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.

Topics - sandokhan

Pages: [1]
Arts & Entertainment / Top heavyweight boxing matches which were fixed
« on: September 06, 2020, 12:34:20 AM »
Liston/Clay I

Sonny Liston established himself as the best ever heavyweight boxing champion up to that time. His sparring partner was George Foreman. There is no way that Liston would have lost to Clay on that night.

"KO of Sonny Liston up in Maine in May 1965...I was there....when Liston hits the deck from Clay's "Phantom Punch"...that "punch" wouldn't have crushed a Liston on the floor..Sonny took a dive in both of their fights!!.I've seen better acting in the WWF/WWE...Ali a big puncher? never planted his feet...always flitting around the ring."

"Liston headed into the fight as a heavy favourite and despite Clay’s confidence and bravado, most experts were picking a one-sided victory for the current heavyweight champ, but that would soon change when Clay began to dominate the fight in the early rounds. What happened next was even more shocking.

At the end of the sixth round, Liston, sitting on his chair hearing advice from his trainer, spat out his mouthguard, and inexplicably quit the fight. He refused to come out for the seventh round, making Cassius Clay the new heavyweight champion of the world.

How on Earth could this loudmouth 22 year kid have made the unbeatable Sonny Liston give up the title by quitting? You have to remember, Liston was not only the Heavyweight Champion but also the scariest and meanest man on the planet. His awesome power and baleful stare sent chills down the spines of not only his opponents but of almost anyone who was in his presence. To the public in 1964 this outcome just didn’t make sense."

Liston/Ali II

"Following the controversial ending from their first meeting, it was revealed that both fighters had a rematch clause in their contract, meaning that the loser of the fight could demand a shot at redemption. This would immediately provoke more claims that the fight was indeed fixed.

Regardless of the accusations, the public were hugely anticipating the rematch, and the fight was set for the Boston Garden. But soon enough, it was also surrounded by controversy, well before the first bell was rung.

Despite the ever-growing controversy, the fight immediately found a new venue in Lewiston, Maine – a town with a population of just 41,000 people, and an arena capacity of 4,900. However, the fight was watched by millions of viewers all around the world.

Ali, who had changed his name from Cassius Clay following their first fight, was his usual confident self and claimed he would once again make easy work of Liston. But not even he could have predicted how easy the rematch would be.

One of the shortest title fights in boxing history was finished barely two minutes into the opening round, when Ali struck Liston with what seemed to be an accurate yet harmless punch.

Now known as the ‘Phantom Punch’, this immediately sent Liston to the floor and when he got up, the referee surprisingly decided that the punch was enough to damage Liston and called off the fight.

The small, yet vocal crowd in attendance was outraged, booing, throwing objects into the ring and chanting “Fixed!”. "

Liston would have defeated all of the heavyweight champions of the 70s, 80s, and 90s with the possible exception of Tyson (1986-1988 with Rooney in his corner).

Foreman\Ali (Rumble in the jungle)

As soon as Foreman got off the plane, he was called "George the Belgian". As he was getting off the airplane, Foreman was accompanied by a german shepherd.

"The German Shepard was one of the primary breeds of dogs used the the Belgium police when Zaire was Controlled by Belgium. The Black populace associated the breed with the forces that oppressed them. When Foreman walked off the plane and was always seen with those dogs, it made Ali a the "Hometown Hero" and Foreman a symbol of white oppression."

Does it make any sense for Foreman to display such insensitivity? Or to accept to fight Ali in Zair? Of course not.

Foreman had frightening punching power (see his fights against Frazier and Norton), and yet again, Ali would prevail against the heaviest hitting champion of his day.

"As much as I hate to say it, the fight was fixed.  In gambler's circles, people knew the exact round Forman was going to lose down to the exact time in the round.   The fight was in Zaire. Who the hell has a fight in Zaire? Look at how loose the ropes on the ring were for their fight, that is a dead give away. Ali was able to lean far enough back so as to not feel the full force of those punches. Forman admits that some of the water he drank during the fight tasted of medicine. Use logic for a moment.  Forman beat Frazier with relative ease, twice. Hell, he hit Frazier so hard, Joe left his feet. This was the same Joe Frazier that beat Ali then fought two epic battles with him.  George destroyed Kenny Norton, with ease. He hit Norton so hard, that Kenny bounced off the ring ropes and back towards Joe.  Those ring ropes were regulation. How did Ali do against Norton? Foreman's guilt was the reason why he left the fight business a few years after the Ali fight.
Why do you think Michael Moore stepped right into that jab by Foreman?  That was boxings way of paying him back.  Listen, I want to believe in the Ali Forman fairy tale.  It is a great story but, it was a set up."

"If Ali wins the fight, it's been fixed," football legend Jim Brown.

Tyson/M. Spinks

The fix refers to the duration of the fight, not the outcome itself. Michael Spinks was already practically retired at that point, after having defeated (controversially) L. Holmes. But it seems what was needed culturally and politically was a quick KO right in the first round (91 seconds).

Tyson/B. Douglas

This is the reason Tyson partied all night before the fight, or why he hardly put up any offense for some eight rounds. Even the controversial count of Douglas was staged to perfection, a referee who made the unpardonable and unprecented error of not properly counting the time.

Tyson's heavy duty use of steroids (just like all of the other fighters of course):

Tyson (1986-1988) would have defeated all of the other heavyweights in history, with the possible exception of Liston who also had a devastating punching power.

Suggestions & Concerns / Denying the evidence
« on: July 14, 2020, 10:33:22 PM »
"You agree, through your use of this forum,that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive."

My concern is addressed to the admin and the mods.

There was a time when none of this could have taken place since the FE mods (theengineer, dogplatter) would put a stop to it in the course of 24 hours.

But now, you have to implement some kind of procedure, a new rule perhaps, which deals with users who have psychological problems. These problems become evident when they are forced to face reality: invariably, they resort to lying, to denying the evidence, then everything degenerates, and insults begin to proliferate.

Let me show you what is going on.

This is comet 17PHolmes, a photograph taken at the end of October 2007:

No tail whatsoever.

Of course, I provided the best references available, to corroborate my statement:

The reason that comet 17P Holmes brightened so suddenly isn’t yet known; this comet doesn't have a tail.

Although it is bright, comet 17P/Holmes does not have a distinctive tail.

Any sane person would accept these facts: if he/she cannot explain them, then they move on to something else.

But we are not dealing with a sane person, as you well know by now.

Defying the very rules that he agreed to obey, this user resorts to plain lying:

Although it is bright, comet 17P/Holmes does not have a distinctive tail.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have a tail.

As late as OCTOBER 31, 2007, comet 17PHolmes still had no tail.
Repeating this crap just shows you don't understand basic perspective.
As late as October, the tail would have been obscured by the comet.

Obviously we are dealing either with a chatbot (forbidden by the rules) or with someone who is insane, and is forced by his nature to deny everything.

My concern is this: please tell us how to deal with these situations, where a user simply denies the facts and resorts to lying, which is again is forbidden by the rules.

"You agree, through your use of this forum,that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive."

