Ham Radio and Moonbounce

squirter, we can find a junior forum for you, if needed...

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the
...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html
... 
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf
...

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

Your spoutings are relating to "Creationist" sources or the sun being a binary star 14,000 years ago.

2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

Quote from: levee on June 12, 2009, 05:12:47 AM

squirter, we can find a junior forum for you, if needed...

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the
...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences10.html
... 
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf
...

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT !!!

Your spoutings are relating to "Creationist" sources or the sun being a binary star 14,000 years ago.

Quote from: frostee on June 09, 2009, 03:09:00 AM

2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

PSEUDOSQUIRT**** ALERT!

Your spoutings relating to my message are quotes taken out of context, which have nothing to do with my original posting.

PSEUDOSQUIRTFUCK ALERT!

Your spoutings relating to my message are quotes taken out of context, which have nothing to do with my original posting.

There is a perfectly reasonable context here:

Moon Squirter is comparing your behaviour and scientific methodology to those displayed by "pseudoscientists" - people who think that they are being scientific, but who do not, in fact, act in a sufficiently rational or logical way.

The implication appears to be that you demonstrate typical "pseudoscintific" behaviour, and that your conclusions are, therefrore, suspect.

Moon Squirter is making a perfectly valid point, therefore, in my opinion because all scientists are judged by their methodology all of the time.

I must also say that your tendency to resort to making patronising and negative personal remarks about your debating opponents also does little to enhance your reputation.

And the way that you always bring up Tunguska when it has no relevance to the point under debate is also rather annoying.

levee it seems you just copy and paste information to support your position but you lack sufficient knowledge to judge if that information is credible or not. it's evident that you have no significant education in the sciences because you are unable to judge fact from fiction. you may have strong religious convictions but we aren't arguing religion here, or we aren't supposed to be.

squirt is not making a perfectly valid point, because squirt has no idea what is being debated, this to start with.

3Tesla, at the present time, you are not in a position to judge anybody; you simply lack the hundreds of books or the thousands of links to keep up with me in any debate. I have thoroughly destroyed your every conceivable crackpot argument, there on the .net site and here; you have a laughable high school level of scientific understanding, not to mention an even weaker knowledge of history.

Tunguska is relevant each and every time; from a distance of 1000 km, the inhabitans of Irkutsk saw the actual explosion which took place 1000 km away. Are you dumb or just pretending to be so? How can this not be relevant? A ball lightning signal sent to the other side of the world (flat earth model) from the person which originally in 1883 sent the first e/m signal around and above the flat earth disk.

If you have nothing better to say, please shut the faq up. Thank you.

dyno, so far you are showing everybody to be a nice but very superficial person, from the pictures you thought would shake the world, to your comments here. At the present time, you are not able to even write two paragraphs from any of my messages; if I offer copy&paste, you can be sure it is the very best pertainable information there is. In fact, because of my sufficient knowledge, I have posted more than any other participant here: I challenge even an amateur like yourself to find any mistakes:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=d2c65ef03a85a350377db65b5e8ebfb0&board=7.0

But it does; our friend julian must understand that the surface of the earth is actually flat; the explosion observed from a distance of 1000 km, or from London, or from Stockholm (instantly or a few minutes later) could thus be seen only a flat earth.

Nikola Tesla actually sent the first e/m signal above the flat earth, using the aether layer described in his experiments, which is being used today (by julian) to do the same thing.

3Tesla, at the present time, you are not in a position to judge anybody; you simply lack the hundreds of books or the thousands of links to keep up with me in any debate. I have thoroughly destroyed your every conceivable crackpot argument, there on the .net site and here;

Your arrogance is, and always has been, obnoxious to me in the extreme.

you have a laughable high school level of scientific understanding,

As it happens, I have a Ph.D. in medical physics, a first class homours B.Sc. in applied physics, grade A A-Levels in maths, physics and chemistry and grade A O-Levels in geology, biology and physical science.

What scientific qualifications do you have?

not to mention an even weaker knowledge of history.

Actually I have quite a good general knowledge of history (mostly European) and a very good understanding of the famous Tunguska incident.

