Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ScintillaOfStars

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
The center of the correct map of the Flat Earth is the Garden of Eden, which is located in the vicinity of the Sea of Marmara (next to the western coastline of Anatolia).

I was the first to decipher this precise location, based on the details given in the Book of Jubilees:

Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon (Nile), toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk  the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon (Nile), along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."

Notice that the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version served by the conspirators in the Genesis chapters.

If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.



THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEA OF MARMARA (sea of Propontis) (SEA OF MIOT), IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF ANATOLIA; there must a region with about 40 km in diameter which cannot be accessed by land or sea (we have the same situation at the North/South Poles, which have never been actually discovered or located precisely, see The Hollow Earth by R. Bernard, Raymond Benard - The Hollow Earth ).


Now, let us make the connection between the BOOK OF ENOCH, BOOK OF JUBILEES and the BOOK OF NOAH:

Book of Enoch:
And they took  me to the living waters, and to the fire (Volcano) of the west, which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to a river of fire (river of lava) in which the fire flows like water and discharges itself into the great sea towards the west .

Book of Jubilees: 
...to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil.

Book of Noah:
And they will shut up those Angels, who showed iniquity, in that burning valley, (Eden Valley) which my great-grandfather Enoch had shown to me previously, in the west, near the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).


The conspirators changed the true name of the first son of Noah, PELASG/PELASGOS, to Shem (a name derived from sun worship).

All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg; and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia (a portion of land given to the descendants of the sons of Khem/Ham; namely, the northern part was given to Misraim and some of his sons, and the southern portion was taken over by Nimrod and his sons).

Cool theory, seems well researched. Ever been there?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?
« on: April 29, 2017, 05:00:17 AM »
Hi ScintillaOf Stars, and thank you for entering the debate. If I correctly understood you led an experiment at home, or at work ? Are you a physicist ?
It seems to me that you didn't understand correctly that in Hilarion's idea (the chapters one can read on Planète Astronomie), light isn't light ... I mean he uses light as an image to figure out gravity as a push. Light would be coming from the inside surface of a gigantic sphere, and light would be able to do something unusual : it would push matter.

So, magic space particles? Or in this case, magic Earth particles? And if these particles are emanating from within the Earth, and can push things, then why are we pulled down to Earth?

What I was trying to get at was that if you were to theoretically create a chamber in which no particles can enter, then under magic-space-particle theory, anything inside that chamber would float.

And I'm a hobbyist physicist. Might push it into a career, but we'll see. I did my experiment at home, and due to the balls attracting each other with force parallel to the surface of the Earth, it suggests that something inherent to the larger masses was attractive.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 29, 2017, 04:56:14 AM »
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:

Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.

sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.

So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.

However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.

So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.

 - Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.

 - rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.

So who is right?

Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.

Not quite.
Rabinoz and myself are both saying basically what you said at the start:
"Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B."

sandokhan (I have no idea what that is meant to be a pun on, perhaps because I don't see where it should be split), is suggesting that as well as that you also have Object A somehow exerting a force on itself which draws it towards Object B, and Object B likewise exerts a force on itself which moves it towards Object A; which makes no sense at all.

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

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Still the wrong bit (at least that is what I thought). I thought the important part was:
Quote
so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else
Which would effectively be action at a distance with nothing carrying the force, like pulling an object with a rope, but the rope not being there.

I may have been slightly mistaken, that was only my interpretation. Sorry for misconstruing your points!

And I like your correction of my highlighting. Makes far more sense!

sandokan is a fictional character who runs a gang of pirates known as the Tigers of Mompracem.
Khan is a fiction character who is a tiger.
I don't know, it's just the sort of pun to tickle my funny bone.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 11:48:00 PM »
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

Cat's are dumb. You can quote me on that.

Now I'm sad.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 11:10:37 PM »
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Highlighting the wrong bit.

Also, had you put this into Google, you would know that this was the prevalent theory of the day. But, like all science, it advanced beyond this point.

Nice try, but no. Newton dismissed it because he had no idea of any of the later advances in science, because he didn't have the access to the internet we all do now. Here's a quote:

I don't like cats.

That's wrong, but you could still quote me as having said it. Woa! Unbelievable!

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 09:49:08 PM »
Okay, so, my understanding of this double-force paradox is this:

Object A exerts an attractive force on Object B. This draws Object B towards Object A. However, Object B is exerting an attractive force on Object A. This draws Object A towards Object B.

sandokhan (which, btw, is a pretty darn good username and a decent pun), is saying that this produces twice the attraction necessary to keep the Earth in orbit.