I have the references from Nature and ESA. No one could ask for better sources.

They state clearly: comet 17PHolmes had no tail whatsoever in the period October 20 - November 4, 2007.

You have to do something about it, since otherwise, the debates will degenerate, and insults will be thrown all over the place.

You do not want either shifter or myself to be mods: we'd put an end to this kind of behaviour in no time at all.

What, then, are we supposed to do, when this user, jackblack resorts to denying reality and the very facts which are starring him in the face?

Suggestions & Concerns / New FE mods
« on: June 12, 2020, 09:58:24 PM »
Should I see a flat earther that I can reasonably trust, I'm happy to promote them to moderator.

We definitely need more FE mods, since the RE mods/admin will not touch the mayhem caused by the RE in the upper forums.

Let's have, for starters, Shifter as a new FE mod.

Explain the attractive mechanism: how do four trillion billion liters of water adhere to the outer surface of a sphere?

Unless you can do so, your globe reality is really just a poorly written SF story.

Suggestions & Concerns / flaming
« on: May 09, 2020, 02:03:54 AM »
Recently, two threads were opened which contain my user name.

Now, even a third thread was posted today:

Is this ok? Just asking.

Suggestions & Concerns / my concern
« on: January 17, 2020, 01:24:16 AM »
Those big ring-laser gyroscopes do indeed measure the rotation rate of the Earth to be (7.292±0.002)×10−5 rad/sec
Those RLGs measure the rotation of the ether drift through the CORIOLIS EFFECT.
If you want rotation (of the Earth) you need the SAGNAC EFFECT.
We have been over this countless times with you repeatedly failing to justify your insane claims.
The sagnac effect will be the same regardless of if you accept reality with a rotating Earth, or if you choose to cling to a refuted aether which is stationary with Earth rotating, or the refuted aether which rotates about a stationary Earth, or the refuted aether which rotates with Earth rotating as well.

The Sagnac effect is recorded with ring laser gyroscopes. You blatantly lying about that will not change that fact.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to go back to one of the countless threads on the Sagnac effect you have already been refuted in and try to defend your claims. Maybe start with a derivation, from first principles, starting with how long it takes for light to traverse a stationary loop.

You see John, this is what we have to deal with on a daily basis, courtesy of the fact that we are left defenseless.

They wouldn't dare to talk like this to you or to ski, since they know they will be banned immediately.

You have left this forum to its own devices, and the RE are fully profiting from this fact.

The other mods, while they might be well-intentioned, do not care at all.

So, if we the FE no longer engage in debates, you will be left with pretty much nothing at all.

Flat Earth Debate / Colors of Mars
« on: September 29, 2019, 09:30:51 AM »

Dr. Gil Levin's first-hand recollections of the whole affair are recounted in a recent
book by science writer Barry DiGregorio. In the book, Levin relates the remarkable
overreaction by JPL that occurred in response to Ron Levin's naive efforts to "correct"
what seemed to him to be a deliberate distortion of the incoming Viking Lander data.
According to DiGregorio's narrative:

"At about 2:00 p.m. PDT, the first color image from the surface of another Planet,
Mars, began to emerge on the JPL color video monitors located in many of the
surrounding buildings, specifically set up for JPL employees and media Personnel to view
the Viking images. Gil and Ron Levin sat in the main control room where dozens of video monitors and anxious technicians waited to see this historic first color picture. As the image developed on the monitors, the crowd of scientists, technicians and media reacted enthusiastically to a scene that would be absolutely unforgettable — Mars in color. The image showed an Arizona-like landscape: blue sky, brownish-red desert soil and gray rocks with green splotches.

"Gil Levin commented to Patricia Straat (his co-investigator) and his son Ron, 'Look at that image! It looks like Arizona'" (see photo above).

"Two hours after the first color image appeared on the monitors, a technician abruptly changed the image from the light-blue sky and Arizona-like landscape to a uniform orange-red sky and landscape. Ron Levin looked in disbelief as the technician  went from monitor to monitor making the change. Minutes later, Ron followed him,  resetting the colors to their original appearance. Levin and Straat were interrupted when they heard someone being chastised. It was Ron Levin being chewed out by the Viking project director himself, James S. Martin, Jr. Gil Levin immediately inquired as to what was going on. Martin had caught Ron changing all the color monitors back to their original settings. He warned Ron that if he tried something like that again, he'd be thrown out of JPL for good. The director then asked a TRW engineer assisting the Biology team,  Ron Gilje, to follow Ron Levin around to every color monitor and change it back to the red landscape. "What Gil Levin, Ron and Patricia Straat did not know (even to this writing) is that the order to change the colors came directly from the NASA administrator himself. Dr. James Fletcher. Months later, Gil Levin sought out the JPL Viking imaging team technician who actually made the changes and asked why it was done. The technician responded that he had instructions from the Viking imaging team that the Mars sky and landscape should be red and went around to all the monitors, "tweaking" them to make it so. Gil Levin said, "The new settings showed the American flag (painted on the Landers) as having purple stripes. The technician said that the Mars atmosphere made the flag appear that way [emphasis added]."

It turns out that DiGregorio's statement that the NASA administrator was behind the
monitor changing incident was based on a confirmation of this from an official source —
former JPL public affairs officer Jurrie J. Van der Woude — and it had an even stranger
and somewhat sinister angle: In a letter to DiGregorio (also reproduced in Mars: The
Living Planet), Van der Woude wrote:

"Both Ron Wichelman [of JPL's Image Processing laboratory (IPL)] and I were responsible for the color quality control of the Viking Lander photographs, and Dr. Thomas Mutch, the Viking Imaging Team leader, told us that he got a call from the NASA Administrator asking that we destroy the Mars blue sky negative created from the original digital data."

This bizarre sequence of events raises many disturbing questions. For instance, why
was the administrator of NASA so determined to conceal the "true" colors of Mars from
the American people and the world in 1976? Why would he order the head of the Viking
Imaging Team to literally eliminate an important piece of historical evidence from the
official mission archive — the original "blue-sky negative" — if the initial release was only
an honest technical mistake? Wouldn't that record be an important part of the ultimate,
triumphant story of NASA scientists correcting initial scientific errors, in their continued
exploration of the frontier and alien environment of another world? And why would a
young teenager (the son of one of the key investigators on the Viking mission, no less) be threatened with expulsion by the director of the project for simply tweaking a couple of color monitors around the lab?

Suggestions & Concerns / Question addressed to the admin/mods
« on: September 12, 2019, 10:36:38 PM »
Everyday we have to deal here with two paid shills (eight hours a day, full time job) who are absolutely incorrigible and unrelenting in spreading lies.

There is nothing that the FES can do for them anymore: they are not here to learn but only to provide an unrelenting daily output of blatant lies.

The other FE website does not have to deal with them, and it shows.

No other forum would tolerate such a situation.

rabinoz and his alt (jackblack) cannot be changed, there is nothing the FES can do for them anymore, so good riddance then.

At worst, have them post only in the lower forums, at best, ban them for good.

