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 - Alpha2Omega

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth General / The Green Flash Phenomenon
« on: May 12, 2020, 05:14:36 PM »
In a discussion about an unrelated topic, a rather bizarre (IMO) explanation for the green flash phenomenon was offered, along with challenge to explain what would cause this rare but still repeatedly-seen phenomenon if the earth were a globe. This was an apparent attempt to deflect the conversation away from the topic under discussion, which was going badly for the poster who brought this red herring up, and didn't create enough of a distraction to adequately derail the discussion.

Still, it's an interesting topic on its own, and the visuals and explanations offered in this post and others were not really very good, so let's continue that discussion here.

Below is a quote of the opening salvo, in full. As is often in the case of these topic-changing moves tend to be, it's quite long, and much of the post, including the second image, is simply a copy and paste from the linked paper by an art instructor, in addition to other text gleaned from elsewhere.

I'll address the major points and deficiencies of this post, as well as some of the points that followed, in separate posts that will follow.

White is green:

The green flash phenomenon can only be caused by the Sun's rays which pass through the aether prism (Dome).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the local-ether model, the speed of light is variable.

Here is the green flash being observed in the radiant energy discharged by a capacitor:

Flat Earth General / sandokhan's notions about lunar eclipses
« on: January 23, 2019, 11:09:21 AM »
In this post, sandokhan made many claims about lunar eclipses without justifying them.


It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

This might be entertaining...

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations ...

Citation needed.

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

Citation needed.

... but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

Citation needed.

The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

OK. so what? That still could be true, but we now know any additional natural satellites of earth would have to be pretty small.


In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Got anything newer than that?.

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Where did he say that? What was the context?

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

That's nice. Got anything newer?

Here's an apt quote:

"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
 - Sir John Lubbock

That's certainly true in your case!

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

Citation needed.

The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks; in fact read this extraordinary work:

That paper does not include the words "dextrorotatory", "subquark", or even "quark".

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect ...

Gravity is attractive. Radiation pressure is not. So no, radiation pressure is not even a plausible candidate for the cause of gravity.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the reddish color of the moon during an eclipse, anyway.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

Sunlight filtered and refracted by the sun is much more likely than your rather bizarre speculation.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".

The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

<self reference>

No, you think that the moon does not cause the solar eclipse. We know that the opposite is true, despite your rambling posts. Besides that, this thread is about a lunar eclipse, not solar eclipses.

<graphic model of the textual description in Amazonian Cosmos of the Desana's myth of the origin, structure, and functioning of the cosmos.

Cosmology Mythology of the Desana tribe

(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)

Cute. Wrong, but cute. Where does the sun ("Sun-Father" in the illustration) go during the night?

Which elicited the comment:

Gravity is attractive.

It is?

Then, please explain to your readers (and the for the first time, even to yourself) how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Even simpler: how does lake Ontario stay in place on the outer surface of the Earth? How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by lake Ontario?

Care to explain?

Which scrupulously avoided providing anything to back up the apparently empty claims made and, of course, devolved into a discussion with him pontificating that gravity cannot possibly be real since the fundamental cause of the observed and measured mutual attraction between masses is - as yet - not entirely understood.

Note that no citations or other justifications were provided for any of the claims about the lunar eclipse he made originally. Not even one! So... here's your chance to fix that, sandokhan!

Since this subject was broached in a thread about a completely different topic, but is interesting in its own right, it's worth splitting off.

"Perpetual motion machines" as a concept has so many incarnations that a coherent discussion can be confounded by trying to switch to a completely different one. If you want to discuss others, please start a new thread.

A very simple perpetual motion machine was built a long time ago by Rudolph Koenig.

Here is the electrically driven tuning fork:

A very simple perpetual motion machine was built a long time ago by Rudolph Koenig.

Here is the electrically driven tuning fork:
"Electrically driven". Do you not even know what a perpetual motion machine is?

You present a still image of an unmoving lump of wood and metal, so what!

A perpetual motion machine needs a perpetual source of energy.

The electrically driven tuning fork delivers such a source of energy.

Then, you add a dozen or so of such EDTFs, and you get an acoustic turbine:

OK. Starting from here...