So the Sun pulls the Earth closer, but the Earth also pulls the sun closer, and since the Sun is 'anchored', this also pulls the Earth closer, at twice the force required. Therefore, attractive gravitation can't exist.

However, what rabinoz is positing is that forces are vectors (and thus have direction), and so the direction for the forces exerted by Objects A and B will have opposite polarity, and they'll cancel out unless one is larger, in which case the remainder is the total attractive force.

So say Object A has a force of 2, and Object B has a force of 1.

 - Sandokhan says the total attractive force towards A is 3, using his rope analogy.

 - rabinoz says the total attractive force towards A is 1, because of vectors.

So who is right?

Well, for sandokhan's theory to work, Object A has to be immovable (or 'anchored'), but rabinoz's theory doesn't require this. Since the Sun isn't immovable, rabinoz's theory is more likely.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:53:57 PM »
Ah I see. So in this model, gravitational attraction is determined by size of shadow, or to put it another way, projected area.

But this is a little problematic because if I hold a piece of paper up to my small masses opposed to the masses I was using, then I get zero deflection. My experiment shows an increase in attraction correlating to an increase in mass, not size. In fact, I (accidentally) controlled for this in my experiment, filling cups with water (the cups projected area stays consistent but the mass increases).

What if I were to perform the experiment in a darkroom, Faraday-cage with the light's turned off, buried deep underground. Now surely everything would float, since there is no particles to cause any pressure, right?
They aren't particles like we know it.
It is some kind of magic particle. It isn't just based upon area because most will pass straight through matter with only a small amount absorbed/reflected/whatever, similar to various forms of radiation (like neutrons), which will penetrate matter with just a small amount absorbed/reflected.

What they need to do is make the interaction cross section based upon mass (and even then I'm not sure if it works perfectly).

The issue is that it is filled with so many baseless claims. and requires an infinite source of these magic particles which aren't observed, requires inelastic collisions, but no gain in energy of the object that remains stationary.

Right. Those are some serious issues.

I hadn't heard of that before, thanks for bringing it to my attention!

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:53:03 PM »
What? The vectors are still diagonal. Are you saying you take the x, z, y force components and then these are all at 90 degree increments so it all adds up? Because that doesn't work. You can do it in theory, but in practice I still have a diagonal vector which conflicts with an infinite plane Gaussian model.

What your working shows is you finding the direct downward vector for your point mass, to which I say: I concede that. You can model for a downward vector. But in reality, vectors aren't nearly so simplistic.
Yes, the vectors are diagonal, but for each vector for each of the sub-models (the Gaussian model of each part of the overall model), this diagonal vector is at 90 degrees to the surface used for that sub-model, and thus Gauss' law would hold.

Yes, it would conflict with the infinite plane model, because this considers more than just the infinite plane. It is an infinite plane with other bits.

I think I see. Interesting. I'll see if I can fully wrap my head around it with some calculations. I'll get back to you if I find anything. Thanks so much!

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:38:13 PM »
Your drivel amounts to nothing at all.
You wanna play games with me?

Really? I have taken the sources you provide, show evidence from those sources that your conclusions aren't supported (notice I didn't say you were wrong), asked you multiple times to not throw insults, and yet the response I get for following etiquette is more insults.

You aren't doing yourself any favours.

Are you saying my experiment is wrong? If so, then provide evidence to back up your claim. By evidence, I'm not talking about copy+pasting sources which agree with you. I could do that all day long. Show me where my experiment is wrong, or conduct your own experiment and open it up to the same scrutiny I have. If you cannot or will not do this, then we have nothing to discuss.

Are you going to reciprocate a willingness to learn? If not, then we're done here.

I'll not be replying to you anymore on this thread; we've derailed it enough.

Want to continue this discussion?
  • Raise objections to the way I conducted my experiment.
  • Do so in the thread provided for such.
  • Demonstrate that you are willing to expand your knowledge, the way I have in my OP.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 02:52:33 PM »
Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects.

This is what the shielding was:

Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres.

The problem is that iron conducts electricity, so it would have provided zero protection from electrostatic effects.

Here's a diagram from your source:



This is a nice illustration of how the shield wouldn't have worked at all.

Do you understand that there are TWO FORCES AT WORK AT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH?
Well, actually there are a few more than two. Also, this again? Please don't insult me, because it doesn't lend credibility to your points or further diminish mine. It's pointless if you want a reasoned discussion.

Here's another image from your source:


It even has gravitational attraction written on it!

Here's another experiment:
1. Go to your source and press ctrl+f
2. Type 'gravitational attraction'

Results of this experiment:
There are 27 instances where the articles reference gravitational attraction.