Is there a special reason why you john, or scg, or boydster allow this nonsense to go on here unabated?

They have been here for years now, thousands and thousands of messages which contain only lies, on a daily basis, uninterrupted.

Why does the FES have to put up with this?

What they have done, even though they could not convince anyone here, is to stall the entire flat earth research process, no new topic can be presented to be discussed in a civilized manner.

If they will never change, and just be a daily nuissance, my question is this: why do we have to put up with them?

Did you sign a special contract when you became an admin or a mod to allow these two to troll this forum on a daily basis? And if not, what is stopping you to simply get rid of them?

Suggestions & Concerns / See OP for an update
« on: June 28, 2019, 07:30:00 AM »

The author has sent me a message whereby he indicated that he indeed had mentioned my work by a direct link to my AFET.

     You wrote something about me not citing you in a piece that I referenced from you in one of my books on FE. However, I actually did. On page 207 of Flat Earth Trilogy I, I cited you with:                                          
      I did not know your actual name, but I used the URL that leads to your page. (see above). I am sorry for the confusion. I trusted that the URL would lead any reader to your page as my reference. You are cited as the author that way. So sorry for any distress this may have caused you. Excellent work, btw. Kind regards,

Suggestions & Concerns / rabinoz = jackblack
« on: March 16, 2019, 07:02:28 AM »
Rule #3

3. Multiple Accounts
Do not create alternate accounts ('alts').

3. Multiple Accounts 
Automatic ban. A minimum ban of 1 month will be placed on the original account; the alternative account will be banned permanently.

rabinoz has just stated that he and jackblack are one and the same person.

A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion.

Immediately, I pointed out the huge error committed by jackblack in this statement.

A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion.

It cannot be.

What you are saying is that the nebular motion started by itself, based only on attractive gravity.

This cannot be so, since the radial component does not cause torque, a force needed to start the rotation of the nebula.

What force caused the nebula TO ROTATE? This is what you are feverishly avoiding to answer.

So, a huge misrepresentation your part: the radial component cannot cause rotation, only torque can do so, that is, the other components of the acceleration equation must come into play.

But now, rabinoz says HE WROTE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE, not jackblack:

A force pointing towards the centre is enough to produce circular motion.
I guess I should have written that out in as "A force pointing towards the centre is enough to maintain circular motion."
Sorry about that. So I'll ignore all the nebular motion stuff for now.

rabinoz has just stated that HE WROTE THE MESSAGE POSTED EARLIER by jackblack.

jackblack is rabinoz's alt!

Suggestions & Concerns / FE moderators needed
« on: May 04, 2018, 10:49:51 PM »
Every flat earther, who actually has to talk to jackblack, agrees he is unbearable.
Roundies meanwhile just get belligerent at anyone that dares call out one of their own.

This state of affairs is untenable. Forum staff, you have let them get away with everything and fostered this obscenely unpleasant and aggressive environment. Instead of shrugging it off as the new normal, do something about it. You are killing your userbase, and killing any enjoyment of this site.

This is exactly what is happening: most FE have given up posting in the upper forums, I have not posted a single message there since January and will not do so anytime soon.

Both rabinoz and jackblack (not to mention other RE) are resorting to plain denying and unscientific arguments to get through a "debate".

These have been documented here:

The best forum on scientific matters as they pertain to astronomy, cosmology, physics is forum.cosmoquest, there they have SEVERAL technical moderators who intervene very fast to settle any dispute and to point out that the users need to present certain proofs in order to be allowed to post further messages:

Any thread is given a one month probation period: both sides have a chance to present their arguments, if the discussion proves to be useful, the probation period is extended.

FES needs FE technical moderators to accomplish the same thing here.

The RE will no longer be able to get away with spurious unscientific arguments, their errors would be pointed out immediately, and they would have to either prove their assertions or accept defeat.

Unless you want to lose the entire FE userbase, we need some serious changes here on this forum.

Technical moderation is a huge step in this direction: either totallackey, jrowe, or myself, or, even better, all of us together.

No censorship: just applying scientific rules to the debates here, where plain denying will no longer be accepted as "proof" of anything.

Let us remember that gayer, theengineer and ski have moderator status but are inactive in the upper forums (the last two users have contributed once or twice over a period of multiple years): what we need is several FE moderators who are active.


Demand away. The proposal is yours. The claim is yours. The burden of evidence is yours.

That said, the agreement spelled out in Rule 13 is this: BAUT has agreed to grant you 30 days in which to present and promote your proposal here. By doing so, you have accepted the responsibility to answer all pertinent questions put to you within a reasonable time.

If you do not wish to uphold your end, you may instead choose to withdraw your claim and we'll simply close the thread. If you instead choose to continue to promote your idea while refusing to answer questions, the ultimate result will be the closure of this thread and the termination of your posting privileges here.

A no nonsense approach will really works out well for them.

Provide a proof or walk out; a refusal to do so leads directly to the removal of the posting privileges in the upper forums.

Suggestions & Concerns / Pls. delete the offensive signature
« on: February 06, 2018, 09:09:33 AM »
This user has an offensive signature image:;u=1461549

We are not talking about the truth of the content (I don't think that there has ever been someone among the RE who has received so many defeats in debates as this delusional chatbot): it breaks the rules and guidelines of the forum.

Rule 5.

Rule 7.

Arts & Entertainment / Sandokhan's Top 10 Movies
« on: February 05, 2018, 11:31:24 AM »
10. Berlin Alexanderplatz

9. Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

8. Comment réussir quand on est con et pleurnichard ... (1974)

7. Fellini's Roma

6. A Forgotten Tune for the Flute (Russian, 1987)

5. Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer

4. Desert of the Tartars (1976 - if you have never seen it, do not miss it)

3. Arabian Nights/ Il fiore delle mille e una notte (1974)

2. Cinema Paradiso (1988)

1. A Railway Station for Two (Russian, 1983)

Suggestions & Concerns / Message for john re: forum issues
« on: November 26, 2017, 10:35:30 PM »
We need a flat earth debate council to deal with situations where a certain topic is discussed ad nauseam and where the RE simply refuse to give up and accept defeat due to cognitive dissonance problems.

Council: sceptimatic, totallackey, jroa and jane. They will decide who won in a certain debate, and if needed, to lock the thread.

We absolutely need this solution to deal with situations like this:

You don't seem to like direct debates.
You posting mountains of bovine excrement and continually changing topic is not a direct debate.

The closest I have seen you come to a direct debate is when I force you to go through things one point/question at a time.
But when this happens, you flee, almost like you know that YOU wouldn't stand a chance in a direct debate.
You have done it repeatedly with your ignorance of the Sagnac effect to avoid admitting you are full of shit.
You also did it with your ignorance of the laws of motion.

It seems like every time you are forced into a direct debate, you flee, because you know you are full of crap.

Notwithstanding the fact that Legba was banned for much less than this, and that since the flat earth debate section is "strictly moderated" such a message should have been moved to CN or AR, here we have a person who does not understand that he has been defeated, and simply wastes everybody time here with such nonsense.