But how is that relevant to a debate about radio-wave propagation around The World?

If you have nothing better to say, please shut the faq up. Thank you.

More arrogant rudeness - you appear to lack the grace, humility, politness, respect and self-control needed to engage in rational scientific debate.

3Tesla, you are the one who started the name calling not me, if you remember...I have put up with your amateurish (notwithstanding your titles) approach long enough...you are ignoring all the photographs which clearly show there is no curvature...

killabee, trolling is the name of your game, not mine. If you do not know this much, that the Tunguska event was caused by Tesla, then you have no place being here; please research the Tunguska matter, it could not have been a meteorite, nuclear device, comet or anything else known by science; please research the eyewitness accounts of the ball lightning, from the sailors in the Indian Ocean, to the inhabitants next to Lake Baikal.

That event was very well described in the newspapers of the time; which things you do not understand? I am presenting the actual quotes from the newspapers:

The first report of the explosion was in the Irkutsk paper dated July 2, 1908, published two days after the explosion:
...the peasants saw a body shining very brightly (too bright for the naked eye) with a bluish-white light.... The body was in the form of 'a pipe', i.e. cylindrical. The sky was cloudless, except that low down on the horizon, in the direction in which this glowing body was observed, a small dark cloud was noticed. It was hot and dry and when the shining body approached the ground (which was covered with forest at this point) it seemed to be pulverized, and in its place a loud crash, not like thunder, but as if from the fall of large stones or from gunfire was heard. All the buildings shook and at the same time a forked tongue of flames broke through the cloud.
All the inhabitants of the village ran out into the street in panic. The old women wept, everyone thought that the end of the world was approaching...

The visual obstacle between Irkutsk and Tunguska is over 67 kilometers.

MORE NEWSPAPERS ACCOUNTS FROM LONDON:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.(33)
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla?s power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.(

?To the Editor of the Times.?
?Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o?clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1? (1908 )

?TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.?
?Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o?clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.?

The visual obstacle between London and Tungusk IS OVER 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT! THE EXPLOSION AT TUNGUSKA PROVES CLEARLY THAT THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 7000 KILOMETERS IN DISTANCE.

Now, look at your last messages kb, who is actually trolling, me or you?

But it does; our friend julian must understand that the surface of the earth is actually flat; the explosion observed from a distance of 1000 km, or from London, or from Stockholm (instantly or a few minutes later) could thus be seen only a flat earth.

PSEUDOSCIENCE ALERT (again)!

14. Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events,
and suspect claims?rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

e.g. For the "Tunguska Event", how do we know the light in Europe was caused by one explosion and not other fragments of an "asteriod?"  Has anything ever happened like it since?  The H-Bomb tests: They produced lots of photons but didn't illuminate half the world.

...and...

2. Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check their sources.

MMMmm, yes.

3Tesla, you are the one who started the name calling not me, if you remember...

Please show me any quotation where I have called you names, and I will show you an earlier one from you where you do the reverse.

I have put up with your amateurish (notwithstanding your titles) approach long enough...

Amateurish?

I forget to mention that I have about 13 years continuous post-doctoral experience in the field of cancer research, and I have co-authored dozens of papers in that time which makes me a professional, i.e. paid, not amateur, scientist.

you are ignoring all the photographs which clearly show there is no curvature...

If you want me to comment on your photographs I will - they look faked to me.

And you are ignoring the photographs at sea level and altitude which have clearly shown ships disappearing behind the horizon.

Edit:- here is the link to the "sinking ship" photos:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

I note that you are active in that thread, but you choose not to reference the photo's in this thread (you just post your own photo's).

Such selectivity is not good academic practice.

The visual obstacle between London and Tungusk IS OVER 9000 KILOMETERS IN HEIGHT! THE EXPLOSION AT TUNGUSKA PROVES CLEARLY THAT THERE IS NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 7000 KILOMETERS IN DISTANCE.

Typing in capitals ...

Again ...

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT THIS IS SHOUTING !!!!!

(If you want to emphasise text, please use itallics, underlining or both like a reasonable person.)

You are acting like a fanatic in that you appear to let your emotions cloud your rational judgement.

A little point I'll like to bring up.

