Advanced Flat Earth Theory

The surgical instruments discovered at Pompeii:

http://www.chronologia.org/kak_reconstruction/im/048.jpg

http://www.chronologia.org/kak_reconstruction/im/049.jpg

Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:

The figures above show the incredible 'ancient' surgical instruments of allegedly I century, discovered during the excavation in Pompeii. The quality and the high technological level are astounding. In the first figure, on the top – dental extracting forceps and foreign body probe. Below - speculum ani, speculum uteris used by the gynecologists. Take notice of the METALIC SHAFT WITH THE MOST PRECISE THREAD! See second figure. We can see screws inserted in the apertures, and rivets. But for that one needed to know how to drill metal. It means that the metal drills were already popular. So in front of us we see the manufactured articles of not earlier than the XVI century [NOR], ch.6.

The historians write, that when these most 'ancient' objects were found, 'it was the XVIII century, and this set of tools, VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE USED UNTIL NOW (FOR EXAMPLE, THE GYNICOLOGICAL SPECULUM) CREATED A GREAT IMPRESSION, it showed the high development level of the ancient surgery' [674:1], p.218. And further: 'This speculum uteris, used by the gynecologists, shows the highest level of the development of medicine already reached at that time' [674:1], p.149.


Schliemann's false Troy:

www.chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/03_4.html#sch5


CHRIST, CRUCIFIED NEAR AN IMPORTANT SEA/STRAIT/RIVER:



Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:

Incidentally it is interesting to look carefully at the representation of the crucifixion. It appears that in many paintings, icons and frescoes Christ’s crucifixion is shown with a background of either a big sea strait or a wide river. Besides the artists were painting in particular either a strait or a river, but by no means a sea, fig.5. So, by depicting water, the opposite shore was always shown [5v1], ch.14. As we understand it now, it could not have been otherwise, as the Beykoz mountain is situated right on the shore of the wide Bosphorus. From there can be seen very clearly the European shore of the strait, where the centre of Constantinople is situated.

Any artist, had a more or less accurate recollection of the original story, would have depicted the Bosphorus strait as a significant part of the landscape, which served as a backdrop to the site of Christ’s crucifixion.


Mount Beykoz, the place outside the walls of Constantinople, where Christ was crucified:



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1641885#msg1641885

NEW RADICAL CHRONOLOGY: MORE PROOFS

We have seen already how the most direct proof that the chronology of the past was completely falsified can be used immediately to prove that prior to the XVIIth century there was no axial precession of the Earth: it is the precession of the Sun itself which leads to the 4.2 meters per day/3.17 seconds per day westward shift.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.

However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.


"It would be all right, but it presupposes that near Dionysius' date of 563 A.D. the 14th moon (Passover) really fell on March 24. It could be that Dionysius was not aware of the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle and made the mistake shifting Passover from 563 to the same day of March in 31 A.D.

But he could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.


But in 563 Passover (the 14th moon) fell not on March 24, but on Sunday, March 25, that is, it coincided with Easter as determined by the Easter Book.


As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.


Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century. Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century."


Moreover, Dr. G.V. Nosovksy verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus as necessary to date exactly the crucifixion, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.

In the new radical chronology of history, the crucifixion occurred at the end of the Renaissance, in the interval 1770 - 1775 AD, as discussed here before.


Therefore, we have here the most direct and extraordinary proof that history was falsified to the fullest.


But Dr. G. Nosovky's research explored the subject even further , to discover when Dionysius Exiguus' works were actually falsified.


On dating the works of Exiguus and Vlastar:

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img412.pdf


The corresponding details of the biographies of Dionysius Exiguus (the Small) and Dionysius Petavius (the Little):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&pg=PA360&lpg=PA360&dq=dionysius+petavius+little&source=bl&ots=OKuRIKcOYv&sig=6twCT7uTkvFuzCLxqqVFcWNj-Jc&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=rTsAVcWNB6GP7AbJ-IGYDA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dionysius%20petavius%20little&f=false



Using the equinoctial dates provided by Vlastar himself (according to the official chronology), Dr. G. Nosovsky obtained the following results:




Matthew Vlastar's equinoxes and modern chronological tradition:

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img415.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img416.pdf

www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img418.pdf






When was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue in 'Almagest' Compiled in Reality? Statistical Analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111204106/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko3.pdf

http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

Appendix 2. When Was Ptolemy's Star Catalogue Really Compiled? Variable Configurations of the Stars and the Astronomical Dating of the Almagest Star Catalogue:

pages 346 - 375



The Dating of Ptolemy's Almagest Based on the Coverings of the Stars and on Lunar Eclipses:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html

pages 376 - 381




https://web.archive.org/web/20131111203642/http://www.hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/fomenko4.pdf (section 3: The Dating of the Lunar Eclipses and Appendix 2: The Table of the Almagest's Lunar Eclipses)


http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/index.html (pages 382 - 389)

The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era: the most comprehensive work on the official history/chronology of dating the Christian era, with special emphasis on Dionysius Exiguus

http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/524.pdf

Ptolemy (Almagest 3. 1) reports an observation of the equinox by Hipparchus on 27 Mechir of the 178th year from the death of Alexander (24 March 146 bc) and his own observation 285 years later on 7Pachon in the year 463 (22 March ad 140).


But we have already seen that the entire work attributed to Ptolemy, especially Almagest, was falsified at least after 1350 AD: thus the references to Hipparchus were also introduced in order to give the impression that the axial precession of the Earth was astronomically dated/recorded even in antiquity.


Julius Africanus is made to confirm Ptolemy:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=AvVPlyYjX7YC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=julius+africanus+ptolemy+claudius&source=bl&ots=CZr56Yd7Tb&sig=9uZL0ZjEZERkoHr6m4PMM63R6Ho&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=CR4QVcK0E4GBU6aPgxA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=julius%20africanus%20ptolemy%20claudius&f=false


And Eusebius bases his work on chronology exactly on the publications of Julius Africanus:

Julius Africanus was a Christian writer (A.D. c.170-c.240) ... As a whole, [his Chronographies] has been lost, but there are quotations and extracts from it in Eusebius and other writers, while Eusebius himself probably based his own Chronicle upon it. (Finegan, page 140)

In the Church History Eusebius also refers in very complimentary terms ... to the Chronographies of Africanus, and his acquaintance with and high regard for that work make it probable that it provided much of the basis for his own Chronicle. (Finegan, page 148)


Each and every other detail attributed to Dionysius Exiguus' biography, the central pillar of chronology, had to be falsified/invented at the very same time Exiguus' false works were forged: Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Anatolius, Demetrius, Bede.


Here we have the most direct, comprehensive, and splendid proof (which no RE or UAFE can deny) that our official chronology of history was absolutely falsified during the Renaissance:

Dionysius Exiguus, On Easter (translation from Latin to English)




http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_exiguus_easter_01.htm


Exiguus assigns the date of March 24, year 563 AD, for the Passover.


However, in the year 563 AD, the Passover fell on March 25.




http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/easter/easter_text4a.htm


Dr. G. Nosovsky:

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

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


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.0#.VRVdovysWCo


But Exiguus could not have been unaware of the date of Passover in the the almost contemporary year 563! To that end it was sufficient to apply the Metonian cycle to the coming 30-40 years; the inaccuracy of the Metonian cycle does not show up for such intervals.

As he specially worked with the calendar situation of almost contemporary year 563 and as he based his calculation of the era "since the birth of Christ" on this situation, Dionysius could not help seeing that, first, the calendar situation in the year 563 did not conform to the Gospels' description and, second, that the coincidence of Easter with Passover in 563 contradicts the essence of the determination of Easter the Easter Book is based on.


Therefore, it appears absolutely incredible that the calculations of the First Easter and of the Birth of Christ had been carried out in the 6th century on the basis of the calendar situation of the year 563. It was shown in Sec. 1 that the Easter Book, used by Dionysius, had not been compiled before the 8th century and had been canonized only at the end of the 9th century. Therefore, the calculations carried out by (or ascribed to) Dionysius the Little had not been carried out before the lOth century.








Dr. G.V. Nosovksy verified the interval of 100 BC - 1700 AD, using the exact conditions stipulated by Exiguus, and found that ONLY the date of 1095 AD corresponds exactly.



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488947#msg1488947 (no axial precession for the Earth)

Recently the sky rotation (southern hemisphere vs. northern hemisphere) question came up.

But it has been answered a long time ago: it can explained ONLY within the context of my FAQ.

Global Piri Reis FE map:




There are three kinds of stellar orbits, here is the photograph to prove it:




Let us remember that both the North Pole and the South Pole have NEVER been actually discovered:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/contents.htm

The region the HE take as the entrance to the inner earth, is actually the region on the Flat Earth which cannot be accessed by either land, sea or air, as the expeditions of both Peary and Cook proved clearly: neither could discover the North Pole at all (in Antarctica, we have already seen how R. Scott was assasinated in an earlier discussion). The curvature paradox also applied equally well to the HE hypothesis: since there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, the Hollow Earth cannot be true.