This is where the council would step in and inform this user that he has lost the debate and that there is nothing else that he can do about it.

Take a look at this john.

A topic which goes on for pages and pages, ad nauseam, for the simple reason that the user will not understand that he has been defeated.

He is shown with simple calculations that he cannot substitute the area from an interferometer which features the radii r1 and r2 for the area of an interferometer which has R1 and R2 as radii.

But this constitutes no problem for a person with cognitive dissonance.

He claimed that the orbital Sagnac is 1/365 of the rotational Sagnac.

I brought forth mainstream articles, featuring the best astrophysicists in the world, showing that this claim is totally wrong: on the contrary, the orbital Sagnac is much larger than the rotational Sagnac:

Any sensible person, when confronted with such obvious facts, would simply give up.

But not this person.

He simply comes back with another message in which he claims he is right and that those astrophysicists are "charlatans".

How would you deal with a situation like this john?

This is where the administration of a forum steps in and takes care of situations like this, that is why we need this council which will decide who actually won a certain debate.

Here is another situation involving the same person.

Let me ask you a question john.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.

No two persons in the world could apply the very same force.

By definition the forces applied must be different.

But this person came back with this answer:

If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
For a massless rope, it must be.

I reminded him that his analysis is simply wrong, here it is:

I even reminded him of the nonsense concerning the "massless rope":

How would you deal with a situation like this john, where a person who obviously suffers from a very serious condition of cognitive dissonance, breaks all the rules and continues ad nauseam to remind everyone that he has won a certain debate, when he was defeated in no uncertain terms?

Suggestions & Concerns / deleted thread
« on: March 23, 2017, 10:00:47 AM »
Who deleted the thread on the nazi flat earth beliefs?

Please bring it back in the AR section, at least.

Suggestions & Concerns / trolling/psychological damage control
« on: July 03, 2016, 10:23:49 PM »

This is perhaps the very first time where a RE's mind is starting to snap: he simply won't accept the results given by the very standard equation used in astrophysics.

With each and every answer he provides, we get more trolling, more evasive bullshitting, more picking at the straws.

Now, he actually IS DENYING the equation used for the full pressure in astrophysics.

It so happens that the pressure in the chromosphere breaks all the rules, and is totally unexplained by modern science.

Using this figure in the standard equation, we get the value of g at that point.

But this user simply won't accept the answer: now he says that the STANDARD EQUATION USED BY THE RE is wrong, it does not suit his taste.

Let me remind everyone that alphaomega was banned before for trolling for the same kind of behaviour: once he is shown that he is simply wrong, he will use trolling as a weapon to prolong the discussion endlessly.

Can the admin or the mods gently remind him that he has lost the debate? That he cannot deny the use of the standard full pressure equation, and its very basic results? One might also think of locking the thread as this guy's subconscious mind simply won't accept reality, the very facts of astrophysics.

I am here to debate the scientific facts, and not to offer psychological counseling to users who won't accept the basic facts of science.

Arts & Entertainment / Top 20 Theodor Adorno Songs
« on: January 12, 2016, 05:13:58 AM »

20. Bridge Over Troubled Waters

In 1970, without the support of more Adorno songs, Simon and Garfunkel's career as a group was over. Adorno also wrote Mrs. Robinson.

19. Lola

A modified Something, an extraodinary work signed Adorno again.

Both Something and Lola were created by reworking one of the most beautiful scores ever written, the Adagio from Spartacus, by Khachaturian:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Adorno also modified Something into the Rain Song, which was given to Led Zeppelin.

18. Tuesday Afternoon

A modified A Day In The Life (originally given to the Beatles).

17. I'm A Believer

It is commonly perceived that I'm A Believer (Monkees) was written by Neil Diamond; it was not. It was another Adorno song, a modified Help. Whether that was going to be another Beatles single in second half of 1966, we will never know; obviously after the disappearance of Paul from the public scene, and after John left the band too, everyone had to wait until January-February of 1967 for Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields to be released. Now, there is no way that Neil Diamond would have had the courage to modify Help to turn into I'm A Believer; only Adorno could modify classical scores, and was also allowed to modify Beatles songs to give to other artists/groups.

Obviously the legend behind the song was offered to the public in order not to attract attention that in the era of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones another song of the same quality would peak at no.1 in 1966, and would become the biggest selling record of 1967.

I'm A Believer is another Adorno masterpiece, perhaps intended originally for the Beatles, clearly a modified version of Help.

16. Jumping Jack Flash

One of the very best songs ever written by Adorno, a modified Satisfaction; he also transformed Satisfaction into What Is Life which was actually a Beatles song; after Adorno's death in August 6, 1969, all the remaining Beatles songs (Maybe I'm Amazed, Live And Let Die, Give Me Love, Imagine, My Love, Admiral Holsy, Dark Horse, Another Day) were given to McCartney II, Lennon II and Harrison. The Stones were able to survive for some years after 1970 with the remaining Adorno songs they had at their disposal (Angie, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Brown Sugar), but after 1976 they had to find new songwriters.

15. Light My Fire

A modified Ritual Fire Dance by De Falla (one can observe the similarities by listening to Jose Feliciano's version). Adorno also modified Light My Fire into Aqualung which was given to Jethro Tull.

14. Happy Together

A modified Penny Lane.

13. A tie: God Only Knows and Pinball Wizard

A modified Question (offered to the Moody Blues), given to The Who.

A modified Michelle given to the Beach Boys.

12. Nights In White Satin

One of the greatest songs written by Adorno, a modified Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky.

11. Kashmir

A full analysis of the song scored by Adorno, here: (includes an analysis of more Led Zeppelin songs written by Adorno, and also more Beatles songs)

Adorno also wrote Beck's Bolero (1966), a modified We Can Work It Out. He also scored See Emily Play given to Pink Floyd.

10. Live And Let Die

This song, written by Adorno in 1968, was supposed to be the Beatles' next single in 1970. A modified Magical Mystery Tour.

9. Martha My Dear

The best song on the White Album, a modified Martha by Von Flotow.

8. Blackbird

The most haunting ballad written for the Beatles, together with the masterpiece Yesterday.

A modified Fernando Sor, Etude (Op. 60 No.19)

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available

However, Adorno added elements from both the Hungarian Fantasy (Liszt) and the second movement of Beethoven's 7th Symphony.

7. Yellow Submarine

Actually the theme from Verdi's Aida combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.

6. Got To Get You Into My Life

A modified Can't Buy Me Love (actually Aine Kleine Nacht Musik by Mozart).

5. A tie: Penny Lane and Something

Penny Lane - Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 21 (Elvira Madigan)

Something - Adagio from Spartacus, Khachaturian

4. Yesterday

A modified Neapolitan song, called "Piccere' Che Vene a Dicere"

3. Sgt. Pepper

Sgt. Pepper is clever combination of the Radetzky March and the Romanian rhapsody no 1 by Enescu

2. Hey Jude

For Hey Jude, Adorno pulled out all stops, he grouped into one song, masterfully, the Ride of the Walkiries by Wagner, the theme from the Piano Concerto no. 1 by Tchaikovsky, and the theme from Symphony no 9 by Beethoven.