A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast...

At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink

It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime . . . the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.

There's various lights coming from different directions and of different colours. Are you suggesting that they all are the same source?

julian, when it comes to atmospheric science, you are out of your league here...please do your homework before posting...

What I wrote IS TRUE...

The diurnal pressure variation has been recorded for hundreds of years now...as you should know...my friend...

Let us take as an example Taiwan. Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25?N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.

Do you understand these things Julian? And then why the crap from your last message...

The CAUSE of this variation is unknown, although it is described officially as being caused by waves in the upper atmosphere.

Therefore, julian, your comments are a trademark of the fact that you have in fact NOT STUDIED this things, mabye at all...

Now, here is the paradox: The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Velikovsky was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century; notwithstanding the crackpot comments made by "scientists".

Please read Worlds in Collision carefully, you will discover the 1000+ references which prove that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past; this could have happened only in a flat earth system, that is, the stars/sun changing the orbit above the earth; had the Earth stopped from the axial rotation, it would have crashed into the void, cosmic space immediately, not being able to restart its rotation.

Your superficial comments on this subject show that you have never studied the past catastrophism theories, and do not understand, for example, the cause of the extinction of the mammoths.

The first e/m signal to reach above the flat earth and back, was sent by none other than Nikola Tesla in 1883.

It is perfectly explainable, if we take into account the aether layer which lies beneath the Dome.

Your research on the Tunguska explosion is deplorable, julian; how could you bring Peary into the equation? That explosion had nothing to do with Peary's trips to the NP, please study before posting here.

Here is the best proof of the fact that the surface of the Earth is flat, and that e/m signals can be sent above it:

Minutes after the explosion? You ever heard of the speed of light? IF (and that's a very big if), the earth is flat, the width of it and the speed of light would assure this "explosion" that tesla "caused" would be seen (according to human perception) instantaneously. Automatic fail right there. On top of that, lightning balls, in their definitive sense are existent for microseconds, maybe milliseconds if you are lucky. That doesn't really account for how this stretched out for 3 hours with physical impact left on the earth or ozone layer that is not comparable to an electro-magnetic explosion, more an electrial explosion. never mind the lack of effect on the atmosphere for something supposedly many times the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

Quite frankly, I think the typed out letters you have found on the internet aren't a credible source. Plenty of people get convinced they have been abducted by aliens, and psychologically speaking, these people will actually have memories of it. Entirely fabricated of course. It's a very common phenomenon of the mind, and one under which this falls I think. Also, all the information I can find on Tesla and his wardenclyffe emitter has some very very wild suggestions...one of which that it can produce 100 billion watts of electricity? Most of tesla's work on this is available to scientists as most of the burnings happened before this work was started - if that idea was even a quarter true, the world's energy problems would be solved in an instant. I have to point out to you, Tesla did some brilliant work yes - but much of his activity was regarded eccentric, unjustified, and quite often outright lies.

And yes, dinural pressure has been recorded for centuries, not that radio enthusiasts give two hoots about it because it affects them in no way whatsoever. I will say it again, your maxima and minima are not what I am talking about, and certainly not what give way to increased radio propagation at certain times of the day (which change!).

I refuse to believe World's in Collision can actually be passed off as a valid scientific document. Numerous people have informed you that Velikovsky had no formal qualifications in Physics, Mathematics, applied fields of either, Astrophysics and so on. He was a psychotherapist at heart, and his work on such books could be an experiment by him to see if anyone would believe him (just to throw in a possibility for you).

His concept in which Venus drifted so close to the Earth's atmosphere at which point both were actually mixed relies (dubiously) on RE physics. FE physics with the earth accelerating upwards constantly would render that theory impossible, and more importantly the end of the theory, in which Venus and Earth manage to split, is also impossible with dark energy. Also bear in mind the way he describes the event, importantly involves that venus is a similar size (and shape!) - to my knowledge FE denies this. So you celebrate a "scientist" that has many theories that solely rely on the earth being spherical...? I'm not quite sure what else to say on that one.

Plus, doesn't bendy light or whatever you call it account for why people can see something so far away?