The two regions at the poles where stars rotate have a certain analogy to the subquark vortices exemplified above.

The myth about Eratosthenes:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/erdmessungen.htm

The new chronologist Uwe Topper brought new light upon an "ancient" method used to calculate distances, so we will start with this.

In school we learned that Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.), director of the great library at Alexandria, was the first to determine the size of the earth. Yet his alleged method does not convince me at all.

The following procedure is described: He assumed that Alexandria and Syene (now Assuan on the Nile before the first cataract) are situated on the same meridian and are exactly 5000 stades distant from each other. The latitudinal difference is given as 7°12' which is accurate. But these towns don't lie on the same meridian - Alexandria is 30° eastern longitude and Syene is 33°. The difference of 3° amounts to more than 300 km. We don't know how Eratosthenes determined these towns are 5000 stades distant (which is close enough). From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km).

The latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene, 7°12', is exactly a 50th part of the whole circumference. If this had been applied correctly in the calculation, the circumference would have come to 250,000 stades, or 2000 stades short of what Eratosthenes assumed. This suggests he knew the outcome in advance and only looked for measures that let to the right result.


The Renaissance "ancient" astronomers:











It is usually assumed that π was a very important quantity to the "ancient" geometers/mathematicians: Archimedes, Ptolemy, Aryabatha, or that π was used to calculate the dimensions of the Gizeh pyramid.

The architects at Gizeh used ONLY the sacred cubit.

The sacred cubit is the RECIPROCAL value of π/2, the main quantity/factor which matters.


π = 2/sc = 2/0.6366197723675813...


Official course on trigonometry (http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trigonometry.html and http://www.nabla.hr/TF-TrigFunctionsB1.htm  ):

When we need to calculate the function for an angle larger than a full rotation of 2π (360°) we subtract as many full rotations as needed to bring it back below 2π (360°).

That is x/π = v

Then, the angle is reduced to the first two quadrants x - [v]π , where [] the integer part

Thus we have a long division by π, followed by a multiplication by π.


The sacred cubit approach is much easier by comparison.


y = a x sc (a, the angle, multiplied by one sacred cubit)

cos a = cos y/sc = cos (([y] + {y})/sc)  -  [y] the integer part of y  -  {y} the fractional part of y

A single multiplication by a sacred cubit does the job.


cos (([y] + {y})/sc) = cos([y]/sc)cos({y}/sc) - sin([y]/sc)sin({y}/sc)


Now, we switch back to the reciprocal value of the sacred cubit notation:

cos([y]/sc) = cos (π/2 x [y]) where [y] = 2k or 2k + 1 (and, of course, k is either even or odd)


Two examples.

cos 1054 = cos 1.56646 = 0.0043352

1054 x 1sc = 670.997 = 670 + 0.997

0.997/sc = π/2 x 0.997


Now, to calculate cos (π x 0.498582) I would use, of course, my global cosine formula, with n = 8

cos v = 1/2 x (   (     (  ( ( (2 - v²/2ⁿ)² )² )²  )²  ) -2 )


cos 1052 = cos 2.70806 = -0.90748

1052 x 1sc = 669.7 = 669 + 0.724

0.724/sc = π/2 x 0.362

To calculate sin({y}/sc), I would utilize the following formula:

sin π@ =  π@ x (1 - @²/1²)(1 - @²/2²)...


For an infinite trigonometric sum/series, the most difficult of all series, I would start with the [] and {} formulas:

{x} = x² Σ(1/n²) - [ x ] + x² + x - x² Σ(1/n²)

(for the first sum the lower and upper limits are 1 and [ x ]; for the second, x)


[ x ] = xΣ(1/k) - INTEGRAL SIGN/FUNCTION

(for the first series k<=x; the lower and upper limits of the integral are 0 and x ; f(t) = Σ(1/k) where k<=t, and the integral is taken with respect to t)

Σ(1/k) = xΣ(1/(k(k+x)) (where k<=x for the first series, and for the second we have 1 and ∞)


For the sums which involve logarithms/exponents, I created a new summing method, which uses as the main term:

n = ln(5^1/2F_n)/ln(4sc²), where 4sc² = phi

F_n = nth Fibonacci number

It can be used to calculate series which can be summed by the Euler-Maclaurin formula, and also series like this:

Σ(x^3/2ln(x^x + e^x))

THE BLACK SUN AND THE LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS


The detection of subquarks:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1278981#msg1278981

Chris Hill, theorist at Fermilab, indicated the view in “New Scientist” | 11 May 1996 | page 29 | “It would suggest that whatever lies inside the quarks is incredibly tightly bound, in a way that theory can’t yet accommodate.”