1. A Hard Day's Night

The biggest monster hit of the entire rock-pop era, from the best Beatles LP by the same name.

A modified Rossini's Wilhelm Tell overture. (full analysis of the work done by Adorno for the Beatles)

Flat Earth Information Repository / Gas cloud formation paradoxes
« on: September 22, 2012, 07:04:20 AM »
Let us suppose a scenario in which a big bang type of explosion does take place.

There would be NO WAY a single atom of hydrogen could form, not to mention any clouds made up of gases.


1 - There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2 - Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3 - The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4 - There is no way to slow the particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed, and every kilometer would separate them farther from one other.

5 - There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum [turning motion] would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6 - How could their atomic structures originate? Atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. There is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

We will now assume that, contrary to physical laws, (1) the particles magically DID manage to move toward one another and (2) the particles COULD slow down and change directions.



The theory—Gradually, the outward-racing particles are said to have begun circling one another, forming atoms. These atoms then changed direction further (this time toward one another) and formed gas clouds which then pushed together into stars.

This aspect of the stellar evolution theory is as strange as that which preceded it.

1 - Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated. By 'gas,' we mean atoms of hydrogen and/or helium which are separated from one another. All gas in outer space has a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum pressure bottle in any laboratory in the world! Gas in outer space is rarer (less dense; atoms more separated) than anything on earth.

2 - Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together. In fact, there is no gas on earth that clumps together either. Gas pushes apart; it does not push together. Separated atoms of hydrogen and/or helium would be even less likely to clump together in outer space.

We will now ASSUME that the outward-moving, extremely fast, ever separating atoms (shot out by the Big Bang explosion) could slow, change direction, and form themselves into immense clouds.



1 - Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together. And if it cannot clump together, it cannot form itself into stars. The idea of gas pushing itself together in outer space to form stars is more scienceless fiction. Fog, whether on earth or in space, cannot push itself into balls. Once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well, but there is no way for nature to produce one. Getting it together in the first place is the problem. Gas floating in a vacuum cannot form itself into stars. Once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together.

2 - Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars.

3 - There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently known expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. They only allow about 2½ billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss later), some of which are dated at 15 billion light-years, since they have a redshift of 400 percent. That would make them 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory. It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to figure out the math in this paragraph. Simple arithmetic will tell you there is not enough time.

4 - Gas clouds in outer space expand; they do not contract. Yet they would have to contract to form anything. Any one of these points alone is enough to eliminate the stellar evolution theory.

5 - If the Big Bang theory were true, instead of a universe of stars, there would only be an outer rim of fast-moving matter. The outwardly flowing matter and/or gas clouds would keep moving outward without ever slowing. In frictionless space, with no matter ahead of it to collide with, the supposed matter from the initial explosion would keep moving outward forever. This fact is as solid as the ones mentioned earlier.

6 - In order for the gas to produce stars, it would have to move in several directions. First, it would have to stop flowing outward. Then it would have to begin moving in circles (stellar origin theories generally require rotating gas). Then the rotating gas would have to move closer together. But there would be nothing to induce these motions. The atoms from the supposed Big Bang should just keep rushing outward forever. Linear motion would have to mysteriously change to angular momentum.

7 - A quantity of gas moving in the same direction in frictionless space is too stable to do anything but keep moving forward.

8 - Gas in outer space which was circling a common center would fly apart, not condense together.

9 - There is not enough mass in the universe for the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory. The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This 'missing mass' problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts but also to the expanding universe theorists (*P.V. Rizzo, 'Review of Mysteries of the Universe,' Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150). Astronomers are agreed on the existence of this problem. *Hoyle, for example, says that without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

'Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology.'—*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

10 - Hydrogen gas in outer space does not clump together. *Harwit’s research disproves the possibility that hydrogen gas in outer space can clump together. This is a major breakthrough in disproving the Big Bang and related origin of matter and stars theories. The problem is twofold: (1) The density of matter in interstellar space is too low. (2) There is nothing to attract the particles of matter in outer space to stick to one another. Think about it a minute; don’t those facts make sense?

This point is so important (for it devastates the origin of stars theory) that *Harwit’s research should be mentioned in more detail:

*Harwit’s research dealt with the mathematical likelihood that hydrogen atoms could stick together and form tiny grains of several atoms, by the random sticking of interstellar atoms and molecules to a single nucleus as they passed by at a variable speed. Using the most favorable conditions and the maximum possible sticking ability for grains, Harwit determined that the amount of time needed for gas or other particles to clump together into a size of just a hundred-thousandth of a centimeter in radius—would take about 3 billion years! Using more likely rates, 20 billion years would be required—to produce one tiny grain of matter stuck together out in space. As with nearly all scientists quoted in our 1,326-page Evolution Disproved Series (which this book is condensed from), *Harwit is not a Creationist (*M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts, 1973, p. 394).

11 - *Novotny’s research findings are also very important. *Novotny, in a book published by Oxford University, discusses the problem of 'gaseous dispersion.' It is a physical law that gas in a vacuum expands instead of contracts; therefore it cannot form itself into stars, planets, etc. That which cannot happen, cannot happen given any amount of time.

Hyperdimensional Physics/R. Hoagland (he assumes that the Voyager missions did actually take place)

Astrophysical discovery of "glowing planets" -- planetary bodies which shine in the infrared via internal energy sources, not just by reflected light -- stems from completely unexpected ground-based telescopic observations of this solar system, beginning in the mid-1960's: the startling detection of "anomalous internal infrared radiation" coming from the planet Jupiter. Later Pioneer and Voyager insitu spacecraft observations across the 70s and 80s added the other "giant planets," Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, to the list of solar system worlds that -- somehow, without internal nuclear fusion processes, like stars -- still manage to radiate more energy out into space than they receive directly from the Sun.

After much initial debate, the conventional understanding of these anomalous "infrared excesses" eventually settled on three possible internal sources: 1) left-over "primordial heat" from the literal formation of the planet; 2) heating caused by eventual internal separation of light elements in so-called "gas giant" planets (helium from hydrogen), releasing potential energy as the helium falls further toward the center of the planet (a form of ultra-slow, "continued gravitational contraction"); and 3), anomalous energy release due to excess radioactive decay of heavy element concentrations located within gas giant rocky cores.

Of the three current explanations for these "energy anomalies," only the first applies to Jupiter ... because of its mass -- 318 times the Earth's; a planet of that minimum mass is required (in the model) if it's to retain significant thermal energy across the immense lifetime of the solar system ... almost 5 billion years since the planet's formation ... and still be able to radiate observable heat. And, as can be seen from this diagram, the current ratio of absorbed solar energy to emitted 5-billion-year-old internal Jovian energy is still almost two to one!

After the Voyager fly-bys of the 1980's, the second "internal heat" proposal -- the "helium drip model" -- was favored for the observed heat excess in the Saturn situation. But, because of their relatively light masses (less than 30 times the Earth's), only the third possibility -- massive internal radioactive decay -- has been seriously attempted as an explanation for Uranus' and Neptune's more puzzling "anomalous infrared emissions."