Still, this thread has moved beyond the relevance of Tunguska - I will happily continue it in another thread, but this is more about radio propogation and the transmission of information, not a possible electrical/electromagnetic explosion. (which by the way would probably leave residual magnetism in local metallic deposits, which aren't there, if it was created in the way suggested.)

Julian, I am at work, I will respond more this evening (renting time on the particle accelerator is expensive and there is quite a waiting list, I don't have time to mess around during the day).

I was not applying maxwell-boltzman relationships to EM waves, I was applying it to the gaseous particles in the atmosphere as an explanation of why the temperature gradient causes a convex atmosphere. It is certainly applicable in this sense. The gaseous atmosphere over the cold center (the arctic circle) is not affected the same way because the altitude is much lower and the area is much smaller, hence it doesnt have nearly the same magnitude of affect on the atmosphere near the ice shelf.

As far as Euler's wave equations, there are certainly rational boundary conditions: The electromagnetic wave must start and end (in phase) while going around the circumfurence of a circle. It is like a string tied in a circle, only a very limited set of EM vibrations are possible without causing destructive intereference. Add in the reflections and the math gets extremely complicated very quickly. As to the person who said meniscus is not possible with a gas: with an ideal gas, it is not. However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space). REAL gas particlse (not ideal gas particles) show quite a bit of interaction. These are just quick responses while my neutrino experiment is running, let me know if you ahve any other questions and I will get ot them when I finish work.

kingkool, would you mind providing the maths involved in the reflection process at an convex atmosphere? i'm not interested in the convexity itself as that is widely accepted in fet and imo quite an elegant solution, only the reflection itself. thanks in advance 

(renting time on the particle accelerator is expensive and there is quite a waiting list, I don't have time to mess around during the day).

These are just quick responses while my neutrino experiment is running, let me know if you ahve any other questions and I will get ot them when I finish work.

lol, and lol. I don't believe that for a minute. And which particle accelerator are you working with? What university do you work for?

Well alright maybe I got your argument slightly confused...but it still stands that Maxwell Boltzman equations don't work with the ionosphere. Still, it's irrelevant of how the atmosphere is spherized, as in both models, FE still doesn't explain how you don't receive the signal from in front of you before you receive it behind you in directional wavelength adjusted circumstances.

Aaaaand hence why Eulers wave equations aren't used for EM waves....there is no way to model the medium in which they travel. I said rational boundary conditions are very difficult to obtain with an EM wave, and virtually impossible when several reflections are involved...hence they would be irrational boundary conditions. The few situations that they can provided accurately, would not be real world. Concurrently, modelling each reflection and refraction individually with EM wave equations is far more accurate. And even if you did want to goto the hassle of Eulering it up on your waves, it still doesn't explain why you don't receive the signal in front of you first on a FE.

As izmih says - no-one is really arguing about convexity as it is important to both models and thus rather irrelevant on how it is achieved. It's the reflection paths that don't make sense in FE.

However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).

I thought that The Earth keeps its atmosphere because of gravitational attraction.

Or am I being stupid/naive?

Quote from: kingkool on June 12, 2009, 12:26:15 PM

However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).

I thought that The Earth keeps its atmosphere because of gravitational attraction.

Or am I being stupid/naive?

If you were a FE'er, then yeah, you are so stupid and naive.

But as a RE'er, nah, you're fine. Gravity = win.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 13, 2009, 03:32:56 AM

Quote from: kingkool on June 12, 2009, 12:26:15 PM

However, after you get beyond Physics II you learn that gasses are not ideal, there is certainly attraction between the gas particles and the gas/ice shelf interface. It is the reason why the atmosphere exists (instead of just floating into space).

I thought that The Earth keeps its atmosphere because of gravitational attraction.

Or am I being stupid/naive?

If you were an FE'er, then yeah, you are so stupid and naive.

But as a RE'er, nah, you're fine. Gravity = win.

There was a clue in my question - I called it an atmo-sphere, not an atmo-plane.

Edit: move my text out of the quote.

lol....i wonder if that means FE'rs cannot use the word atmosphere? Even if their dome is concave, it's only half a sphere so not strictly a sphere is it?