Absolute proof of the existence of subquarks:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (Dr. Stephen Phillips, UCLA, Cambridge)

See also: http://www.esotericscience.org/article5a.htm



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101 (subquarks, quarks, mesons, baryons)

This is true, remarkable, even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in, respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in 1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913? One must turn to particle physics for answers.

This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is accepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive  visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms according to the Rutherford-Bohr model.



















The catastrophic Rutherford-Bohr-Chadwick planetary atom model:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61446.msg1604716#msg1604716



WHAT IS BIOHOMOCHIRALITY?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624

Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.).  All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids.  How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

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

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


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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



The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark:



Dr.T. Henry Moray:

Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


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


Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension (see the Biefeld-Brown effect)).


The detection of the Higgs boson in the 1950s by G. Hodson:

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/news.html


THE SOLAR ECLIPSE CANNOT BE CAUSED BY THE MOON: THE ALLAIS EFFECT


The Allais Effect I

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1623305#msg1623305


Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)


Dr. Maurice Allais report to Nasa:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.


The Allais Effect II (detection during the 1999, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 solar eclipses):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


The Allais Effect III (the radiation of the Black Sun and commentaries of the 19th century's most accomplished astronomers: the existence of at least TWO dark bodies which also orbit the earth):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430



The Allais Effect IV (the identity of the third heavenly body which takes part in a solar eclipse, other than the Sun and the Earth)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054


The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!



The Allais Effect VI (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033



http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).




The eclipse and the pendulum - How the pendulum's swing angle changed during the 1954 eclipse
The plane of the oscillation of the pendulum shifted approximately 15 centesimal degrees during the eclipse (approximately 13.5 degrees)


The Allais Effect VII (stationary earth/Foucault's pendulum anomalies)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642668#msg1642668

The physical reality is this. The Allais effect noticed can be due to either a momentary fluctuation in the earths rotation, or in the aethers rotation over that area of space where the alignment occurs.  The former for obvious reasons (the energy factor) is illogical.

"Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais had to go and throw another monkey wrench in the spokes of the heliocentric bicycle. Allais performed a marathon 30 day Foucault Pendulum experiment in 1954. During the experiment an eclipse occurred. Surprisingly, the pendulum changed angles by a significant 13.5 degrees! This suggests something in space was affecting the pendulum, not the motion of the earth."

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

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

“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.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.



A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above


I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


Stations were anomalous bright nights were observed on June 30/July 1 1908:

http://imageshack.com/a/img23/1513/x7z5.jpg




A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/page88.html


Sky-glow and shining clouds: drawing from a photograph taken in Russia on the night of 30 June - 1 July, 1908





Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


NO ONE FROM LAKE BAIKAL OR NIZSHNE COULD HAVE SEEN THE EXPLOSION ON A ROUND EARTH.


The relationship between the glow seen for several nights all the way from Europe, telluric currents and aether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1536443#msg1536443


Ballistic evidence:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1536460#msg1536460


Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.


Now, let me describe how the entire experiment was carried out.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm



"In the continuous mode, two continuous scalar waves are emitted -- one faster than the other -- and they pair-couple into vector energy at the region where they approach an in-phase condition. In this mode, the energy in the distant "ball" or geometric region would appear continuously and be sustained -- and this is Tesla's secret of wireless transmission of energy at a distance without any losses.

Two scalar antennas were required: an explosion requires the presence of both scalar waves at the same point."

Tesla sent just one scalar wave for several days prior to the explosion to properly set up the aerial navigation.


A ray of light DOES NOT split into any component colours.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1394310#msg1394310


A few years ago, when the archive of the London Times could be accessed directly, I verified that indeed the three letters were published by the newspaper exactly as documented above: July 2, July 3 and July 4, 1908.

On a spherical earth, nothing could have been observed by Mrs. Katharine Stephen of
Godmanchester, Huntingdon: not the exact time of the explosion, not the exact timing of the trajectory itself before the explosion.

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES II

I edited the previous message to include many more details.


Now, the incredible fact that EVEN BEFORE THE DAY OF THE BLAST ITSELF (JUNE 30, 1908), a strange glow was observed over Siberia.

http://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/14336

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nkj.ru%2Farchive%2Farticles%2F14336&edit-text=

In brief: the witnesses stated that the anomalous skyglow commenced approximately 2 days before Tunguska!