Ooh, ooh, here's a good one:
What about the fact that the website you pull these sources from is a parody website?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rex_Research

The image (which I took myself), and the website link provided do a good job proving that.

To recap:
 - The experiment did not adequately shield from electric effects.
 - The experiment heavily discusses gravitational attraction.
 - The experiment can only be sourced by a discredited website.
 - The experiment is not relevant.

I say again, if you don't believe my experiment, show that specifically my experiment was flawed. Don't give me other experiments; look at mine in a vacuum.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 07:03:54 AM »
Let's see what Professor Nipher has to say on the subject of his experiments.

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

New York Times (19 September 1917)

"Professor Tells of Electrical Tests Turning Attraction Into Repulsion."

A new theory as to gravitation will be announced soon before the St. Louis Academy of Sciences by Professor Francis E. Nipper, retired head of the Department of Physics of Washington University.

"It will be shown that gravitational attraction between masses of matter not only has been diminished into zero, but has been converted into repulsion which is more than twice as great as normal attraction."

New Gravitation Theory ~

Professor Nipper made his experiments with bodies suspended horizontally toward each other. By introducing electricity into the atmosphere he converted normal attraction into repulsion.



Here, Professor Nipher adheres to the commonly accepted "hypothesis" that terrestrial gravitation is attractive, even though there are no experiments to confirm this.

However, his ingenious experiments CREATED IN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE, thus linking terrestrial gravitation (pressure) to antigravity.



Before connecting any form of electric current to the modified Cavendish apparatus, Prof. Nipher took special precaution to carefully screen the moving element from any electrostatic or electromagnetic effects. His apparatus briefly consists of two large lead spheres ten inches in diameter, resting upon heavy sheets of hard rubber. Two small lead balls, each one inch in diameter, were now suspended from two silk threads, stationed at the sides of the two large lead spheres, from which they were separated by a little distance. Moreover, the suspended balls were insulated elaborately from the large spheres by enclosing them first airtight in a long wooden box, which was also covered with tinned iron sheets as well as cardboard sheets. There was, furthermore, a metal shield between the box and the large metal spheres. The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational pull upon the suspended small lead balls and the small lead balls were slightly pulled over towards the large spheres.


In further experiments Prof. Nipher decided to check his results. To do this he replaced the large solid lead spheres with two metal boxes, each filled with loose cotton batting. These hollow boxes (having practically no mass) rested upon insulators. They were separated from the protective screen by sheets of glass and were grounded to it by heavy copper wires. The metal boxes were then charged in every way that the solid lead spheres had been, but not the slightest change in the position of the lead balls could be detected. This would seem to prove conclusively that the "repulsion" and "gravitational nullification" effects that he had produced when the solid balls were electrically charged were genuine and based undoubtedly on a true inter-atomic electrical reaction, and not upon any form of electrostatic or electromagnetic effects between the large and small masses. If they had been, the metal boxes, with no mass, would have served as well as the solid balls.


Another interesting experiment was conducted with low frequency alternating current applied to the large lead spheres. Spring contact brushes were fastened to the wooden blocks supporting the large spheres, one brush on either side of the ball. This permitted sending current through the ball from one side to the other. First, a direct current of 20 amperes as sent through the two large masses, but no effect on the suspended masses could be detected. Next, an alternating current of 20 amperes was sent through the two masses, with the result that the gravitational attraction was quickly reduced to zero, and not only that but in 15 to 20 minutes the small lead spheres had moved over one-half as much to the opposite direction as the distance they had been attracted originally towards the large masses. Thus gravitation had not only been completely nullified, but it was actually reversed.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.



rabinoz... leave classical mechanics to those who do know something about it.

FROM A CLASSIC TEXT ON MECHANICS:



It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate; but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.

A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship will be obvious when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them halfway.


"If the seat, source and cause of the "apparent" attraction forces are "internal" to each of the bodies...the attraction concept produces twice the force that is necessary to balance the centrifugal orbital forces of a planet moon system.

The concept of "attraction" between bodies requires that the force “from” each separate body acts on the remote body,-- and equally on the originating body."

Exactly as in the above example, using two boats, or a boat and a ship.

FORCE #1: boat x is pulling on boat y

FORCE #2: the boat x anchored force WILL MOVE BOAT X TOWARDS BOAT Y (OR THE SHIP) (will cause boat x to be moving itself towards boat y)

"To every action there is always an opposed  equal reaction".

FORCE #3: boat y is pulling on boat x

FORCE #4: the boat y anchored force will MOVE BOAT Y TOWARDS BOAT X



THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN IN THE EARTH-MOON RE SYSTEM: BOTH PLANETS WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.