If you set up this apparatus using the tuning forks as the sound source for the acoustic turbine, can you hear sound the tuning forks make? If so, that sound you hear is one (of many) form of energy that's leaking from the closed system, but all the energy it produces is necessary to sustain it. Unless that energy is made up from elsewhere, the machine can't stay in motion because it's dissipating energy. If it requires an outside source of energy to keep going it isn't a perpetual motion machine, by definition.

Again, Hans Coler's device was tested by the British Secret Service, and it worked perfectly, another source of energy for perpetual very small engines.

Elsewhere. Let's talk about your tuning fork.

In a post in the thread about the area of the globe, sandokhan made some off topic claims, most likely in an attempt to derail the conversation he was losing.

Those claims need to be addressed, but the discussion about them doesn't belong in that thread, so here we go...

The position of the centre of gravity varies according to the shape of the object.

And, according to the official theory we do have an applied external force:

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Um... no. Whatever causes you to think that? If a body in free-fall is massive enough, its gravity will be strong enough to pull it into a spheroidal shape because the force of gravity will eventually overcome the shear strength of the material it's made of. Many of the smaller bodies in the solar system are held together by gravity, but are nowhere near spherical in shape.

"According to the official theory". You crack me up sometimes!! That is simply Newton's law of universal gravitation. It's a good approximation for many cases but was superseded by general relativity, which is more complete and matches data from more extreme cases where Newtonian gravity fails, about a century ago.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).

"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

The structure of earth's crust isn't at all like what you describe. The oceanic crust, which continues below the continental crust, is denser than the rocks that make up the continental crust. Because continental crust is less dense, it "floats" in the denser material and the continents stand above the ocean floor. The surface of the earth is in isostatic equilibrium in most places, which means the height of the surface over less-dense material is higher than the surface over denser material. Your hypothesis that "continents displace water, so the continents are heavier" is, to put it bluntly, oversimplified to the point of being utterly wrong.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun.

If the mass distribution around the earth is slightly uneven, the center of mass would simply be displaced slightly from the centroid (geometric center) of the geoid. The axis of rotation would pass through the center of mass, but not necessarily through the centroid.

A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."

Greenland and Antarctica are actually slightly out of isostatic equilibrium because they have been losing ice thickness on net since the end of the ice age (hence "in most places", above). Because of the reduced weight due to the missing ice, they are slowly rebounding upward. Seasonal changes in ice loading are comparatively small, and more or less symmetrically distributed around the poles, so they don't affect the rotation of the earth much.

Plate movement, especially when it occurs suddenly as in the case of large earthquakes, can alter the earth's spin rate and even the orientation of its axis of rotation a very tiny, but detectable, amount,, due to the abrupt redistribution of mass. These effects are too small to matter in nearly all cases, but do provide evidence that the earth can cope just fine with movement of mass near the surface and within.

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

The earth is not a perfect oblate spheroid. No one who knows what he's talking about claims it is. If it were, very high precision geodesy would be much easier.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.

No, your strawman argument says this. It does not represent reality and can be ignored.

For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. The mass of a column of oceanic crust and water matches the mass of a column of crust forming a continent. The continental crust is thicker, but is less dense.

BASIC NEWTONIAN PHYSICS: we have a center of gravity which is located ABOVE THE EQUATOR, given the fact that the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere. Then, the accepted law of universal gravitation tells us that the Earth should revolve facing the Sun with its North Pole.

Nope. Your erroneous assumption about the makeup of the crust has led you down the wrong path to an absurd conclusion. Did you make all of that up, or are you quoting some "authority"? It's hard to tell when you're saying things yourself or quoting someone else. If it's a quote, you should make it clear, and give a reference. Otherwise you get called out when it's wrong.

Now, that is one HUGE problem for your map!

Not at all. It simply and clearly shows how mistaken you are about the structure of the earth.

The fact that you have no clue about the makeup of earth's crust, yet are willing to make unfounded claims about it, leading to ridiculous conclusions, is your problem, not mine or anyone else's.