Let us now return to the subject discussed here.

Radio waves can propagate above the flat earth just as easily as they could around a spherical earth. In the flat earth model, we also have an invisible layer of charged particles which serves as a medium for those signals.

In 1883, Nikola Tesla put forward the theory of electric signal propagation to the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia) and to the National Electric Light Association (St. Louis). This problem was analyzed by Thompson and Webster, and in 1886, and further studied by Corum and Aidinejad in The Transient Propagation of ELF Pulses in the Earth Ionosphere Cavity, which confirmed Tesla's experimental data.

Also, on a flat earth, we have the Schumann cavity resonances, that is, the space between the surface of the flat Earth and the conductive ionosphere (acting as a closed waveguide). Just above the ionosphere we have the first Dome, as is well known in our flat earth theory now.

An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.

Therefore, julian, your hypotheses investigated in the opening message, are just not true; our flat earth model includes all these details.

Now, the facts presented here in the FAQ are not all true, you have to be careful about that; my messages include the correct theory, so far.


Here is the complete demonstration for you julian, that the Earth is completely stationary; that is, the cloud trajectories prove clearly that friction coupled with inertia could not possibly explain the round earth atmosphere model:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=d8643bb13f66e50d4e9bee543b374e62&topic=535.0

You mentioned (or somebody else) the Maxwell field equations; well, all of you have not done your homework, IN FACT THOSE EQUATIONS WERE MODIFIED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL 1861 FORM, Tesla was the first to discover this, and actually recovered the true equations (even though he did not use the field concept).

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

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' ? Nikola Tesla

Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').

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

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

http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/york/esv1n4.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/15.2_meyl.pdf


Scalar waves were originally detected by a Scottish mathematical genius called James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) He linked electricity and magnetism and laid the foundation for modern physics, but unfortunately the very fine scalar waves (which he included in his research) were deliberately left out of his work by the 3 men, including Heinrich Hertz, who laid down the laws taught for physics as a discipline at colleges. They dismissed Maxwell's scalar waves or potentials as 'mystical' because they were physically unmanifest and only existed in the 'ethers' and so were determined to be too ineffectual for further study. These enigmatic (but more powerful than even microwaves when harnessed and concentrated into a beam) scalar waves may have been forgotten except that Nicola Tesla accidentally rediscovered them. He'd originally worked with Thomas Edison who discovered direct current, but Tesla discovered alternating current. The two men disagreed and eventually parted ways and Tesla later experimented using the research of the German Heinrich Hertz, who was proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Tesla found, while experimenting with violently abrupt direct current electrical charges, that a new form of energy (scalar) came through.

By 1904, Tesla had developed transmitters to harness scalar energy from one transmitter to another, undetectably bypassing time and space. He could just materialize it from one place to another through hyperspace, without the use of wires, it was just sucked right out of the space-time/vacuum and into a transmitter and into a beam which could be targeted to another transmitter. Unfortunately he got no financial support for replacing electricity, which used wires and therefore earned money, and to this day, this is the reason why scalar energy is still not acknowledged in mainstream physics. Tesla, even though he discovered more for mankind in science than many others, is still not credited in science books for his discovery of scalar waves, a source of 'free-energy' obtainable as a limitless source of power that costs nothing. Other inventors have sporadically rediscovered 'free-energy' but have come to harm or have been silenced by the sum of millions of dollars hush money, a small sum compared to the sale of electricity, oil, gas and a myriad of other energy producers which would then be rendered worthless. Money hungry big business has harshly crushed any opposition to their own riches, generated by multiple obsolete earth polluting fossil fuels.

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

Therefore, my friends, you have been caught with your pants down, AGAIN!

Let us now get back to the other messages.

julian, you do not understand what is going on.

The actual explosion was seen from 1000 km distance, the visual obstacle in the path is 67.5 kilometers!

Those newspaper accounts are THE REAL ONES; they appeared on July 1 and 2 in the Times, so stop the complaining.

What should have been a very local phenomenon, was seen instantly or minutes later on the other half of the globe (given your model), absolutely impossible given the curvature and the visual obstacle (over 9000 kilometers between London and Tunguska).

