Show Posts

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


Messages - sandokhan

Pages: 1 ... 222 223 [224]
6691
Jim, I hope that you are all there...I never mentioned atmospheric reffraction as a possible motive for anything, on the contrary, I said that it cannot be taken into account.

The pictures show very clearly that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, between England and France; your theory says that there should be a curvature of 22.5 meters there; if there is not, as you can clearly see, then the Earth is flat between White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez. Again, you can do your own experiment to find out for yourself how things really are when it comes to this debate...you will find that the Earth is flat.

6692
Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.

Username, I will provide here, the very best information on the Michelson-Morley disaster of 1887, so that all can see how the aether concept has been conveniently eliminated from the official physics.

Sok, I think that you saw that you need to study much more than you have done up until now; your level of understanding of physics is an eclectic shambles openly inviting anyone in the vicinity to rip it into shreds. You need to study the motivation which drove A. Michelson and E. Morley to perform the experiment of 1887, and what caused J. Maxwell to eliminate the vortex ether terms in his equations.

Here is a site which will help everybody to understand aether further (the classic material is of course, Tesla's quote which I posted earlier):

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html

The atom is an aetheric vortex, and not at all composed of particles. Plenty of sources, exceptionally documented to show you this fact.

Here's how the original Maxwell equations were modified, material you won't find in official physics course taught in universities:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773

http://www.indopedia.org/Talk:Maxwell's_equations.html

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html

Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
( www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)

On the michelson-morley experiment:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.

And again, the extraordinary books which demonstrate the errors/fallacies present in Einstein's work:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm includes exceptional accounts of the errors committed by Galileo, Newton and Einstein

For those interested in the cosmogony-aether connection I can recommend three superb books:

http://www.amazon.ca/Kabbalah-Adolph-Franck/dp/0766146200

O.M. Aivanhov: Looking into the Invisible
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-into-Invisible-Intuition-Clairvoyance/dp/1895978181 and

http://www.transitionsbookplace.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=str&Product_Code=1895978076&Category_Code=AVNH&Product_Count=0



Now, let's get to the photograph posted by you...it is important, always, to include the original source of the photograph, just like I have done here, in order not to invite other kinds of comments...

Here's why:

This is an original photograph:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/c/d/0000r6ws_cdy7zd3s.jpg

And this one, modified:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/onthepage/various/pamant2.jpg

So, we would have to know the original source for the photo, but we will pretend that sok was correct and that he posted the right stuff.

Let us take a slight detour and investigate what is going in Holland, Michigan:

http://www.countrytours.com/Tours_US/ALM/images/map.gif (map of lake michigan)

And now the story, from a distance of 128 km (80 miles) the people of Holland can see clearly the buildings of the city of Milwaukee:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml

Observe the nonsensical comments made by the NWS, regarding atmospheric reffraction...this is a phenomenon to be observed, under special conditions, in the Arctic and the Antarctica, ice reflected by clouds, and you'd immediately realize what is going on...

Contrary to the official propaganda, atmospheric reffraction does not play a role in the flat earth/round earth debate...

Here are some extraordinary photographs showing mountains (distance of 150 km) from a city (sea level), no atmospheric reffraction at all:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg

Jim, we have all read your comments on these threads; my photographs shows clearly that there is no curvature, not even one micron, between White Cliffs Dover and Cap Gris Nez; you can whine all you want, and uncleverly try various play-of-words with us, but it does not work...





Sok, please specify the distance involved, the curvature, and who made this photograph, and where exactly it was taken, from where; we need more details, in order to analyze what you are saying here, see what Tom just said: That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs...

Shadowstrife, same comment to you; when you will have something interesting to say, please let us know; until then, study hard to see how a spherically shaped earth could not have possibly existed in the first place...I offer evidence that is well known to everybody, the White Cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, not to mention a binocular/telescope, and the photographs are included here with a source...so far nobody has presented any evidence re: the round earth that even would require more than two seconds of attention...

So, sok, we all waiting for your sources, distances, curvature, the whole thing...just like I have done here...









6693
Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...

You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...

Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.

You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.

You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).

Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.

Ball lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.

Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.

Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.

Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.


Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.

The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.



6694
And Mr. Sok, when you stop working in the lab there, do some serious research about how the original J. Maxwell e/m/ether equations were cut down to include just e/m, without the ether vortices...you might learn something...

What? You said something about aether?