Flat Earth General / Anyone know this guy?
« on: November 21, 2017, 04:42:46 PM »
"Mad Mike Hughes, a limo-driver in the US who enjoys a spot of being a daredevil on the side."

At least he's planning to do something rather than just sit behind a keyboard.

Hughes is, well, an interesting character. He's a flat-Earther, solidified by the giant "RESEARCH FLAT EARTH" branding on his rocket from a group of the same name. He also doesn't really like science, which is a shame, as he seems quite good at building rockets.

"I don't believe in science," he told The Associated Press. "I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction.”

Aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, and the size of rocket nozzles is "just a formula." Wow! Who knew? I wonder how "that formula" was developed. Well, no mind... let's see if this actually happens and what he finds out. Maybe the results will intrigue him to try additional tests, which, if pursued coherently, is science.

Flat Earth Debate / Sirius stuff!
« on: August 09, 2017, 11:05:42 AM »
Continuation of the discussion from the Solar Eclipse topic.

Here's sandokhan's last post in its entirety. As usual, it's excessively long and hops around, but this seems the most convenient way to change the location of the discussion to a new thread. Response will follow.

His post was in response to my post before it, which links back to earlier parts of the discussion.

Kepler's results are famous and widely used because they actually work.

But they do not, that is why they were totally faked in the first place.

The acceleration of the rate of axial precession DEFIES Newtonian mechanics.

For you to complain of a single second, while at the same time you close your eyes and accept the totally faked treatise Nova Astronomia says a lot about you.

Let us examine the entire interval of 20 years using your figure of 2.6 seconds.

No leap seconds for 1988

For 1989 we add a single leap second: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5

One leap second for 1990: 0.6 (maximum value ) + 1 = 1.6

No leap seconds for 1991

One leap second for 1992: 0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5

One leap second for 1993: 0.8 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.8

One leap second for 1994: 1 (maximum value) + 1 = 2

Leap seconds for the years 1995, 1997, 1998

0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5

Leap seconds for the year 2005

0.5 (maximum value) + 1 = 1.5

Therefore the claims made by Uwe Homann are true: no precession for Sirius over a period of 20 years.

and cannot find any other, more reliable, evidence to back up your claim. If you do find any, please do present it for consideration.


Let me demolish your false beliefs right now.

Here is the perfect test for our situation: Homann's claims and experimental data that Sirius does not undergo precessional motion vs. the claims made by the star catalogues you are so fond of.

Obviously, if the Earth does not orbit the Sun, then you are proven to be wrong.

The ORBITAL Sagnac effect is missing and is greater in magnitude than the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect.

That is, the GPS satellites operate AS IF the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Moreover, the ORBITAL solar gravitational potential effect upon these satellites is also missing, is not being registered at all.

This is an IOP article.

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

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

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

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

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

The author actually present a local-ether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) in order to account for the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More information on Dr. C.C. Su's paper on the orbital Sagnac effect.

His paper was also published by HARVARD UNIVERSITY:

See the headline at the top:

NASA ADS Physics/Geophysics Abstract Service

So far, Dr. C.C. Su's papers, which include the correct orbital Sagnac calculations, based on a circular loop with the center of rotation located at the Sun, have been published by:






Further information here:

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

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

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

The solar gravitational potential effect upon the GPS clocks is also missing:

This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:

Ruderfer, Martin (1960) “First-Order Ether Drift
Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1, pp

Ruderfer, Martin (1961) “Errata—First-Order Ether
Drift Experiment Using the Mössbauer Radiation,”
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 7, No. 9, Nov. 1, p 361

in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.

Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

A total refutation of your false claims, and a total debunking of the false beliefs held by the authors of the Stellarium software.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Stratigraphy
« on: July 22, 2016, 10:20:49 AM »
I hate to start a evolution/creation debate here

I don't blame you. If you don't want one, don't start one. Simple.

I couldn't resist at least correcting someone's statement about creationists.


so if you want to continue then I made a thread "macro evolution. Where's the evidence?"

OK... I looked at that thread after you provided the link. That's an interesting, tangentially-related, discussion, but if you want to shift this conversation to another thread, respond in that thread and put a link to the post as your response here. If you give your response here I'll reply here.