From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

As simple as this.

Okay, but irregardless of the repulsion (explained by Coulomb's Law and easily replicated by pulling a fruit loop around a water-filled bowl with a magnet), Nipher used the principles of Gravitational Attraction to conduct his experiment.

So you're simultaneously saying he was both wrong and right. That's a paradox.

Nipher himself, in quotes you have used, acknowledges gravitational attraction. You say he is wrong.

But then his electric repulsion must also be wrong.

How can his experiment be both wrong and right? How can he prove electric fields can override gravitational ones without acknowledging gravitational ones exist.

And yes, he shielded his masses. But to say that electricity is causing the effect, you have to acknowledge, well, that electricity is having an effect. This effect is modelled for by Coulomb's Law.

There is no contradiction between attractive gravity, Coulomb's Law and Nipher's experiment.

To recap:
 - Is Nipher wrong, or is he right? He can't be both.
 - Coulomb's Law.
 - This is the wrong thread.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 05:50:43 AM »
This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists

Terrestrial gravitation can be caused, on a flat earth, by far different forces other than "attraction".
That's besides the point, because Nipher, the man you cite, says it's caused by attraction, and his experiment works based on this principle. So you can't use him as evidence against attraction.

Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction.

You better do your homework on the Allais effect: an antigravitational effect caused by pressure.
Cool, I just did. It's been alleged, and experiments have been done which both support and do not support it. Also, that doesn't describe a 'field' of force as I clearly state. So, I stand by my statement.

To recap:

 - You still have not even remotely addressed my main points.

If you want to address them, please do so in the thread suggested and provided, because I sense dark eyes frowning upon me for further derailing this thread.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 05:15:11 AM »
Okay, I can see now where you're coming from. But explain to me (because I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this whole thing), how do you deal with the diagonal vectors these hypothetical spheres would create?
You consider each part, e.g. the sphere, as a Gaussian model.
This means for this sub-model, the vectors would be perpindicular.
You then convert this sub-model centred model to a full model centred one, taking note that now, instead of just r, you have a position (x,y,z) of both the mass and the accelerated object, and use this to find the acceleration as a function of position (instead of r) with a direction, i.e. it is a vector.

For example, the one above for a point mass located at (x0,y0,z0), with a mass of m is:
<(x0-x)*Gm/((x-x0)^2+(y-y0)^2+(z-z0)^2)^1.5,(y0-y)*Gm/((x-x0)^2+(y-y0)^2+(z-z0)^2)^1.5,(z0-z)*Gm/((x-x0)^2+(y-y0)^2+(z-z0)^2)^1.5>

Then, as you have a bunch of vectors from each sub model, you simply add the vectors together.

What? The vectors are still diagonal. Are you saying you take the x, z, y force components and then these are all at 90 degree increments so it all adds up? Because that doesn't work. You can do it in theory, but in practice I still have a diagonal vector which conflicts with an infinite plane Gaussian model.

What your working shows is you finding the direct downward vector for your point mass, to which I say: I concede that. You can model for a downward vector. But in reality, vectors aren't nearly so simplistic.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?
« on: April 28, 2017, 05:10:13 AM »
However, in my experiment the light source was almost directly overhead, so the shadows are on the ground. What if you have the lights turned off? Also, I haven't been able to find any documentation of shadows reducing air pressure.

I could be totally off base here, but are your shadows actual 'shadow'-shadows, or something else. Please explain.
Not light, other shadows.
Similar to how with wind, you can stand behind an object and be in its "shadow" where the wind doesn't effect you (or at least not as much).

One of the simpler ways to explain it (to at least get some understanding) would be particles all throughout the universe which mostly penetrate matter, but not quite completely, such that as they pass through matter some would be absorbed and impart a force to that matter.

Without any other objects, this means an object (e.g. a ball) will be struck equally from all sides and thus no net force.
As soon as you bring another object in (e.g. Earth), some of the particles that would have struck the ball instead pass through Earth and are absorbed by Earth. This means fewer particles hit the ball from the side of Earth, meaning the force is now unbalanced and pushes the ball towards Earth. Similarly, some of the particles that would have hit Earth have been absorbed by the ball, pushing Earth towards the ball.

Ah I see. So in this model, gravitational attraction is determined by size of shadow, or to put it another way, projected area.

But this is a little problematic because if I hold a piece of paper up to my small masses opposed to the masses I was using, then I get zero deflection. My experiment shows an increase in attraction correlating to an increase in mass, not size. In fact, I (accidentally) controlled for this in my experiment, filling cups with water (the cups projected area stays consistent but the mass increases).