There are, however, serious problems with all of these "conventional" explanations -- particularly after these spacecraft flybys, for all planets less massive than Jupiter.

For instance, during the Voyager encounters of Uranus and Neptune, spacecraft instruments detected a barely measurable (but significant) "infrared excess" (as opposed to merely infrared re-emission of absorbed solar energy) for Uranus of about "1 to 1.14"; whereas for Neptune (essentially its planetary "twin") the ratio of internal heat to intercepted sunlight was a striking "three to one!"

However, simultaneous "doppler tracking" gravity measurements conducted during the fly-bys (looking for anomalous trajectory changes to the spacecraft motion, caused by gravitational effects from increased percentages of heavy radioactive elements in the cores of Uranus and Neptune) detected no anomalous central concentrations in either planet ... necessary, if the excess observed IR radiation is in fact caused by "excessive internal radioactive element concentrations."

Even more perplexing, Uranus has a pronounced axial tilt ("obliquity" is the technical term) compared to all the other planets of the solar system -- some 98 degrees to the plane of its orbit of the Sun; Neptune's is much more "normal": about 30 degrees. [For comparison, Earth's obliquity is about 23.5 degrees]. One recently proposed alternative to the "internal radioactivity model" is "the recent collision model": that Uranus -- somehow, long after its formation -- suffered a massive impact with another major object, perhaps an errant moon ... This, according to the theorists, in addition to accounting for the current "tipped over situation" of the planet, would have also added a significant amount of geologically "recent" internal energy to Uranus, driving up internal temperatures by equivalent amounts. This model argues that these resulting elevated temperatures in Uranus, derived from a massive "cosmic collision," could thus account for Uranus' current "infrared excess," as observed by Voyager in 1986.

There is only one problem with these ideas: the "excess radioactivity theory," and the "cosmic collision model" are both apparently dead wrong.

Over the past decade, as we have attempted to understand their anomalous IR radiation, one thing has become clear -- to a first order, the "infrared excesses" of the giant planets all seem to correlate very nicely with one parameter each has in common -- regardless of their individual masses, elemental compositions, or distance from the Sun:

Their total system "angular momentum."

The mass of a body and the rate at which it spins, in classical physics, determines an object's "angular momentum." In our Hyperdimensional Model, its a bit more complicated -- because objects apparently separated by distance in this (3-space) dimension are in fact connected in a "higher" (4-space) dimension; so, in the HD model, one also adds in the orbital momentum of an object's gravitationally-tethered satellites -- moons in the case of planets; planets, in the case of the Sun, or companion stars in the case of other stars.

When one graphs the total angular momentum of a set of objects -- such as the radiating outer planets of this solar system (plus Earth and Sun) -- against the total amount of internal energy each object radiates to space, the results are striking:

The more total system angular momentum a planet (or any celestial body) possesses (as defined above -- object plus satellites), the greater its intrinsic "brightness," i.e. the more "anomalous energy" it apparently is capable of "generating."

And, as can be seen from this key diagram, this striking linear dependence now seems to hold across a range of luminosity and momentum totaling almost three orders of magnitude ... almost 1000/1!

It is an undeniable fact that Jupiter and Saturn -- which possess only a tiny fraction the solar system’s total mass compared to the sun – are, in fact, a huge influence on the sun itself (and all of the other planets as a consequence). This is because they conversely possess most (almost 99%) of the solar system’s total bulk angular momentum.

In the Hyperdimensional Model, it is this angular momentum -- mainly from these two massive planets, transmitted through the “Hyperdimensional aether” -- which ultimately causes the sun’s differential rotation.

Especially noteworthy, the Earth (not "a collapsing gas giant," by any stretch of the imagination) also seems to fit precisely this empirical energy relationship: when the angular momentum of the Moon is added to the "spin momentum" of its parent planet, the resulting correlation with measurements derived from internal "heat budget" studies of the Earth are perfectly fitted to this solar-system-wide empirical relationship -- even though the Earth's internal energy is supposedly derived from "radioactive sources."

There is a well-known "rule of thumb" in science, perhaps best expressed by a late Noble Laureate, physicist Richard Feynman:

"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right -- at least if you have any experience -- because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in ... The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler that you thought ..."
This startling relationship -- our discovery of the simple dependence of an object's internal luminosity on its total system angular momentum -- has that "feel" about it; it is simple ... it is elegant ... in fact--

It could even be true. (see the graphic there)

So the rotational angular momentum of the Sun, which is 1.1e42, is less than 4% that of the total orbital angular momentum of the planets, which is 3.1e43.

Based on this calculation Jupiter’s orbital angular momentum alone accounts for over 60% of the total angular momentum of the Solar system!

The orbital angular momentum of the Moon 2.9e34 is about four times that of the rotational angular momentum of the Earth, which is 7.1e33.

However, the total orbital angular momenta of the largest moons of Jupiter is less than a hundredth the rotational angular momentum of the planet.

So where did all the angular momentum go if the sun truly formed by gravitational contraction? Astronomers suggest that some of it was transferred to Jupiter and Saturn, which possess 98% of the total angular momentum of the solar system, still far, far less than the angular momentum that would have been generated during the formation of the sun.

Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This 'angular momentum' is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

A full 99.5 percent of all the angular momentum in the solar system is concentrated in the planets, yet a staggering 99.8 percent of all the mass in our solar system is located in our sun! To an astrophysicist this is both astounding and unexplainable. There is no known mechanical process which could accomplish this transfer of momentum from the sun to its planets.

Our sun is rotating far too slowly to have been formed from a gas cloud that was rotating at high speed. To say it another way: the planets have far too much angular momentum in comparison with the sun. They are moving fast around the sun, while the sun itself is turning very slowly.

Jupiter itself has 60 percent of the planetary angular motion. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this. This strange distribution was the primary cause of the downfall of the nebular hypothesis. To satisfy the theory, the sun would originally have had to spin at an extremely high speed. But instead, it rotates slowly.

*David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, * Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'—*David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.


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

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

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

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.


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

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

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

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

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

First the classic work by Dr. G. Nosovsky, The Easter Issue:


By Dr Gleb Nosovsky

This article comes from future volume six of the “History: Fiction or Science?” series.

Easter, also known as Pascha, the Feast of the Resurrection, the Sunday of the Resurrection, or Resurrection Day, is the most important religious feast of the Christianity, observed between late March and late April by the Western and early April to early May in Eastern Christianity.
It is assumed that the First Ecumenical Nicaean Council (Nicaea is a town in Bythinia, Asia Minor) had compiled and sanctioned a church calendar in the year 325 AD. The Christian church has deemed this Easter Book (in the West), also known as Paschalia (in the East), to be of the greatest importance ever since.

Research of the Easter Book or Paschalia (Byzantine rite) done by prominent mathematician Academician Dr Prof Anatoly Fomenko and his team (Moscow State University) presented in this paper proves that Nicean council definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified? Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One? Look for answers in “History: Fiction or Science?” series, ISBN 2913621074.