Please read Worlds in Collision, where you will discover over 1000 bibliographical references which will prove to you that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past. Notwithstanding the comments made by the scientific establishment, you will find that Velikovsky was truly one of the geniuses of the 20th century:

http://www.varchive.org/

Please research the ball lightning physics much more carefully; you might start with Tesla's own experiments, he was able to produce such ball lightning very easily using the aether; your comments show that you have not studied this matter at all.

Now julian and 3Tesla, here are some photographs for you to watch carefully:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716538#msg716538

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716522#msg716522

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716502#msg716502 (especially this, 55 km without ANY CURVATURE)

Let us now return to the subject discussed here.

Ha, ha, ha - like you never go off topic (!)

An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.

Please show us a diagram of the path that the radio waves will take, as your idea sounds fantastical (i.e. unbelieveble) to me.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716502#msg716502 (especially this, 55 km without ANY CURVATURE)

Normally I would just criticise you for going off-topic again ...

But this time I will engage.

If The Earth is truly flat, then any body of water (in the picture it is a lake, I think) will also be perfectly flat.

So if you take a picture from lake level - zero elevation/height - then you will not be able to see the lake in the picture at all as it is flat and the camera will be pointing straight across its surface - see the diagram below.

Now the picture you link to as an *awful* lot of lake at the bottom which indicates to me that it was taken at quite a high elevation/height.

And if the picture *was* taken at a high elevation, then the line-of-sight would go over the curved hump of the lake (as predicted by Round Earth Theory) and see the shoreline opposite.

So you have just posted a link to a photograph which does not support your ideas - that you can see the opposite shore-line from lake level because the lake is flat - because the experimental conditions are wrong.

Is this an honest mistake on your part (we all make them) ...

Or were you trying to mislead us deliberately?

3Tesla, I just hope, for the sake of your pacients, that your research in the medical field is much better than the BS you posted in the last message: is this what you are trying to do, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit? It doesn't work with me...

We will increase the distance to 55 kilometers, Hamilton - Toronto lakeshore west condominiums.

At that distance, there would be a 59 meter curvature, with an visual obstacle of 195 meters, given the position taken by the photographers right there on the beach (2 meters altitude).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Can you read 3Tesla? If so, we are now on the Hamilton Beach, looking at the Toronto lakeshore west condominiums:



No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream/

Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton

There is also a picture of the author right there on the beach...in that photo album...



DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS DR. 1/3TESLA?

DO YOU?

On a round earth, from that beach, you would see a mountain of water, a visual obstacle of 195 meters, nothing but sky from the other side.

3Tesla, I just hope, for the sake of your pacients, that your research in the medical field is much better than the BS you posted in the last message: is this what you are trying to do, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit? It doesn't work with me...

Levee - do your brazen rudeness and over-weening arrogance know no limits?

Can you read 3Tesla? If so, we are now on the Hamilton Beach, looking at the Toronto lakeshore west condominiums:

Yes, I can read very well, thank you ...

But the real question here is: are you capable of rational and critical thinking?

That picture clearly has far too much lake showing at the bottom to have been taken at the level of the lake (zero elevation/height) - as my diagram shows quite clearly.

That photo was clearly taken at a substantial height above the lake and so it cannot be used to substantiate your claims.

So your agument is, in my opinion, the only "BS" around here.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS DR. 1/3TESLA?

DO YOU?

Typing in capitals again?

For the dozenth time: THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO SHOUTING!

In a world of Flat Earth "True Believers" ...

(A very small world, it must be said) ...

You are clearly the most fanatical zealot of all!

I did like your "1/3 Tesla" insult though - that made me smile ...

No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.

Your evidence is refuted by these pictures:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

Would you care to comment on this disagreement?

Edit: these pictures also show significant water when taken at sea level, so perhaps your photo's were taken lower down than I first thought. (But the depth of field appears to have foreground waves out of focus which yours don't.)

No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.

This important point has just occured to me:

Why have you not shown pictures of the shoreline taken at elevation too?

Without this information - what is known in science as a "control", I think - we cannot judge if the shoreline looks different if you climb higher.

Without that information we have no way of judging if we can see the *real* shoreline in the lake-level photos.