What if I were to perform the experiment in a darkroom, Faraday-cage with the light's turned off, buried deep underground. Now surely everything would float, since there is no particles to cause any pressure, right?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?
« on: April 28, 2017, 04:57:50 AM »

Hi! I ran an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravity based on attraction.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0

But doesn't this mean the Earth must be applying this attractive force too?
No. Because you haven't shown other models can't do the same.

I don't follow. What other model do you suggest has a gravitational attraction between two masses sitting on Earth, but not a gravitational attraction between Earth and those masses?
The one suggested in this thread for starters.
It claims gravity is a result of a pressure being exerted by something, and that objects create shadows, such that when you place 2 objects close together the shadows of the objects reduces the pressure (just in the shadowed region) such that you get what is effectively the same as an attractive force between the objects.

However, in my experiment the light source was almost directly overhead, so the shadows are on the ground. What if you have the lights turned off? Also, I haven't been able to find any documentation of shadows reducing air pressure.

I could be totally off base here, but are your shadows actual 'shadow'-shadows, or something else. Please explain.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 04:54:26 AM »
A possible way it could work was to have infinitely small sub-models, so that each point mass can add up, and those naughty little diagonal vectors don't exist anymore. The problem with that is, now you can't add up anything and you're left with a model for an infinite plane that has incalculable gravity.

Is this what you are trying to get at, or am I missing the point?
That is akin to what I am getting at.
Except treating the objects as simply as you can.
So you treat the plane as an infinite plane, and then you add other objects to it, similar to how you can treat the entire infinite plane as a series of point masses and add them all up.

Objects too far away you can deem to be insignificant and neglect.
Close by objects you can approximate in various ways.

Yes, it will be a simplification and not perfectly accurate, but pretty much everything is.
There is a wonderful quote about science (at least when you get to things like this) that I love:
Everything is either too simple to be real, or too complex to be useful.

Sure, you can treat everything as a point mass, but if you just wanted to treat them as atoms, then with just 60g of sand, you would have 6.022*10^23 points to deal with.
That would be far too complex for any sane person to try to deal with, and produce an accuracy far greater than that needed (especially as you would never get the distance accurate enough to care).
As such, it makes more sense to break the object down into small, but still quite large, simple objects, which you can use Gauss' law for, like spheres.

Assuming the density doesn't vary too much, cut out the biggest spheres you can, until you have a decent amount potentially overlapping some of the smaller ones a bit to make sure you account for all the mass, and then use that.
It wont be perfect, but it will likely be as good as you need.

Okay, I can see now where you're coming from. But explain to me (because I still haven't quite wrapped my head around this whole thing), how do you deal with the diagonal vectors these hypothetical spheres would create?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 04:33:45 AM »
I'll essentially rephrase what I said to rabinoz.

Even using one mass, if the field you are using doesn't strike at right angles at every point, then Gauss's Law doesn't work for an infinite plane.
Not necessarily right angles. Integer multiples of 90 degrees.

And each sub-model used will have that, and then you add the results together, after first converting them into 3D vectors.

Yeah absolutely, I agree. Only integer multiples of 90 degrees.

So, if this is the case, say I were to build a wall (as a hypothetical example given by one of my sources that I posted ages ago). This wall will exert a vector down, but also vectors radiating outwards and upwards, as a result of gravity. These vectors will not be integer multiples of 90 degrees, and therefore will not perfectly line up. Or, say I were to have a mountain. Here, the entire side of the mountain is on an angle, and this angle changes at all points.

A possible way it could work was to have infinitely small sub-models, so that each point mass can add up, and those naughty little diagonal vectors don't exist anymore. The problem with that is, now you can't add up anything and you're left with a model for an infinite plane that has incalculable gravity.

Is this what you are trying to get at, or am I missing the point?

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 04:28:12 AM »
You did not read M. Miles' paper.

I did though.

But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.

This has nothing to do with my experiment; I controlled for this. If you look in my OP, that detail has been there since the beginning.

If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.

If you want anyone to understand anything about your experiment, then you are going to have to offer many more details as to how you performed it. Go ahead and include these details at the other thread.

Sure thing! What details do you want me to add?


Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid.

Nipher discovered AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECT, in addition to the effect OF TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY WHICH IS NOT A FORCE OF ATTRACTION, BUT OF PRESSURE.

Professor Nipher showed that TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION (PRESSURE) AND ELECTRICITY (ANTI GRAVITATIONAL FORCE) ARE ABSOLUTELY RELATED.