The scientific community now looks at the vacuum energy, another name for ether energy. The Ether name is one to be avoided in the physics industry, unless you wish to lose your job or grant money. Now it is called the vacuum energy, therefore they do not have to admit they made a mistake years ago when they wrote ether off as 'nonexistent.'

The scientific community found 'free' energy floating around in a vacuum, which they called vacuum energy. The concept is simple: in outer space there must be a medium for light to pass from the stars, because of the wave theory of light. To have waves, there must be a medium. If you throw a rock into a pond, it makes waves. If there is no water in the pond, mud does not make waves. Simply put: SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!

Contrary to current views, the greatest scientists (physicists, philosophers) of history believed that Space must exist to necessarily connect matter and its interconnected motions.

Here are quotes, Mr. Sok, from the genius of your caliber, Einstein, about the ether:

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)


The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
(A. Einstein, 1920) [note: So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory.]

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...





Nikola Tesla discoveries:

http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/tesla.htm

www.pritchardschool.com/novustesla.html (on google search)

http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xphysics.htm

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/radiant_energy.htm

At the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, that vacuum which is considered by current scientific theories as a void or a state of nothingness can ever generate energy out of its own substratum. As per modern physics while 'absolute vacuum' or 'space' can no doubt transmit electromagnetic energy, in the absence of universal matter and its associated energy fields, there can be no energy-content that is ‘reality’ in space. The concept of ether filling all space and atoms as 'vortices of ether' introduced by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and developed to a great extent by the close of 19th century found no favour in the early 20th century. Though the domain of reality was extended from matter to energy by Einstein's Relativity Theory, yet space devoid of universal matter ceased to have any substantiality.

The 'photon particle' theory fails as a carrier of E-M wave energy, under even casual scrutiny. It 'impacts then disappears'. It is made of no identified material, but supposedly has structural integrity, yet cannot be used in High-Energy Particle Accelerator/Colliders. Polarized sunglasses would not work if light were particles, but Polarized lenses are specifically designed for light as waves, including sunglasses and photographic lenses. Conventional Physics claims light to be a particle having 'momentum but no mass', in direct conflict with the simple mathematical formula that states momentum (Kinetic Energy, Ek) is mass at velocity; Ek = mv2 /2. The theory of light waves, propagating through the aether wave-medium, satisfies all of these observed phenomena.

Regarding Gravity, the mechanism for generating gravity force has never been identified prior to this new theory first being publicized a number of years ago. The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.

From Tesla's personal journal:

Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!

They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.

What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence.

A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.

Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.

In order to understand it let’s carry the experiment over to a water environment. Try to imagine that our boat is twirled within a huge whirlpool. We will try to detect water motion relatively to the boat. We will not find any movement as the speed of the boat will be equal to the rate of water movement. In our imagination let’s replace the boat with the Earth, and the whirlpool – by ether whirlwind, which revolves around the Sun. The example shows clearly that when on the Earth one can not detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the ether as the rate of Earth’s movement will be equal to the rate of ether movement. In my researches I always adhere the principle that all nature's phenomena show themselves equally whichever physical environment they would happen in. The waves exist in the water, air, ... and radio–waves and the light is the waves in the ether.

Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.

I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!

Science took a wrong turn in 1887

Science has taken a wrong turn in 1887 when Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted a famous experiment, called the Michelson-Morley Experiment. This wrong turn formed an errant foundation our current physics and science rests upon, starting from Albert Einstein (Einstein's Postulates & special theory of relativity) to modern day electromagnetic theory. This wrong turn will rock science to its foundation when realized. It will shatter theories and rewrite a century of books. Among the most devastating will be a crumbling of modern astrophysical theory on formation of our universe (big bang, age of, redshift, and more).

aether detection:

pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf

kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html

Ball lightning Tesla research

http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/ball.htm

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20031205011112/http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/ball-lighting.html


Maxwell’s Equations
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.

Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.

Tesla’s introduction to the phenomena of Radiant Energy began with early observations by linesmen working for Thomas Edison, Tesla’s former employer

DC Anomalies
Before Tesla’s invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.

Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure? .


So, before you have the nerve to discuss here with me, do your homework (which currently is nonexistent) man...


6695
Ok, Mr. Sok, you asked for it...here is all the information you need to see how your idol, Einstein, dissapears before your eyes, into the aether...