The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and his follower Dionysius Petavius (1583 – 1652) as the founders of consensual chronology. This chronology stands on two pillars – the date of Jesus Christ’s Nativity and the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, which is usually referred to as “The Nicaean Council”.

Scaliger’s version of chronology is based on the datings of Christ’s birth and the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea to a great extent, since it was primarily compiled as that of ecclesial history. Secular chronology of the ancient times was represented in his works as derivative, based on synchronisms with ecclesial events.

We shall give here a detailed account of why one of these ground laying dates, that is the date of the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea is definitely wrong.

The principal method of the research we are relating here is that of computational astronomy. However, the understanding of the issue does not require a profound knowledge of astronomy or other special scientific issues.

The founder of chronology Joseph Justus Scaliger considered himself a great mathematician. Pity, but his demonstrations were quite wrong – for instance, he boasted that he had solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble.

Calendarian issues are a part of chronology. The chronology belonged to the paradigm of mathematics and astronomy. This was the case in the XVI-XVII centuries, when the consensual Scaliger-Petavius version of chronology was created.

Since then, the perception of chronology has changed, and in the XVIII century already, chronology was considered humanity. As its essence cannot be changed, it remains a subdivision of applied mathematics to this day.

The historians are supposed to concern themselves with chronology. However, without a sufficient mathematical education – and in the case of chronological studies, sufficient means fundamental – the historians are forced to evade the solution and even the discussion of the rather complex chronological issues.

Every historical oddness and contradiction becomes carefully concealed from the public attention; in dangerous and slippery places the historians put on a “professional” mien, saying that “everything is really okay” and they shall “give you a full explanation” later on.


No deeds or acts of this Council have reached our time, but the historians report: “...the opuses of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Socrates, Eusebius of Caesarea, Sozomenus, Theodoritus, and Rufinus contain enough details for us to get a good idea of the Council together with the 20 rules and the Council’s vigil… The Emperor (Constantine the Great – Auth.) arrived in Nicaea on the 4th or the 5th of July, and the next day the Council was called in the great hall of the Emperor’s palace… the council had solved the problem of determining the time of Easter celebration… and set forth the 20 rules… After the Council, the Emperor had issued a decree for convincing everyone to adhere to the confession proclaimed by the council.”

[988], tome 41, pages 71-72.

It is thus assumed that together with the proclamation of the united Orthodox-Catholic confession that got split up later, the Nicaean council had also determined the way Easter should be celebrated, or, in other words, developed the Paschalia Easter Book.

Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the “the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed”, and the Easter date table “that had been used for centuries” had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since “every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start… the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence” [817], page 4.

Thus, the calculation of the new 532-year Easter table really comes down to a simple shift of the previous one by 532 years. This order is still valid: the last Great Indiction began in 1941 and is the shifted version of the previous Great Indiction (of the years 1409-1940), which, in its turn, is derived from the Great Indiction of the years 977-1408, etc. So, when we move the modern Easter table by an applicable factor divisible by 532, we should get exactly the same table as was introduced by the Nicaean council.

Ergo, the primary form of the Paschalia Easter Book can be easily reconstructed, and we will show the reader how earliest possible date of compilation of Paschalia Easter Book can be deduced from it.


The ecclesial Paschalia consists of two parts – the static part and the mobile part. The static part of the church calendar is the regular civil calendar also known as the Julian calendar, since its compilation is often linked to the name of Julius Caesar. The Julian year consists of 12 months, and every fourth year an additional day is added – the 29th of February. Such years are called leap years.

It is possible that some of the readers remain unaware of how closely the Julian calendar is related to the Christian divine service. The so-called static holidays of the Christian church are all distributed along the Julian calendar dates. We call them static since they fall on the same day of the same month of the Julian calendar every year.

The mobile part of the church calendar determines the dates for the Easter Sunday and several other church feasts counted from Easter, such as, The Ascension of the Lord, The Holy Trinity, and the beginning of St. Peter’s Lent. The ecclesial week count also belongs to the mobile part of the church calendar.

The count begins with the Easter Sunday; the week number is important since it determines the daily service order. Easter Sunday and the holidays that have their dates dependent on it are called mobile since their position in the Julian calendar varies from year to year.

The Paschalia Rule that determines the date for the annual advent of Easter is a rather complex one and relates very closely to a number of astronomical concepts that we shall cover below.

We shall be referring to the combination of the static and the mobile part as The Paschalia Easter Book, or simply, The Paschalia, bearing in mind that apart from the rule that determines the correct date for Easter, it also contains the regular Julian calendar that serves as the framework that this rule is valid for.


We see a variety of voluminous tables that determine the correlations between a large number of calendarian and astronomical units related to the Julian calendar. Such units as described in the Paschalia serve the internal framework of the Julian calendar as well as its correlation with various astronomical phenomena.

Among them we can find such concepts as indiction, Circle for Sun, Circle for Moon, epact, base, alpha key, boundary key, vrutseleto [an old Slavic manual calendar system, literally “Year in one’s hand”], etc.

One of the tables of the Paschalia allows us to determine the Easter celebration day for any given year. The table data can be accessed via the so-called boundary key of the year in question, one that has to be determined in advance from other tables of the Paschalia [701].

An important factor is that the Paschalia is based on the assumption that the calendar indices used for calculating the Easter date recur in precisely the same manner every 532 years. This cycle of 532 years is called The Great Indiction in the Julian calendar, and it devises the recurrence of Easter, as well as the indiction, the Circle for Sun, and the Circle for Moon values, mentioned below.

The complete Easter tables include a vast array of assorted calendarian information for the entire Great Indiction of 532 years [701]. The beginning of the “first” Great Indiction coincides with the beginning of the Byzantine era “since Adam”, or “since Genesis”, and this is not a chance coincidence. The last Great Indiction started in 1941 and still continues. The previous one commenced in 1409 AD; the previous one – in 877 AD, etc., [701], [393].


We shall start with the Circle for Moon, or “Methon’s Cycle”, as it is also called. Easter calculations require the knowledge of the day in either March or April of the year in question that the full moon falls upon.

We don’t have to observe the sky or perform astronomical calculations every time; compiling a table of March and April full moons for any given period of 19 years should suffice for further reference. The reason is that the phases of the moon recur every 19 years in the Julian calendar, and the recurrence cycle remains unaltered for centuries on end – that is, if the full moon fell on the 25th March any given year, it shall occur on the 25th of March in 19 years, in 38 (19 x 2) years, etc.

The malfunctions in the cycle shall begin after 300 years, which is to say that if we cover 300 years in 19-year cycles, the full moon shall gradually begin to migrate to its neighbouring location in the calendar. The same applies to new moons and all the other phases of the moon.

This way, if we mark any day of either March or April in the Julian calendar and perform annual observations of the lunar phase that coincides with it, we shall discover that the lunar phases that fall on this day change over a cycle of 19 years. This cycle is called the Circle for Moon.