“Scientists recorded the occurrence of some unusual phenomena starting on June 27th, 1908. Some specialists even suppose that these phenomena started as early as June 23 or June 21… Optical anomalies in the atmosphere (strange silvery clouds, brilliant twilights, and intense solar halos) were observed in western Europe, the European part of Russia, and western Siberia, beginning on June 23, 1908."

Exact reference: http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska.htm

THE TUNGUSKA EVENT: WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AND WHAT WE HOPE TO LEARN SOON

N. V. Vasilyev

(Kharkov Metchnikoff Institute and Commission on Meteorites of the Siberian Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences)



The only other similar emissions are those circa 1900 high-frequency, high-voltage scalar wave experiments by Tesla, where massive blue-white streams of arching electricity issued from the forest floor into the atmosphere, creating an intense, violent, blue-white glow, emitting an electrical noise, which was audible for miles and lasting several minutes.


http://altered-states.net/barry/tesla/ (the section Lighting up the sky)

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES III




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.


UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.



http://www.rense.com/UFO/london.htm (The following letter [the Katharine Stephen letter dated July 1, 1908] was the first of several letters and articles to appear in "The Times" (London), which describe the highly unusual meteorological events, and magnetic anomaly, that were observed not only over England, but over all of Western Europe, as well.)

Curious Articles In The  Times Of London From July 1908
Curious Phenomenon Reported to the Times of London July 1908



In the archives of the former Irkutsk Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory, investigators managed to find notes written by A. K. Kokorin, who was an observer at a weather station on the River Kezhma, about 600 km from the Tunguska explosion site. In his observation journal for June 1908, the section headed "Notes" contains an exceptionally important entry.
 
It shows that there was certainly more than one body in the air at that time.

At 7 am, two fiery circles [spheres] of gigantic size appeared to the north; 4 minutes after appearing, the circles disappeared; soon after the disappearance of the fiery circles a loud noise was heard, similar to the sound of the wind, that went from north to south; the noise lasted about 5 minutes; then followed sounds and thundering, like shots from enormous guns, that made the windows rattle. Those shots continued for 2 minutes, and after them came a crack like a rifle-shot. These last sounds lasted 2 minutes. Everything took place in broad daylight.
At that time, T. Naumenko was observing the flight of a sphere from the village of Kezhma which stands on the River Angara.


"In the continuous mode, two continuous scalar waves are emitted -- one faster than the other -- and they pair-couple into vector energy at the region where they approach an in-phase condition. In this mode, the energy in the distant "ball" or geometric region would appear continuously and be sustained -- and this is Tesla's secret of wireless transmission of energy at a distance without any losses.

Two scalar antennas were required: an explosion requires the presence of both scalar waves at the same point."

SEE ALSO:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026


BALL LIGHTNING: the demonstration that the Tunguska explosion was caused by a ball lightning phenomenon:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/ebooks/Chukanov-BallLightning.pdf (section II, the Tunguska "meteorite")

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES IV

"The most impressive observation of ball lightning made in contemporary times is
the so-called ”Tunguska meteorite” For this reason I devote to this unusual natural
phenomenon special chapter. The “Tunguska meteorite” occurred in the basin of the
Podkamenna River in Tunguska region (Russia) in 1908. According to witnesses, an
enormous bright ball, 400 meters in diameter, appeared in the air. The devastation was so
intense that scientists have also hypothesized that it was an anti-matter body which had
penetrated the earth’s atmosphere, a nuclear explosion, or an enormous comet. I believe
rather that it was an extremely large ball lightning sphere for the following reasons:

- First, a nuclear explosion, even assuming that such a device could have been
created on earth in 1908 or sent to earth from an extraterrestrial source, can be
ruled out. Isotope studies of the soil composition, inert gases, and minerals in the
Tunguska region and fireball site show no elevation in the number of neutrons
which would normally accompany a nuclear explosion.

- Second, no metallic traces or typical debris from meteorite were found.

- Third, a comet can also be ruled out. The heat generated when a comet entered the
atmosphere should have disintegrated most of it; the melting and vaporization of
the ice in the comet’s head would have produced an enormous cloud of gases and
vapor. Although there were significant atmospheric anomalies between 30 June
and 2 July 1908, no such cloud was observed.