I refer you to your own prior comment:

The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

This is repeated throughout the documents you have provided. This is Nipher explicitly saying that gravitational attraction exists, and that it is not caused by pressure. Do you really want to disagree with Nipher? I mean, dude was a smart dude.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Nope, you can't have a gravitational 'field' if it's caused by pressure. Only if it's caused by gravitational attraction. So, is Nipher right, or are you?

Also, please explain to me what Nipher's experiment showed that cannot be explained using Coulomb's Law.

Your conclusions could not be more wrong: how then is anyone here going to trust your OWN experiment, your take on it?

I asked nicely to keep insults out of this. Please, don't discredit your ideas.

To recap:

 - If you would like me to add detail to my OP, then please explain what you would like and I shall add it if it is within my ability. If it isn't, I will explain why in a rational and hopefully satisfactory manner.

 - Nipher relies on gravitational attraction. You claim gravitational attraction doesn't exist. You can't both be right. So either Nipher goes, or you do.

 - If you have issue against my experiment, raise it against my experiment, not against me. That's just common courtesy.

I would like to point out (for the third time so far): I believe that the Earth is flat.
I have no dispute with you there. I do have dispute with the arguments you are using to conclude gravitational attraction doesn't exist.

I do agree with Jonny B Smart here though. If you want to continue this debate, let's move it over to the relevant thread.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:18:12 AM »
I'll essentially rephrase what I said to rabinoz.

Even using one mass, if the field you are using doesn't strike at right angles at every point, then Gauss's Law doesn't work for an infinite plane.
Not that I have done it myself, but I think that Gauss's Law has been used on the infinite plane by
  • evaluating the field at the of a finite disk.
  • taking the limit as the radius approaches infinity,
  • then reasoning that the field is uniform over the whole surface.
A nice little point is that if the plane is "not quite infinite" the plane will collapse into a "near infinite sphere", but in "near infinite" time. :P

That is a rather jarring counter-point against taking a limit.

And if the disk field has a height dimension, then its sides will still strike perpendicular to a perfectly flat plane, and not against a contoured one, so the same thing I describe applies, right?

EDIT: Congrats on 7000 comments, by the way!

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: And if the Earth would simply be ... hollow ?
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:08:14 AM »

Hi! I ran an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravity based on attraction.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0

But doesn't this mean the Earth must be applying this attractive force too?
No. Because you haven't shown other models can't do the same.

I don't follow. What other model do you suggest has a gravitational attraction between two masses sitting on Earth, but not a gravitational attraction between Earth and those masses?

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 03:06:08 AM »
You were invited to read a very important paper on the Cavendish experiment, requiring of you at least a few days of serious stuying.

Yet, here you are 15 minutes later claiming that it is no problem at all for you.

So, I have to do your homework for you.

I spent days reading it. I told you; I read Mile's paper before embarking on my experiment. Your statement is insulting and baseless. This is a discussion of science, not hurling of insults.

You show flaws in Cavendish's and Walkers design. I accept these. As I said, I designed my experiment to combat them, specifically because of Mile's paper.

If my experiment is wrong, show how specifically my experiment is flawed.

Now, you have become an expert on the Nipher experiments.

No, I never said that. In fact, I've barely looked into them. Because Nipher's experiments worked on the basis that Cavendish's experiments are valid. It says this multiple times in the article, including sections you yourself quoted.

He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

He concluded gravitation existed, using Cavendish's experiment. This means that if Cavendish was flawed, then so was Nipher.

Look! You even quote a line in Nipher's experiment which shows "qualitative evidence for gravitational attraction"!

The large metal lead spheres now exerted a certain gravitational force upon the suspended small lead balls … and the small lead balls were slightly moved over towards the large spheres.

Furthermore, Coulomb's Law (developed sometime after 1784, when the experiment was done), shows that an electrically charged object (like lead balls charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments) will apply a force to electrostatic objects (like lead balls not charged with high voltage, like in Nipher's experiments).

So, in conclusion: No, nothing to do with Nipher's experiments disproves gravitational attraction in any way.

To recap:

 - If you have a grievance with my experiment, raise it against my experiment, like I asked in my OP.
 - Nipher has nothing relevant to do with this discussion, since his experiment relies on Cavendish's being correct, and also describes a completely unrelated scientific principle.

I'd also like to respectfully ask, curious individual to curious individual, don't insult me.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 28, 2017, 02:20:38 AM »

Yes, you are only accounting for a force with a vector directly down. Because any other vector direction breaks the Gaussian model (please excuse me for not copy+pasting all the working out from the two links I posted much earlier, but you can check them out if you like).