In short your science is flawed, I am afraid - unlike the ship photos referenced above [1] where we have both sea-level *and* elevated photos which are clearly different.

1. Edit: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

Let us now return to the subject discussed here.

In the flat earth model, we also have an invisible layer of charged particles which serves as a medium for those signals.

Please call it it's technical term, the ionosphere.

In 1883, Nikola Tesla put forward the theory of electric signal propagation to the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia) and to the National Electric Light Association (St. Louis). This problem was analyzed by Thompson and Webster, and in 1886, and further studied by Corum and Aidinejad in The Transient Propagation of ELF Pulses in the Earth Ionosphere Cavity, which confirmed Tesla's experimental data.

Irrelevant. What are you trying to say? Tesla confirmed that radio is real? No shit.

Also, on a flat earth, we have the Schumann cavity resonances, that is, the space between the surface of the flat Earth and the conductive ionosphere (acting as a closed waveguide). Just above the ionosphere we have the first Dome, as is well known in our flat earth theory now.

Irrelevant. Edit: Just to prove how Schumann resonance is irrelevant, firstly, it's experienced only in the ELF bands, I'm talking about HF bands, BIG difference. Secondly, Schumann resonance is normally applicable when excitation has occured...it's generally accepted this is caused by lightning. Directional circumnavigational propagation is normally only possible in very good weather conditions, i.e. sunny, hot and clear. The initial propagation simply will not be strong enough otherwise.

An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.

Therefore, julian, your hypotheses investigated in the opening message, are just not true; our flat earth model includes all these details.

Now, the facts presented here in the FAQ are not all true, you have to be careful about that; my messages include the correct theory, so far.

You've still yet to prove to me how a directional long wavelength signal can arrive behind you after you transmit it. My hypothesis isn't false. I've experienced it myself. Don't call me a liar when you cannot prove that I am lying. Show me the path in diagrammatic form, with relevant mathematics, then I will concede.

Here is the complete demonstration for you julian, that the Earth is completely stationary; that is, the cloud trajectories prove clearly that friction coupled with inertia could not possibly explain the round earth atmosphere model:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=d8643bb13f66e50d4e9bee543b374e62&topic=535.0

You cannot cite this forum. Ever heard of pseudo-science? Give me academic references/citations directly in your posts, and I will believe you.

You mentioned (or somebody else) the Maxwell field equations; well, all of you have not done your homework, IN FACT THOSE EQUATIONS WERE MODIFIED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL 1861 FORM, Tesla was the first to discover this, and actually recovered the true equations (even though he did not use the field concept).

Irrelevant of who initially derived them, their meaning stands true. Pointless diversion from their accepted name means nothing - the issues highlighted using said equations, no matter who they were initially developed by, still take precedence.

*snipped your links to save space*

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' ? Nikola Tesla

Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').

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')

Highly irrelevant to directional circumnavigational propagation. i.e. I don't care about Tesla's dubious theories, nor do many others of the scientific community. If the majority of what you have mentioned above were genuine statements that could be reproduced, humanity would be beyond the state that it currently is. A "special bulb"? A "tube of force"? Come on...time to take a reality check. Tesla was a genius, but equally nuts and everyone realises that. If any of this could be recreated, mankind would be several steps ahead than it is now.

Scalar waves were originally detected by a Scottish mathematical genius called James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) He linked electricity and magnetism and laid the foundation for modern physics, but unfortunately the very fine scalar waves (which he included in his research) were deliberately left out of his work by the 3 men, including Heinrich Hertz, who laid down the laws taught for physics as a discipline at colleges. They dismissed Maxwell's scalar waves or potentials as 'mystical' because they were physically unmanifest and only existed in the 'ethers' and so were determined to be too ineffectual for further study. These enigmatic (but more powerful than even microwaves when harnessed and concentrated into a beam) scalar waves may have been forgotten except that Nicola Tesla accidentally rediscovered them. He'd originally worked with Thomas Edison who discovered direct current, but Tesla discovered alternating current. The two men disagreed and eventually parted ways and Tesla later experimented using the research of the German Heinrich Hertz, who was proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Tesla found, while experimenting with violently abrupt direct current electrical charges, that a new form of energy (scalar) came through.