In fact you'd be hard press to find a fossil that had any children that lived.
It's quite common, actually.
You can show one type of fossil is similar to another but that doesn't prove that they are related or one sired the other.

Prove? Of course not. Did you read the link I provided regarding scientific proof?

Salamanders look a lot like lizards but they aren't related nor did one sired the other.

Strawman argument. "Look a lot like" is uselessly vague; they're obviously distinctive when examined and you imply that fossils that have similar but not identical form can't be distinguished from one another. If they are only subtly different, it's likely that one was an ancestor of the other or both had a not-too-distant (genealogically) common ancestor.

Not only that but the whole transitional fossil thing is circular reasoning. How do you know it's the descendant and not the contemporary? Because of the layer it is found. How do you know the age of the layer?
Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

You're assuming they are indeed younger.
Already addressed.

Not really.

Yes, really:

Younger layers are deposited on top of older layers. Can you propose a plausible mechanism that would insert younger sediments under older, already existing ones?

What's the mechanism that would make something other than this happen? Superposition is observed to be happening today (superposition as applies to geology: in any undisturbed sequence of rocks deposited in layers, the youngest layer is on top and the oldest on bottom, each layer being younger than the one beneath it and older than the one above it).

A violent flood would make layers quickly.
Would a "violent flood" lay down consistent layers over wide areas?
If its big enough then yes.

That would be "widespread". "Violent" means something different. The question still stands.

You can't tell how quickly consistent sediment layers were deposited just by looking at them, that needs other techniques, but consistency over a wide area suggests "not violent". Storm deposits, for example, are chaotic.

Mass grave yards stretching over multiple states would disagree with you.

Example? What evidence is there that the deposition was both violent and widespread?

Younger fossils are deposited above older ones. It's quite simple, really. It's not a mystery at all.

How do you know which one is younger?

Younger sediments (sometimes containing fossils) are deposited on top of the layer below, which already existed, so the layer that already existed is, by definition, older. Stratigraphy in a nutshell.

But how do you know that's what takes place?

Superposition is observed to be happening today. It makes sense that what we see happening today also happened in the past; there is no physical evidence giving reason to suspect otherwise. The principle is supported by other, independent, techniques [see the link for Geochronology, below] and gives consistent results worldwide. Ergo, it's the accepted model by geologists. Whether you like it or believe it or not is irrelevant unless and until you can provide observational or physical evidence for something that works better.

How do you know a flood or rapid water laid down those sediments in a short time? You yourself said you can't tell how fast a layer was deposited.

No. I said stratigraphy provides relative ages (these fossils are younger because they're above other fossils in undisturbed layers) and other techniques were needed for absolute ages. See Geochronology for a description of some of the techniques used.

[Edit] This post was moved from the ongoing discussion in the Concave Earth thread by a moderator or administrator, I'm changing the subject line in an effort to give the thread a more meaningful title.

[Edit] It worked! Awesome!!

Since discussion about posts in Q&A is sometimes discouraged, this thread addresses some of the "interesting" statements recently made in the Q's about the Moon thread in the Q&A section.

Here's the post in question, quoted in its entirety here. Another was posted as this was being composed.

Official science theory

Libration occurs because the Moon's rotation has a constant angular speed, while the Moon's elliptical orbit has a varying angular speed.

But that explanation cannot be correct since it is very easy to demonstrate the Moon does not orbit the Earth in shape of an elliptical curve.

The theoretical foundation of modern astronomy's understanding of the Moon's orbit is tidal locking.

However, the oceanic tides of the Earth ARE NOT caused by the Moon's supposed gravitational influence.

The most devastating demonstration that the tides have nothing to do with the Moon:

Chapter 1, section Tidal Theory, Gravity and Mathematics, pages 9-24

See also:

Let us also remember that modern science cannot explain at all atmospheric tides:

The true shape of the Moon is a disk, as can be seen in the T. Legault/F. Bruenjes photographs posted starting here:

Let's discuss these.

Libration occurs because the Moon's rotation has a constant angular speed, while the Moon's elliptical orbit has a varying angular speed.

