the purpose of the LISA satellite?
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.
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?
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.
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.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: NASAWHAT 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 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.You're out of date ;D! The sun's down to 10 km ::) now!
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?
Re: Advanced Flat Earth TheoryThere, right from horse's mouth!
« 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)
I should have addressed the question to sandokhan. I want his answer.So sorry ;D! I'd love to see that answer too, but he'll have his excuses.
He uses it so much.
Thanks.
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!
It took less than ten minutes for you to start fabricate meaningless responses.No, that would be you, repeatedly.
I have already explained each and everyone of these phenomenonsCan you read English?
the speed of light is superluminalAre you aware that is literally a direct contradiction?
the original set of Maxwell's equationAre a collection of equations which cannot be used to make any insane claims about the very question of their applicability.
I even posted the referencesAgain, 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.
<More pathetic off topic garbage>If you want to discuss all that off topic garbage, go make a thread on it.
So in the videoAnd that video is made by a complete retard that claims that planes run on compressed air etc, etc and YOU believe it ::).
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".No, that's you and I suspect that it's you that "everyone here is laughing at"!
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.Really? Try General Relativity.
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.Try one has to give up using Einstein Special Relativity in case where General RElativity is necessary as Grigorii B Malykin clearly states.
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.Try Einstein's Special Relativity cannot explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
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:He did - where? I think I'll accept G. Malykin, thank you!
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.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)
STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.
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..
Now, I want everyone here, especially the RE, to be witnesses of this statement.Incorrect! And you own reference explains that quite thoroughly! Try actually reading it!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:No, that is NOT a "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.OK, so what?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.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 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'll again ignore LISA because it's geometry is nothing like that of the GNSS.
I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!
Why are you asking JackBlack? Most of this has been explained plenty of times!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?
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 must be joking! When you explain how you calculated you Sun's size and distance I might listen till then - not a chance!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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:
Let me show you just how wrong you are.Go ahead.
Then, it follows that you are just as wrong about everything else.No, it doesn't.
I have already provided the proofs for the existence of the DomeNo, you haven't.
Here is the direct proof that the original set of equationsYou can provide all the equations you want, it doesn't magically make these equations an accurate description of reality.
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?
Again, do you really want to hang all your theories on this video?Is your Google broken?
Please explain to your readers how 210 tons of fuel are deposited in the jet plane:
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
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044376#msg2044376I'll ignore that bit of unfounded misinformation!
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!
Maxime Guillaume (https://www.revolvy.com/page/Maxime-Guillaume)Then read this!
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.
Whittle W.1X Engine. (https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/whittle-w1x-turbojet-engine)Whittle patented the operational jet engine first but Hans von Ohain and the Jet Engine of Henkel designed the first one flown.
(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.
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?”
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. MaxwellReally? 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
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.
I have provided the referencesAgain, links to more of your ramblings is not a valid reference.
You have come here making a bunch of insane claims.And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.
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.
<< Irrelevant and off-topic! >>That's been answered already! But the short answer is "Exactly the same thing that stops you from floating off into space, 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.
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.
words...
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.As YOU well know I have. If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.
That's been answered already!
You have not provided any kind of an explanation.
You claimed that gravity is not attractive.Yes.
Then, you tried to use general relativity,Yes.
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"
The intrinsic curvature of four-dimensional spacetime must involve the second derivatives of the metric component g_{00} with respect to all spacetime coordinates.
Already done a number of times! Why should I keep repeating myself?
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.
JackBlack will probably have better answers because he's the scientist, not I!
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!
If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.Incorrect and your claiming that it is "just as wrong" is quite meaningless empty words.
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.After you explain what "sphere" had "four trillion billion liters of water" next to it for "five billion years" !
That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were GR does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
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 g_{00} 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.
I think Ph.D. only means you are shilling for the (indoctrinated) institution(s).
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 F_{01}(x_{0})..."
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.
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it wereGo and learn about General Relativity and stop spamming the forum.
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.
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!
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.No, it is your claim.
You mean that is not your claim as well?
Do you know what that means?No, that would still be you.
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.
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.
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?
<< Off topic material deleted >>See Sandokhan and Gravitation etc (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84049.0)
~15 kilometers?! Like less than two Everests?
What the hell?
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?