- Fourth, the usual reason for rejecting ball lightning as the cause of devastation is
that the weather was sunny. There were no rainstorms. Although it is true that
rainstorms favor the occurrence of ball lightning, it can materialize at any time
given conditions necessary for complete ionization of gases in certain volume.
And in fact, such conditions were present at Tunguska region. In 1908 the elevenyear
cycle of sunspot activity coincided with the century cycle; oscillations in
sunspot activity increased rapidly, reaching critical values toward the end of June
1908. This activity was accompanied by fluctuations in sunspot activity, increased
brightness in the sun’s corona, radio emissions in the visible band (a factor which
increases the probability of air ionization), an increased number of solar flares,
and the appearance of great sun spots. In general such increased sun activity
manifests itself in the earth’s atmosphere by intensified geomagnetic activity, the
presence of abnormal optic events such as an unusual distribution of silvery
clouds, bright dawns, disturbance in the atmospheric polarization, and brightly lit
night skies, which started about 25 June, reached climaxes on the date of the
catastrophe, and slowly passed away over next few days. These phenomena
indicate that there were very favorable conditions facilitating the ionization of a
large volume of gas.

- Fifth, there are many uncertainties about the trajectory of the Tunguska
phenomenon. It seems that the fireball’s motion included some deviations from a
straight-line “fall” (or ballistic line) that would have been impossible for
meteorites, comets, and other natural bodies. Ball lightning, however, can
maneuver in both horizontal and vertical plans; its motion is governed by earth’s
gravitational field and by the electromagnetic fields in the atmosphere. Certain
disturbances in the magnetic fields on earth were registered in Irkutsk (city in
Siberia) following the explosion, thus supporting my hypothesis.

- Sixth, ball lightning is a spherical capacitor, carrying heavy electromagnetic loads
which affect the neighboring magnetic fields. Studies of soils in the surrounding
area have determined their remagnetizations. Such a phenomenon is certainly
possible, given the powerful electromagnetic impulse which usually accompanies
an explosion of the ball lightning sphere. Ball lightning can explode because of
the leakage of electrical charges from the sphere and the resulting disintegration
of its structureless nuclear component. On another hand, ball lightning could be
excited by some electrical current which occurred at the moment just before
explosion. We, human beings on planet earth, had incredible chance that
“Tunguska meteorite” was excited not much. The explosion of the Tunguska ball
lightning yielded powerful currents of charged particles moving irregularly. These
charged particles created strong electromagnetic fields, which demagnetized soils
in the region.

- Seventh, large ball lightning typically disintegrates into smaller spheres, which
further disintegrate into still smaller spheres, until finally they explode. Fires
broke out simultaneously at widely scattered areas of the forest and witnesses
reported hearing many explosions. Both facts suggest that the ball lightning
sphere followed the typical pattern of disintegration into smaller spheres before
exploding.

- Eight, the presence of mutated trees and ants along the fireball trajectory is also
consistent with the hypothesis of ball lightning. Proponents of the comet theory
point out that ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere because of a
rupture through the ozone layer caused by the comet and its movement through
the atmosphere or, secondarily, because of the explosion wave created by the
comet’s impact. Obviously, if the rupture in the ozone layer was caused by the
explosion, then it could as easily have been caused by the explosion of the ball
lightning as by the explosion of the comet. My research shows that ball lightning
radiates all the time ultraviolet radiation. It is significant to note in this case that
the pattern of mutated trees and ants covered the whole of the fireball trajectory
which support my hypothesis and contradicts with the hypothesis of comet.
Furthermore, dendrologists claim that the new forest (with high percentage of
mutated trees) at the explosion’s epicenter sprang from seeds that had been
preserved deep in the soil. Yet ultraviolet radiation has low penetration capacity.
How could deep-buried seeds mutate at such a depth? More convincingly, the ball
lightning was excited by some electrical current and produced a lot of X-rays (or
even gama-radiation) which have much higher penetration capacity than
ultraviolet rays.

- Ninth, various hypothesis have suggested different types of explosions (thermal,
apple-like, rheological); but none of these hypothesis are sufficient to explain the
enormous energy generated during the Tunguska explosion. The accounts suggest
an accumulation of enormous energy for very short period of time on the surface
of the Tunguska phenomenon. As a result of this accumulation of energy, a
monstrous explosion occurred. Indeed, this explosion closely resembles the
profile of slightly excited large ball lightning."



MAGNETIC MONOPOLES = SUBQUARKS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813


A graviton is NOT electrically neutral.

The recent discovery of magnet monopoles and relationship with subquarks means the following:

The dextrorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the actual graviton.

The laevorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the antigraviton.


THE LAMOREAUX EFFECT/THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

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


SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf



An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.