That's the largest contributor to it. There are also additional small amounts due to the tilt of the Moon's axis of rotation is not perfectly normal to its orbital plane (akin to what causes the seasons on the Earth), and a small amount of diurnal parallax since the Earth's diameter is roughly 1/30 the distance to the Moon.

But that explanation cannot be correct since it is very easy to demonstrate the Moon does not orbit the Earth in shape of an elliptical curve.

Let's see this demonstration. Since it's supposedly easy, it should be clear and concise, and not take walls of arcane bafflegab.

The theoretical foundation of modern astronomy's understanding of the Moon's orbit is tidal locking.

Um, no. The theoretical foundation for understanding the Moon's orbit is Keplerian orbital mechanics, same as everything else in the solar system (and beyond). Tidal locking has caused the Moon's period of rotation to be the same is its orbital period; that's all.

However, the oceanic tides of the Earth ARE NOT caused by the Moon's supposed gravitational influence.

The most devastating demonstration that the tides have nothing to do with the Moon:

Chapter 1, section Tidal Theory, Gravity and Mathematics, pages 9-24

Tl;dr. I don't really see the relationship with lunar libration or, for that matter, the fundamentals of the Moon's orbit. Besides... Velikovsky; a guy with "interesting" ideas with little, if any, basis in fact.

See also:

Miles Mathis is the fellow who, among other seriously bizarre things, claims that pi = 4. Seriously.

Let us also remember that modern science cannot explain at all atmospheric tides:

So many words, so little useful information, but, again, how does this affect lunar libration?

The true shape of the Moon is a disk, as can be seen in the T. Legault/F. Bruenjes photographs posted starting here:

How can you tell the difference between the silhouette of an opaque sphere and the silhouette of a perfectly face-on opaque disk in a photograph? The answer? You can't. We can easily tell from other observations (librations, for instance), that the Moon is spherical, not a disk, however.

Happy New Year, everyone!

A model's worth is based on how well it can make predictions. Several bold predictions for the year just ended were made by the anti-global-earth set. Let's see how they worked out:

April 16:
1. Gravity is fictitious. On Earth, we have weight and it is how things work. Drop a rock, and it being more dense than air will fall. A balloon with helium is less dense than air and rises.
2. Relativity is a joke
3. Light Years is a joke
4. Globe Earth cannot exist in reality
5. Copernicus said the Sun was 3,000,000 miles away so his "belief" that we rotated the sun is false.
6. We do not spin
7. The sun and moon (easily measured with sextant) are 3000 miles away and both 32 miles in diameter
8. NASA lies
9. NASA worships the devil, you worship NASA, you worship the Devil.  Hahaha pagan.
10. Space X is fake
11. ISS is fake
12 Space walk is fake
13. Composite images are fake
14. Space is fake
15 Stars are right above us

Didn't happen.

June 12
According to my calculations, the next big earthquake will be on (US:) 8/17/2015 (EU: 17/8/2015). This is based off of star alignment. I have noticed a pattern in the stars before a massive earthquake. I call this Zaltic (very shorthand for Zetetic) Pattern. Essentially, the stars should look very bright, there will be a very observable pattern in the sky, and the moon must come out in the morning after. These observations must be made in Honolulu (Oahu), Hawaii. Sometimes the NOTO (National Obscuring of Truths Organization) will try to obscure this pattern by sending in a storm of projected clouds (pun not intended). Sometimes, one may observe the sky as pitch black, while others (in Kansas) may see stars piercing through these clouds, as the stars are usually very bright because Kansas is the Kelter Point (the point at which a center is most likely) of the world.


So where is the striking location?
Though latitude and longitude are made up by the BGO (Big Globe Organisation) (a British or international organization), it actually has some incredible uses! Simply take the average you got earlier (10.2993), and input that into your "latitude", next, take your resulting magnitude (11), and input that into your longitude, and incredibly, it ends up in Gombe, Nigeria (look it up)! Though it's supposed elevation is 615 meters, earthquakes can still form based on Zaltic properties, you see, earthquakes start by "rifts" in the space-time continuum, which causes a physical curvature in the flat earth. A curve into a mountain will be devastating.