The formidable book which exposes the unimaginable errors committed by Einstein, the fake scientist:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html

One of the most extraordinary books which also shows the mistakes/errors (it contains also the falsification of the crucial 1919/1922 experiments):
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf

(other valuable information, variable speed of light)
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p14s03-bogn.html

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages12/103.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html (one of the very best sites)

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.collectmyflock.com/CollectMyFlock/pages/20--00__THE_DECEIVER_ALBERT_EINSTEIN__3--PART_SERIES__000.html  (supersite)
http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html

einsteinfiles
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm

missing dopler effect/relativity theory errors

http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html

photon: fact or fiction?

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf

Did Einstein cheat?

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf

supersite
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/44738

Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?


http://www.johnpeckscience.com/


http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html


http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html



http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
Einstein's Misconceptions of Space and Time

Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.



6696
Mr. Sok, democracy is a wonderful thing, but just posting any comments, just to show off here, doesn't work you know...

I know the proofs A-Z of both sides of the table; you haven't read my messages which prove, once and for all, that no star could have formed in the first place, you ignore the fact the sun could not have a spherical shape (see the argument), you ignore the photographs presented here, made by tourists, and which show clearly absolutely no curvature on the surface of the Earth, between England and France.

There are multiple ways, since 1981, to fake the weightlessness (the parabolic flights were used 1981-1983); you ignore the fact that the cloud argument shows very nicely that the Earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis, you ignore the fact that the Round Earth scenario was invented by the rosicrucians, offering all the arguments you use here, through Kepler and Newton. I have shown that the gravitation concept was just an invention conveniently made by Newton, in order to fool the public with a round earth theory which did not exist. Just as they did with the Apollo missions, the same was done with the space shuttle trips; astronauts suspended from cables, pretending they are in space. The space shuttle missions are made-for-television space movies done here on Earth, in New Mexico...

Read carefully what I have written here; you have at your disposal the sites and the work of Tesla (ball lightning research), Kirlian photography re: aether detection; it has been discovered for over 100 years, but the rosicrucians run the show; behind the scenes, however, Tesla's results on the ether are used currently on all kinds of research re: implosion of the atom (from the physical world to the aetherical).

The books regarding E=mc2, the falsity of this equation, are all there; I read them, you have to find them; obviously, you have no credible arguments here, you have not studied nearly enough the aether physics, or for that matter, the hidden biographies of Newton and Einstein.

Think logically and critically when it comes to the information you are fed in the laboratory and on TV; research much more these subjects, and then you will be in a position to come here and respond.

Until then, look over the photographs from Cap Gris Nez, and the Venus/Iss Sun transits images; they prove to you that you have no idea about the Universe you live in; you have been taken in and deceived by arguments which do not stand a chance when scrutinized carefully.

Stop making statements like ""the aether has not been discovered" or "E=mc2 is proved in the lab"; you haven't researched this subject for even 10 minutes; you will find, if you are correct about this, all the proofs (see the links I have offered here re: ether detection, for starters) you need to see how wrong your arguments are; nobody is running away from you, especially when you have only weak arguments to post here when it comes to ether/E=mc2...



I have read the debate at the FE sun discussion between Singularity and Tom Bishop.

The five sun paradoxes, faint young sun paradox, sun neutrino paradox, coronal heating paradox, cold sun paradox, and solid sun surface paradox, show clearly that the source of energy for the sun cannot possibly be nuclear or electric (of course, if you have read already the impossibility of the big bang article, you know that no star could have formed in the first place from the big bang/string theory, even if we take in consideration just the Helium Gap 5 argument); our sun is a gigantic reflector (let's say about 5 km in diameter, as the Venus/Iss images clearly show), having a solid surface covered by a plasma layer, its source of energy being the Central Sun which orbits the central mountain I have mentioned already. All ancient texts mention clearly that the light and energy for the visible Sun comes from this Central Sun located next to the Meru/Sion/Olympus mountain at the North Pole. These texts also mention how the Sun actually orbits above the Earth, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, and nature of the mechanism which drives it.

No debate about the sun's origin/energy source can take place, without a clear understanding of the five sun paradoxes...


6697
Michemus, your thoughts on perspective are very nice, and might apply somewhere else, not here, because here's the other half of the story (I posted intentionally only the Mercury/Venus transits, in my last answer, in order to see your thoughts, and they did not surprise me in the least...):

ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg

and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg


Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg


As you all can see clearly (stop the complaining), the Sun is right behind the ISS/Atlantis station/shuttle (maneuvered by remote control, using Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device, as do all satellites), none of the 148,999,600 km distance can be observed; about the same distance (Sun-Planet) also in the Mercury/Venus photographs.