SCALAR WAVE = A SINGLE SUBQUARK (MAGNETIC MONOPOLE) STRING

TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY = DEXTROROTATORY SCALAR WAVE

ANTIGRAVITATIONAL WAVE (EMPLOYED BY TESLA, BROWN, LEEDSKALNIN, KEELY) = LAEVOROTATORY SCALAR WAVE



BALL LIGHTNING = SCALAR WAVES/TELLURIC CURRENTS/SUBQUARS STRINGS WHICH FORM A DOUBLE TORSION TORNADO (normally, the subquark strings/ether travel linearly in double torsion motion; through special methods [employed by Kozyrev, DePalma, Tesla, Brown] the scalar waves are directed into a double torsion tornado object, that is,  ball lightning)


Ball Lightning, Paradox of Physics: https://books.google.ro/books?id=OLbvX5UnxXoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ball+lightning&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=VH0iVfL_KJeLaOCjgqAD&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ball%20lightning&f=false (includes extensive evidence, pages 7 - 102)


Tesla, ball lightning objects kept in wooden boxes:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=HIuK7iLO9zgC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=tesla+fireballs+wooden+boxes+lightning&source=bl&ots=Xa3Gs3ZYSU&sig=g4tZ2Wq5xgePKhMRY3ZWBSfAgTg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Jn4iVdXABJTdauv2gcAB&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tesla%20fireballs%20wooden%20boxes%20lightning&f=false



The ball lightning spheres seen at Tunguska defied not only terrestrial gravitation, but also showed that the Earth does not orbit the Sun, or rotates around its own axis: since ball lightning is a form of double torsion strings of subquarks, it does not obey in any form the accepted law of attractive gravity, given the 29km/s accepted orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun, the ball lightning objects would have disappeared instantly from sight - the fact that they did not means that the Earth is absolutely stationary.

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES V





In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.



Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.




A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.5 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES VI





The Tunguska Mystery, V. Rubtsov, pg. 176-177







The Tunguska Mystery, V. Rubtsov, pg. 15-16




In 2004, Chris Duif pointed out that geomagnetic changes cannot be responsible for the Allais effect:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

See also: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JA900006/abstract (superb documentation, the PDF version of the article can be downloaded/seen there)

However, contrary to claims elsewhere, the decreased conductivity did not cause an obvious effect in the geomagnetic recordings at the Earth's surface. Recordings of several European geomagnetic observatories and of a temporary variometer network, set up specially to observe an eclipse effect in detail, have been studied directly and in terms of equivalent currents in the ionosphere.

In summary, we may state that it is dangerous to deduce eclipse-related effects from a single day's recording or a single
station. The chances are high of encountering a signature in the magnetic field trace that accidentally appears to be related to the eclipse.


On the anomalies observed during the August 11, 1999 solar eclipse:

http://www.academiaromana.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc1-2003/n01_mihaila.pdf (in French, it includes a brief summary in English, also)



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1619746#msg1619746 (EDIT: the original quote from John 13:1)

POMPEII - HERCULANEUM: 1725 - 1778 I


The water conduit built by the architect/engineer Domenico Fontana starting with 1592 A.D. (official chronology), which runs EXACTLY through Pompeii:





http://www.anticorpi.info/2014/03/la-pompei-sepolta-nel-1631-svela-i.html

English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anticorpi.info%2F2014%2F03%2Fla-pompei-sepolta-nel-1631-svela-i.html&edit-text=


The water conduit passes through Via de Nocere, Pompeii:




Many more photographs with the water conduit integrated perfectly with the arhitecture/urban landscape of Pompeii:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&edit-text=



The Fontana water conduit built while POMPEII WAS A CITY IN FULL ACTIVITY:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_sc5PfjuCqQ#t=0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=koKNBC-t51c#t=0

Two remarcable documentaries, signed A. Tschurilow, which take the viewer on a journey through Pompeii, street by street, and demonstrates that the water conduit built by D. Fontana was constructed while Pompeii was a city in full activity.