So why so devastating?

This next earthquake, after all of the earthquakes that happened in recent history (Nepal and Japan), and after being adjacent to those nations will RIP the earth apart! Those areas are already weakened, and, based on the Zaltic theory one earthquake in the area will rip the earth in half. Flat earth scientists (Korvamtists) have named these two parts Eurasia-Afrikos and Afrimaerikas.
We're still here and the Earth didn't split in two, so this is obviously wrong.

June 22
It's hard to predict when a bunch of jokers are going to come up witth the next selection of bullshit  but I'll hazard a guess.
Indeed. That brings to mind the quip attributed to Neils Bohr:

Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
It's even harder to successfully make predictions about the future when the model you're basing your predictions on has no factual basis.

I predict that pluto the (fictional) dwarf planet will be reclassified as a (fictional) planet before the new year.
Nope. Thanks for playing, anyway, sceptimatic. Better luck next time.

Knowing sceptimatic's penchant for substituting words for reality and arguing about the words, BJ1234 tried (unsuccessfully, of course) for some clarification.

Which new year?  2016?  Please put a date on it so you can't weasel out of it by saying you didn't specify the year and really meant 2030 or some such year.
As far as I and other logical people are concerned, when it is claimed in the middle of 2015 that something will happen "before the new year" that clearly means before Jan 1, 2016. If it were "before a new year", then it's ambiguous. Let's see if sceptimatic tries to weasel out by claiming he's not logical.

BTW... how's that scale model of the dome coming along? Almost six months ago, you were saying it would be "a few more months". Any results to your liking yet?

Well when you find the south pole, with your compass . We will worry about it then . Thats if we are all still here , after the predicated 2 mile wide meteoroid hits earth in mid to late September . Iv read being talked about by some scientists who claim to be in the know.
I think we can all agree that if this had actually happened, we would have known about it. We don't, so it, too, must not have come to pass. Of course, mr. bloomington didn't say late september which century, but, then, he is less disingenuous than sceptimatic, so I presume it referred to a few months ago.

That's oh-for-four. Terrible! On the other hand, I've been too busy to read all the postings in the general and debate sections for most of the last half of the year, so I could easily have missed some. If there were some other predictions I missed, please show them, with a link back to the unedited-after-the-fact post where they were made.

Quoted from the original Q&A posts so they can be discussed. Initial editorializing and some excess white space omitted; experiments exactly as proposed.


Take a marker and make a small dot on your ceiling. Place an object in the center of your room. Tie a small laser to the top of a spinning-top, pointing directly upward. Spin said top. Try to make it go in a circle around the stationary object in the center of the room (the sun) in an elliptical orbit. When the top is moving around the stationary object, in an elliptical orbit, and the top is spinning on a tilt, and when the top begins to wobble... try to make it point directly to the dot on the ceiling. If you can make this happen... (lol) find a room with the highest ceiling you can find, and perform the same experiment—can you get the top to point at the dot even ONCE? What, you can't!!! Wow, it's pretty IMPOSSIBLE to make this happen [by chance], isn't it... maybe if there was a very large explosion it will help you (like a “big bang”). Now imagine performing the same experiment, except that the dot is trillions and trillions and trillions of miles away...

Amazingly, the star Polaris, which is the northern star, is said to be some 390 lightyears from earth—trillions, and trillions, and trillions, and trillions of miles away (this distance is no exaggeration, and is in fact a gross simplification).

Earth, which is spinning around at 1,038 miles per hour, is moving around the sun at a speed of 66,000 miles per hour! …in an elliptical orbit… and the earth is on a tilt… and the earth is wobbling!

Considering the above experiment, how is it possible that Polaris is ALWAYS in the center above the north pole, with only very slight variation???

Either you have to conclude that modern science is completely wrong... or an intelligent being/person designed and finely tuned the earth to the northern star.

(Note to the crab and his friends: Only an [intelligent] mind could cause this to happen... and [you] can not... get the point?)

Personally I don't believe the earth wobbles or tilts, because this simple experiment proves that impossible. However, if science wants to use stupid reasoning, I see no reason not to use it to prove God's existence.