The Paschalia contains a table that gives one the phase of the moon for any given day of any given year, compiled for a sequence of 19 years and containing 19 cells. Its every cell contains two numbers – the order number for each one of these 19 years, and the correspondent date of the first full moon after the 21st of March.

This order number is the actual Circle value, and is given a single definition for every year. The Paschalia tables give the Circle value for any year of the current indiction. It can be easily calculated for any other year, since the Circle for Moon repeats itself every 19 years.

The Latin version of the Paschalia (Easter Book) uses the so-called Gold Number (numerus aureus) [393], page 75. It is the same cycle of 19 years, but one that was commenced in a different year – namely, the Western European cycle of Gold Numbers exceeds the Russian and Byzantine Circle for Moon by a quotient of 3, so if the Circle value of a given year equals 1, the corresponding Gold Number will equal 4, see [393], page 76.

It is assumed that these lunation cycles were discovered by the “ancient” Greek astronomer Methon, in the alleged year 432 BC ([704], page 461). The very dating of Methon’s discovery 432 BC – that is, making it precede the existence of the Julian calendar where it is contained by several centuries – is another obvious blunder of Scaliger’s chronology.

The Circle for Sun, unlike the Circle for Moon, bears no direct relation to any astronomical phenomena, and, particularly, has nothing to do with solar observations. The name, Circle for Sun, is a rather arbitrary one, since this cycle is purely calendarian.

The Circle for Sun is a 28-year cycle of weekday recurrence in the Julian calendar. Let us explain that the days of the week may recur in calendar dates over a smaller period than 28 years, as one may observe perusing the calendars that are several years old. As a rule, one may pick a calendar more recent than 28 years that coincides with that of the current year. However, the minimal number of years when the calendar of any Julian year will recur in its entirety is 28.

The Circle for Sun for a given year in the Paschalia is represented as a number in a cycle of 28. Every year is assigned a number in a cycle of 28 (1 to 28). Each one of those numbers, in its turn, corresponds to a rather clearly defined calendar table of weekdays corresponding to month numbers. As is the case with the Circle for Moon, the Circle for Sun is given directly by the Easter tables for every year of the current 532-year indiction. It can be computed for all the other years since it recurs every 28 years.

The Circle for Sun is used in the Easter calculations in order to find out whether a given day in the month is a Sunday for a given year, which is important since Easter can only happen on a Sunday. This is one of the rules to determine the Easter, qv below.

Since every fourth year in the Julian calendar is a leap year, the cycle of regular years and leap years equals 4, that is, every 4 years contains exactly 3 regular years and 1 leap year, so the number containing the minimal amounts of both that are divisible by 7 is 28 (7 x 4 = 28). Indeed, every 28-year period will contain 21 (7 x 3) regular years, and 7 (7 x 1) leap years. A smaller amount of years may contain a number of either regular or leap years (or both) that is not divisible by seven; hence 28 is the number of the week day recurrence cycle, or the Circle for Sun size.

The Circle for Moon and the Circle for Sun can also be calculated with the use of the following simple rule. We have to take the number of the year in the Byzantine chronology since Adam, and find the remainders resulting from the division by 19 and by 28. These will be the Circle for Moon and the Circle for Sun values of the current year. Hence, the first year since Adam of the Byzantine era had both of those values equal 1 (see also [393], page 78).

Flat Earth Debate / Isostasy Incorrect
« on: September 27, 2011, 01:50:15 AM »
Both the UA acceleration and the infinite earth hypotheses are science-fiction plots, they have no place here.

Let us take a closer look at those gravitational anomalies which cannot be explained, either in the now accepted attractive gravity scenario, or in the UA acceleration/infinite earth models (quote by James: these anomalies are themselves for the most part ficticious, except where they are brought about by the natural swelling and deflation of the Earth's surface under certain obvious conditions):

Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eotvos in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent fifth force. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Cremieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth?s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

Law of acceleration in view of the ether/aether theories:

J.C. Maxwell's original ether theory, the very best explanation, also torsion physics:

Double Helix theory of the Magnetic Field:

How J.P. Morgan hired H. Lorentz and O. Heaviside to eliminate and hide the terms of the original equations of Maxwell which were related to aether vortex theory:

How H. Lorentz eliminated the terms of the Maxwell equations, which were not wanted by J.P. Morgan:

Tom Bearden on the modified Maxwell equations:

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

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

The best place to start in explaining what gravity actually is, and how this is related to the vorticular physics approach which describes the atom, is one of the greatest mysteries of modern science.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

    It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

        This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms, bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

A.N. Kozyrev's celebrated gyroscope experiments also show that there are two vorticular forces at work in the universe: (also contains an account of Bruce DePalma's spinning ball experiment)

Isn't it strange that our FES members do support the view of a flat earth (as they should, of course) but use as an explanation for the orbits of the planets/stars the concept of photoelectric suspension? The very notion of the photon was invented by the same conspirators who came up with the hoax concerning the shape of the earth (and much more, as they modified radically the chronology of history).

Here is someone who chose to think carefully about the concept of the photon:

More facts which do show the real nature of gravitY...


Cosmic rays are nothing but telluric currents; these telluric currents are torsion waves, consisting of dextrorotatory strings (gravity), and laevorotatory strings (electricity)...




Flat Earth Believers / Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« on: July 14, 2009, 06:59:41 AM »
Flat Earth Theory

New Radical Chronology of History

Riemann's Zeta Function and the Sacred Cubit

Ether/Aether Theory

FET is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.

The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.

The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Each and every statement described above will be proven, using the most precise astronomical datings possible, from Gauss' Easter formula, to the dating using the comets' tails rate of dispersion of matter, see pages 7-12.

The architects of the Gizeh pyramid did use the arctangent function, the precise proofs on page 11.

Many more topics covered: the Allais effect, the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, chaos theory and the RE equations of motion, the Tunguska explosion caused by the ball lightning objects created by N. Tesla, many more details included. ( (the first FET faq written some seven years ago; it includes only a small portion of the information covered/updated here in much more details; at that point in time, the elements concerning the new radical chronology of history were not included)

Flat Earth Q&A / .net
« on: April 02, 2009, 06:25:03 AM »
This is the message on the

Many of you have been waiting for a major change on this site. I finally feel it is a good time to reveal our plans. We have received a government grant and will be working in an official manner to further research in planar matters. You will be able to read more about it in the Skeptic Weekly and the BBC next week. Thank you for your patience.

Did Username or Dogplatter mention anything about the threads on the .net? Namely to move them overhere, in a new section, maybe called Round Earth Curvature Clarification...or have they just been deleted?

The following photographs, taken by Thierry Legault and David Cortner (two of the most respected photographers) (shown on CNN and other massmedia outlets), offer the true distance from the Sun to the International Space Station (ISS)/Atlantis shuttle.

There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.

Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.

The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).

The Iss/Atlantis shuttle/station is maneuvered by remote control, with no astronauts aboard; it uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device (as do all the satellites, whether geosynchronous or orbital, to orbit above the earth).

Images which show how close to the Earth are the planets and the stars: (venus, mercury, saturn)

Orbits of stars around the North Pole:

Pages: [1]