I'm not arguing that the Gaussian-derived formula for an infinite flat plane operates just fine for the vector direction you describe. It does, quite adequately as far as I'm concerned. But it breaks once you introduce vectors of differing directions, not least because they aren't contained within the plane, but because they aren't parallel or perpendicular to the plane.

(Just as a funny side-note: Perhaps ironically, the infinite-plane-Gauss-function would work fine if your infinite plane were in fact an infinite sphere, as that would make all vectors perpendicular.)

Like I said, it isn't a single Gaussian model with a single surface.
You use the Gaussian modelling to get each part, convert that "down" into a vector in 3D space, and then add them together.
What I did was take a Gaussian model for the plane and a Gaussian model for a point mass, convert the acceleration to a 3D vector, and add them together.

Oh I see what you are getting at, my apologies. I've been misinterpreting what it is you're saying. But modelling a point mass that is hovering above the plane can't be done with Gauss' Law for Gravity. The point mass has to be inside the plane.
Like I said, you model the 2 masses separately, using Gauss' law, and then combine them.

I'll essentially rephrase what I said to rabinoz.

Even using one mass, if the field you are using doesn't strike at right angles at every point, then Gauss's Law doesn't work for an infinite plane.

Agreed, I thought that you were claiming that Gauss' Law couldn't be applied and part of what I was pointing out was that there were also other ways of analysing it.

Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying for me.

But have you read some of the paradoxes that arise when you bring GR into it?
An infinite plain (or plane) can be also looked on as the limiting case of a spherical shell, as the radius approaches infinity.

No I haven't. That sounds very interesting; I'll give a look into it. Thanks!

But, you are probably much better at this than I.

This part is false :)

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 28, 2017, 01:18:53 AM »

However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.

So now you finally admit to resorting to "peer-reviewed" replications of the Cavendish experiment.

I told you that those experiments have terrible flaws in them, make sure you read this paper thoroughly:

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html


What? I didn't 'resort to anything. I think my experiment can stand alone, but you said:


Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.


So I responded by showing you peer-reviewed studies. How is this logic incorrect?

Also, I read the Miles Mathis paper before I even started my experiment, and I deliberately, because of that paper, went about it from a skeptical perspective. You ought to know I did the experiment skeptically had you read my OP.

Mile's paper refers to the experimental setup of the original experiment, pointing out flaws I think are valid. That's why I tried to remove those flaws from my experiment. I ask you again, not to attack you but to gain clarity: What did I do wrong?


In the gyrodrop experiment, runs 3-7 simply cannot exist, cannot occur on a round earth.


No experiment is exactly perfect. There is such a thing as margin of error. Are you saying that this one study was done perfectly? Look at the margin of error that is listed on the photo. It clearly shows runs 3-7 can exist.

I say it again:

 - Your data does not disprove mine.

and

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.

Yes, they calculate a fictitious force element. And? That's called being thorough. I have nothing against that.

I'd like to take a side not to say, because clearly I have not said it enough: I am not advocating for the existence of a Round Earth. I am advocating for the existence of gravity on a Flat Earth. There is no reason a Flat Earth can't have gravity.

Now, onto your side-topic of Nipher. The papers you source admit the Cavendish Experiment was valid. In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction. So which is it?
1. Was the Cavendish experiment flawed, and if so, specifically how is my replication.
2. Was the Cavendish experiment correct, meaning you can use your Nipher deflection.

You can't have it both ways.

So, to recap:

 - How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong?

 - What data do you want from my experiment?

 - Your data does not disprove mine.

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.

 - Is Cavendish, and therefore Nipher, wrong?

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM »
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.

When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:

http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png

Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.


Dr. Bruce DePalma published his experiment in a respected journal.

So did Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

So did Dr. Steve Lamoreaux.

So did Dr. Maurice Allais.


No, the results are basically identical



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

Final conclusion of the experiment:

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

Yeah, my experiment is not up to scratch with a peer-reviewed journal. Of course it isn't. I did it in my basement. However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment. What are you suggesting caused my alleged error?

If you want more information, ask and you shall receive. What do you want me to show to you? I have the data on my computer.

Look at the mean data down the bottom, that's what counts. And then look at the margins of error. It's clear from the margins of error and mean data that this experiment could have all been down to pure chance. If it had been run more than 7-13 times (and replicated), then you could increase its accuracy and I would be more likely to believe you.

To recap my points:
 - How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong? (I'd actually sincerely like to know, because it matters a great deal for the FE formula I'm deriving)

 - What data do you want from my experiment?

 - Your data does not disprove mine. (In fact, you can never say something is 'proven' or 'disproven' in science. You can say something isn't supported by the majority of evidence, but I have multiple replications and I can't see any for the experiment you describe)

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does. (I could be misinterpreting you, in which case please let me know.)