"Answer someone stupid according to his foolishness, that he may not become someone wise in his own eyes."—Proverbs 26:5


Now we're going to show how truly IMPOSSIBLE this really is, because earth has to point at the southern pole-stars at the same time.


1) For the next experiment, go to your local crafts store and get one of those foam spheres (this will act as Earth for our experiment).
2) Take a straight stick (like a skewer or a sharp dowel) and poke a hole through the top and bottom, perfectly center.
3) Take two lasers and push one through each end so that they are pointing outward (lasers are cheap these days and can be found at your local convenience store at the counter for a dollar or two).
4) With a marker, make a dot on the ceiling (representing Polaris), and another dot on the floor (representing the southern pole-stars).
5) Turn on the lasers and hold the sphere in the center of the room.
6) Make the lasers point at both points (stars).
7) While TILTING the globe, and making it WOBBLE, try to make the laser point directly at both points (stars) at the same time.

Note: It doesn't matter that the wobble happens slowly in "reality," any wobble will prove the point that it's impossible; For this experiment we have not even made the earth move in an orbit as if around the sun - which would increase the impossibility of the matter - as if "impossibility" can be increased.

I await the video of you making this happen.

With the two experiments above, one of the following has been proved (to people with brains).

a) There is an intelligent creator (God) who tuned the universe so well that earth points at two poles trillions of miles away in each direction, and it does this while moving in orbit, tilting, and wobbling - this is absolutely impossible by chance; and only possible by design and fine tuning.

b) The scientific community has lied to you and me; in which case they are liars and can't be trusted, and therefor you are trusting liars regarding things like evolution and flat-earth.

c) I have just proved science wrong. Now this makes me smarter than NASA and all your scientists... In which case I have to ask: why are you even arguing with someone smarter than all your scientists; and I must ask myself: why would I even bother to carry on a discussion with YOU?

(If you respond that science is wrong about this observable fact, then how can it be right about evolution, which has no observable evidence. You disbelieve what you can see, but believe what you can not see. Further, you have admitted that science is wrong about this simple matter, and now you have no scientific legs to stand upon - you have pulled them out from under yourself. Science can not be trusted - even in the most elementary matters. In choosing option c. that science is wrong, you can not do so without admitting that I am right, and that I am smart enough to figure out what they could not... and yet you're still arguing with me (I find this foolish to the nth). They are what Jesus called "Blind guides." And as he said, a blind guide can not lead another who is blind.)

How much does anyone want to bet that a responder will avoid discussing the experiments - and even more so, attempting to prove it wrong in a video presentation?

Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:14


Suggestions & Concerns / Technical performance of site
« on: April 05, 2015, 08:28:12 PM »
Since the admins typically hear only complaints from users, I just wanted to give a shout-out for the recent performance of the site and would like to mention that I like the most of the default configurations that have been selected.

A couple months ago, the performance was so awful that this site could barely be used, and then only with an extreme application of patience; I think the cause was a DDoS attack that seems to have been solved, knock wood! While not perfect (what ever is?) the site has been mostly very responsive since then. I also like the way you can get to new posts in a thread easily with a single click; some other sites I visit don't have this nearly as conveniently set up.

Moderation is kind of inconsistent (to put it mildly) and many of the ideas presented here are totally whack, but, hey, it's The Flat Earth Society, so the latter is totally expected. I've been enjoying most of the banter. So, thanks to all who keep this place running!  :D

Flat Earth Debate / How thick can you be? --debat
« on: November 18, 2014, 05:59:03 AM »
G is not constant. Please explain.

That is odd; physicists seem to disagree with you.

The constant of proportionality in this equation is G - the universal gravitation constant.
Allow me to clarify. Pongo used 'G' when he should have used 'g0', which appears to be confusing you. g0 or gn, and occasionally g  (with no subscript) is used to represent the nominal (or "average") acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth. g (no subscript) is more typically used to represent the local acceleration of gravity at some point on or near the surface.

Read all about it!

To restate the request more clearly:

The acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth is not the same everywhere. It also varies as a function of height above the surface (at different levels in, say, a tall building). Please explain.

Pages: [1]