That is why the Mercury/Venus Sun transits were so important, because, for the first time, we could compare these photographs with the Iss/Atlantis images and see that the distances are about the same.

Michamus, please read the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article: http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1



Eviltoothpaste, your mathematics and reasoning are impressive, but the average height of the White Cliffs is 90 meters (a maximum height of 91 meters); Cap Gris Nez, about 55 meters average height, with a maximum of 65 meters; the curvature over the English Channel is (remember the formula H = R (1 - cos{@/2}) ) 22.4 meters, which would be observable from a height of about 50-80 meters (if needed):

Now, the photograph which you have all seen here does not show any curvature whatsoever, not one inch, not one centimeter, between England (White Cliffs) and France (Cap Gris Nez); as I said already about three times until now, it only confirms what has been known for hundreds of years, that these cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, with no curvature in-between (you can see clearly the base of the cliffs):



The second photograph only confirms, from the Cap Gris Nez cliffs, what we know already to be the truth: no curvature whatsoever over the English Channel, none can be observed:



Now, here are the White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez:

White Cliffs Dover:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/b/000e97gt_mby1jbez.jpg

Cap Gris Nez:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/w/m/000e97gt_wma7ffkv.jpg


Your only proofs of a round Earth scenario, are the Nasa Space Shuttle photographs and/or the Hubble Telescope photographs...in the article http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
you have at your disposal all the proofs you need (see also everything I wrote here about the impossibility of the formation of a spherical star/Sun) to see that the Hubble images are done on the computer, because none such galaxies/stars could exist in reality, also I will show you now how the space shuttle/hubble mission are actually falsified.


The space shuttle missions are falsified in two steps: there is a modified 747, which carries a complete replica of the crew quarters and cargo bay of a Shuttle; parabolic flights are executed with this airplane (5 minutes) in which the astronauts are in moments of weightlessness and pretend to be in outer space; after about 45 seconds from the shuttle take-off, the sounds we hear are no longer live, they are tape recorded.

Through television we are made to see things we do not understand so that we will believe things that are not true.  Here is the most important point: the "live" pictures are actually done here on Earth, in the hangar located in New Mexico, where they switch off the lights, and the astronauts are suspended from cables, and pretend they are in outer space or that they are repairing the Hubble Telescope (also they have an exact replica of this there). The scenes we see on TV are combined by video-tape editing with images of a round Earth done on the computer.

The tell-tale clue to look for are the shadows visible inside the open cargo bay. Shadows in space tend to be sharp and harsh because there is no air to soften and diffuse them. The shadows we see in the video tapes on television are softer because they were not made in space. Also look at the angle of these impossible shadows. The Mir russian/soviet missions are falsified in the same way.

Newton, Galileo, Bruno, Koppernigk, Kepler, Hubble, Einstein were part of the same secret organization (Rosenkreuzer/Brotherhood of the Sun) that runs Nasa and all space missions (whether manned or unmanned).


Skeptic, planets are moved by a rotating ether field (called pravaha in Vedic Cosmology), a different force than the aetherical pressure which was substituted by Newton with an inexistent gravitational concept.

E=mc2 formula is absolutely false; energy comes from ether and not from the atom, there are plenty of formidable books which demonstrate once and for all that the disastrous formula conceived by Minkowski and copied by Einstein is completely false.




6698
sok, think well before you post...all the photographs are original, that's what makes them so nice...

Legault and Cortner were not the only ones who took images of the Transits, here are some more:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg

http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg

Please read carefully the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article, read the message where you will find how our sun could not have attained a spherical shape...

These photographs show, once and for all, that the true distance Sun-Earth is much smaller than the one we have been given "officially"; and that the diameters of Mercury, respectively Venus, are about 50 m, and 75-100 m.

I appreciate your message...

6699
Right On!!!...


6700
The official Nasa photographs have fooled you so far, not me.

Again, the sun is shown in these photographs to be much closer to Iss/Mercury than the official data/measurements; but if you believe what Nasa is showing you, given the Apollo missions and how they were falsified, you are free to do so.