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 27, 2017, 11:20:45 PM »
Here is an experiment denying your "findings".

Okay, so you've already got me on the wrong foot here. I really don't like you suggesting my findings are false, especially because that insinuates I have done something wrong without explicitly claiming that. It's sneaky and I don't like it, but I'll ignore it because I couldn't care less what you think of me, I just care about what you think of my science.

(Note: I believe in a flat earth.)

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

What? No, the results are basically identical, and within the margin of error listed on that very graphic! Even the source you pull your quotes from doesn't claim they are falling at different rates, because they very clearly aren't.

However, this is all deflection. What do you think of my experiment? Was anything wrong with my experiment? Not looking at anyone else's work, but specifically mine. Is my experiment flawed, and if so how? I genuinely want to know, because if I'm wrong, it opens up a whole bunch of options for consideration.

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 27, 2017, 11:10:21 PM »
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.

You haven't shown anything.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70403.msg1902001#msg1902001

Your counterarguments in that post seem to be:

 - Cavendish screwed up the experiment
(I ran the experiment, so are you saying I too, did it wrong? If so, please explain what.)
 - electro-gravitation is a thing
(I ran the experiment with nothing that conducts electricity so I'm fairly sure electricity had nothing to do with it. If it did, please explain what.)
 - zero point energy exists
(zero point energy and gravitational attraction can both exist in the same universe. Also in my experiment, all my masses were far enough apart for zero point energy to affect nothing. If I'm wrong, please explain how.)

Further, that post doesn't specifically concern my experiment, just Cavendish's.

I apologise, but I have shown something. I saw it and have data for it, which under zetetic and scientific conditions means it's valid. How do you explain my findings? Do you want further data?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distances in the universe
« on: April 27, 2017, 10:58:33 PM »
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.

You do need to explain how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

So far you have totally failed to do so.


I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re-creation of the Cavendish Experiment
« on: April 27, 2017, 09:53:49 PM »
Oh I see what you are getting at, my apologies. I've been misinterpreting what it is you're saying. But modelling a point mass that is hovering above the plane can't be done with Gauss' Law for Gravity. The point mass has to be inside the plane.
Have a look at The Physics Hypertextbook, Gravity of Extended Bodies, practice problem 2.

Many apologies, but I don't see the point you're getting at. This agrees with everything I have looked at so far. My point refers to this statement (which in this case I've pulled from the source you have given):

Quote from: The Physics Hypertextbook, Gravity of Extended Bodies, practice problem 2
Given the geometric simplicity of the situation, the field must strike either side of the slab at a right angle. The two faces of the imaginary box outside the slab are parallel to the sides of the slab. These two faces are the only ones that can capture any gravitational field.

If the surface of the slab does not hit at right angles to your field at every point along the x-y plane (surface of the slab), then the field can't be applied and Gauss' Law can't be used to model gravity. It only works if your infinite plain is an infinite plane.

Sorry if this isn't what you are trying to say, but I couldn't really understand your point from what you wrote.

29
What is it about the word universal that confuses you?

Where is this "outside observer?"

My understanding is, in order to measure motion there has to be a reference frame. If the entire universe is moving, where is the reference frame?

A reference frame isn't required to feel a force of acceleration. As far as we know. 9.8m/s^2 acceleration = 9.8m/s^2 force.

Regardless if there is an outside reference frame to measure velocity.

Try it yourself in a big carpark with a blindfold while accelerating.

Make sure you get a mate to watch you.

Okay, so I follow you so far. But I don't understand how objects on Earth are the only things to which this acceleration is applied. Why doesn't the Earth itself feel this 'force' or why don't other celestial objects?

I have no idea, you got me, well played.

The claimed and measured gravity on the moon would smash the UA idea.

Hence why the moon missions are often rejected.

Okay. Hey, and thanks for explaining the frame-of-reference thing to me. I was kinda struggling with fully grasping it, but now I got it.

30
What is it about the word universal that confuses you?

Where is this "outside observer?"

My understanding is, in order to measure motion there has to be a reference frame. If the entire universe is moving, where is the reference frame?

A reference frame isn't required to feel a force of acceleration. As far as we know. 9.8m/s^2 acceleration = 9.8m/s^2 force.

Regardless if there is an outside reference frame to measure velocity.

Try it yourself in a big carpark with a blindfold while accelerating.

Make sure you get a mate to watch you.

Okay, so I follow you so far. But I don't understand how objects on Earth are the only things to which this acceleration is applied. Why doesn't the Earth itself feel this 'force' or why don't other celestial objects?

Pages: [1] 2 3