By 1904, Tesla had developed transmitters to harness scalar energy from one transmitter to another, undetectably bypassing time and space. He could just materialize it from one place to another through hyperspace, without the use of wires, it was just sucked right out of the space-time/vacuum and into a transmitter and into a beam which could be targeted to another transmitter. Unfortunately he got no financial support for replacing electricity, which used wires and therefore earned money, and to this day, this is the reason why scalar energy is still not acknowledged in mainstream physics. Tesla, even though he discovered more for mankind in science than many others, is still not credited in science books for his discovery of scalar waves, a source of 'free-energy' obtainable as a limitless source of power that costs nothing. Other inventors have sporadically rediscovered 'free-energy' but have come to harm or have been silenced by the sum of millions of dollars hush money, a small sum compared to the sale of electricity, oil, gas and a myriad of other energy producers which would then be rendered worthless. Money hungry big business has harshly crushed any opposition to their own riches, generated by multiple obsolete earth polluting fossil fuels.

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

Have to  be honest, not sure how scalar measurements come into this. And a "new form of energy"? Are you serious? Show me a transceiver for this kind of energy and I'll go along with it. I'm talking diagrams. You can't just "name" a new form of energy....I don't want to drag you down or anything but that's one of the strangest things I've ever heard? Really....I'm dumbfounded by the possibility....you'd be a millionaire merely from the scientific publication if you can prove it, and would have phD's pouring out of your ears.....

And angelfire.com ? Not a credible source. Start again.

julian, you do not understand what is going on.

The actual explosion was seen from 1000 km distance, the visual obstacle in the path is 67.5 kilometers!

Those newspaper accounts are THE REAL ONES; they appeared on July 1 and 2 in the Times, so stop the complaining.

What should have been a very local phenomenon, was seen instantly or minutes later on the other half of the globe (given your model), absolutely impossible given the curvature and the visual obstacle (over 9000 kilometers between London and Tunguska).

Please read Worlds in Collision, where you will discover over 1000 bibliographical references which will prove to you that the Earth stopped from its axial rotation several times in the past. Notwithstanding the comments made by the scientific establishment, you will find that Velikovsky was truly one of the geniuses of the 20th century:

http://www.varchive.org/

Please research the ball lightning physics much more carefully; you might start with Tesla's own experiments, he was able to produce such ball lightning very easily using the aether; your comments show that you have not studied this matter at all.

I know enough about lightning physics to KNOW (YEAH I AM SHOUTING AT YOU NOW, SO PACK IT IN AS I AM SICK OF YOU RIDICULOUS CAPITALS, AS IS EVERYONE ELSE) that it isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. I will happily talk about tunguska in another thread, but from the point of view of the primary topic here, it is trollop and tripe. Please stop bringing it up because I don't want to cloud the very linear and recordable EM physics and maths in this thread with dubious creations of tesla. And Velikovsky was full of shit. How could the Earth and Venus mix atmospheres with no physical damage? RE physics is crucial to his model, with FE it is even more impossible. Give it up, he is a headcase.

Now julian and 3Tesla, here are some photographs for you to watch carefully:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg718436#msg718436

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716538#msg716538

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716522#msg716522

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg716502#msg716502 (especially this, 55 km without ANY CURVATURE)

Stop citing this forum - it's scientifically incorrect. Again, ever heard of pseudo-science?

for the sake of your pacients

Need I say anything else? That isn't a typo, that's a concious choice to use a "c" instead of a "t". Both very far away from each other on a keyboard. I am using true flat earther arguments here to prove that levee is not intelligent.   

I'm going to get castigated for this, but only because i'm a round-earther!

Tesla was a genius, but equally nuts and everyone realises that.

That's the best, or rather most entertaining, kind of scientist!

No 59 meter curvature, no 195 meter visual obstacle, cut the crap.

Here is a link to another Toronto-across-the-lake photo that clearly shows that you *can't* see the shoreline from that distance (because there is a "hump" of water in the way):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Ontario#Images

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_from_LO.JPG

So who's right?