6701
If you look closely, and get rid of your preconceived ideas regarding the sun-earth distance, you will find that the claim made by the flat earth society (a sun of 50 km in diameter, 32 miles) is very wrong; given that Mercury/Iss have about 50 m in diameter, it looks like the Sun actually has about 5 km in diameter, that is what these photographs show.

6702
Look closely and carefully (remove your glasses). Then you will see that the distance Mercury-Sun, and ISS-Sun is the same (about the same), given that there is a dome between the Iss and Sun, while Mercury is on the other side, so to speak.

Same distance, same size; that's is why these Sun transits were so important, because once and for all we could see the real or true sizes and distances of Mercury relative to the Sun/Iss.

6703
Firealox, very impressive (your comments).

These photographs show that the distance Sun-Iss, Sun-Mercury is about the same, and that the sizes of the space shuttle/planets (Mercury) are about the same. You might say otherwise, but they show you the real distance Sun-Earth, which is not the 149,000,000 km we have been lied to with. You might change your description from Rational to Sentimental.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg

6704
They show that the distance between Sun-Mercury and Sun-Atlantis is about the same; and that their diameter is also the same, that is why they are so important.

I will offer here, soon, the proofs you need to find out how all the NASA/JPL missions were faked; also how, exactly, the space shuttle flights are faked.

6705
Mercury and Venus both orbit the Sun. Together they orbit above the Earth with the other planets/stars.

Yes, as these photos show us, the Sun is just a few thousand meters behind the Iss; that the Sun is very close to the earth, and that is has the same diameter as the Moon (but the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse), was very well known from antiquity.

If you want to find out what causes both the solar/lunar eclipses, research the subject Black Sun.

6706
Because, mathematically, the Sun could not be 148,999,600 km away from the ISS/Atlantis, given the relative sizes offered by the pictures. Also, you can see clearly that Mercury is the same size and at the same distance from the Sun as is the Atlantis, what does that tell you? Or you think that there are 69,000,000 km between the dark spot (Mercury) in the photo and the Sun?

6707
Not at all; as you can clearly see, the Sun's diameter is much smaller than what is officialy accepted, and much closer than you think. I understand your argumentation, and where you want to go with it, but these photographs do tell the real story, and the truth about the Sun-Earth distance.

Please access that big bang impossibility link to see how your Sun could not possibly have formed in the first place; I think that you will find many surprises and interesting arguments there.

6708
From where I stand, I think that about 148,999,600 km are missing from the picture, don't you think so?

These pictures show, and I think that you do agree, that we have been lied to as to the nature of the Earth-Sun distance. And who invented these distances for us? Why, of course, the same rosicrucians who gave us Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Hubble.

6709
The ones I submitted are all photographed in real time. The SOHO satellite provides false pictures/images of the Sun.

Here is Legault's site:

http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
(notice how he is mislead by the official Atlantis-Earth distance of 400 km; Atlantis only reaches about 25 km, if that much, it cannot reach further).

Here is Cortner's site:

http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/

6710
No, most of the images taken from SOHO satellite are false; Thierry Legault and David Cortner are two well known photographers who do not believe the flat earth theory; these images have been shown all over the massmedia, including CNN.

6711
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bouncing lasers off of the moon
« on: February 09, 2008, 07:44:12 AM »
Those kinds of discrepancies abound with NASA, which is partly why it earned the nickname, Never A Straight Answer. It was claimed that earth-based lasers were hitting the reflector immediately after Armstrong set it up. Another account contradicted that notion, because the lasers apparently will not return a good enough signal during the lunar day. Even stranger, a laser aimed at the moon can return enough of a signal that a reflector is not even needed. According to the official explanation, of about one sextillion photons fired by an earth-based laser at the reflector in a burst, one photon will make it back to be recorded in the collector on earth. In 1962, scientists bounced lasers off the moon and caught the signal coming back.

The laser, etc, can be made possible WITHOUT a MANNED lunar landing. A tape or some type of relay could be rigged to transmit from lunar orbit (just as they did with the Leonov space mission, where they used a small satellite with medical/voice tapes to fool the world that Leonov was in space).

6712
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.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg

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).


http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg

http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg


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:


http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/v/0000r6ws_mvyca1xs.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/3/0000r6ws_y3vidb75.jpg (venus, mercury, saturn)

Orbits of stars around the North Pole:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/i/5/0000r6ws_i534vexn.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/p/0000r6ws_ppazeqe2.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/t/p/0000r6ws_tpq8hvfz.gif

Pages: 1 ... 222 223 [224]