Another article on the subject, signed Lorenzo Acerra:

http://scienzamarcia.blogspot.ro/2014/03/pompei-sotto-la-lava-ombelico-della.html


English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscienzamarcia.blogspot.ro%2F2014%2F03%2Fpompei-sotto-la-lava-ombelico-della.html&edit-text=



PINEAPPLES AND MANGOES OF POMPEII





http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/293933-reconsidering-history-the-discovery-of-america-thousands-of-years-ago/


The pineapple fruit, brought to Europe for the first time by Columbus (official chronology):

https://books.google.ro/books?id=nyWY_YkV7qAC&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=pineapple+transported+by+spanish+ships&source=bl&ots=r3X8MD6IuN&sig=PrgyjaXO79Qo5n_gNMiSKieTbZE&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=n1s2Vfr5JMKVsgGpoYDwAg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=pineapple%20transported%20by%20spanish%20ships&f=false


Generally, the presence of pineapples in Roman and Greek art are ignored. But a pineapple is one of the most durable fruits that can be shipped across the Atlantic profitably. Pineapples would be shipped alive while most other fruit and vegetables would rot in the dank sea air.

I have been to Pompeii and seen the House of Ephebus pineapple mosaic. I have alse seen a couple of other examples in the museo at Naples. I have also seen (and been hit by cones falling from the pin es of Rome.) There is NO resemblence of the pineapples in the mosaics to pine cones, which lack the spiky foliage at the top. Also, the pine cones are brown instead of a golden color.


No pine cone at all...

There is NO resemblence of the pineapples in the mosaics to pine cones, which lack the spiky foliage at the top. Also, the pine cones are brown instead of a golden color.


You have to admit though, from those pictures and in context, it does look very much like the fruit. After all, why would I put a pine cone on a platter with figs, grapes and pomegranates?


http://pomonacampana.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/103.pdf





http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm





In the window of the museum can be seen a lot of glass products, including bottles, flasks for perfumes, multicolored glass of different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin glass vases. The same glass vases are shown on Pompeian frescoes.

Then, at the mid point of the 15th century, Angelo Barovier produced what was to become known as vetro cristallo or cristallo veneziano. This was a pure, bright, completely transparent crystal glass.



An early example of Venetian cristallo glass dating from 1580


Perfectly flat window glasses at Herculaneum:





It was in 1688, in France Experts developed new process of making Flat glass, mainly used in Mirrors. The process was pouring molten glass onto a special table and roll it flat, later when cooled it was polished using felt disks, then it is coated with reflective material to produce the Mirrors.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=jXgnnCpz22QC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=flat+window+glass+first+obtained+at+st.+gobain+1688&source=bl&ots=kADb-hHyu9&sig=CZw5-KyF8ZGQDxyrtHnG2SA7b90&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=Spw3VbvTNcWmsgHgsIDgCg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=flat%20window%20glass%20first%20obtained%20at%20st.%20gobain%201688&f=false


"The use of Renaissance artists of identical details, same colors decisions, motives, general composition plans, the presence in the Pompeian frescoes of the things that emerged in the 15 to 17 century, the presence in Pompeian paintings of genre painting, which is found only in the epoch of the Renaissance, and the presence of some Christian motifs on some frescoes and mosaics suggest that Pompeian frescoes and the works of artists of the Renaissance come from the same people who have lived in the epoch. "Vitas Narvidas," Pompeian Frescoes and the Renaissance: a comparison, "Electronic Almanac" Art & Fact 1 (5), 2007.

POMPEII - HERCULANEUM: 1725 - 1778 II

The most important work on the extraordinary similarities between the frescoes discovered at Pompeii and the Renaissance paintings/sculptures (Raphael, Tintoretto, Da Vinci, Botticelli, Goltzius):

http://web.archive.org/web/20120202135352/http://artifact.org.ru/kalibrovka-teorii/vidas-narvidas-pompeyskie-freski-i-renessans-ochnaya-stavka.html

English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20120202135352%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fartifact.org.ru%2Fkalibrovka-teorii%2Fvidas-narvidas-pompeyskie-freski-i-renessans-ochnaya-stavka.html&edit-text=


Giovanni Mascolo, 1633:





Pompeii and Herculaneum, cities in full activity, in 1631 A.D.


http://www.lib.luc.edu/specialcollections/items/show/52

Biography of G. Mascolo: http://www.scribd.com/doc/150505992/Vesuvius-A-historical-approach-to-the-1631-eruption-cold-data-from-the-analysis-ofthree-contemporary-treatises#scribd



E. Shurshikov on the names Torre del Greco and Torre Anunziata:

http://artifact.org.ru/personalnie-dela-/e-n-shurshikov-pompei-1631-god.html

English translation:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fartifact.org.ru%2Fpersonalnie-dela-%2Fe-n-shurshikov-pompei-1631-god.html&edit-text=


Ortelius, 1570 map:



Chemical composion of the frescoes at Pompeii and paintings created during the Renaissance is the same (Sir Humphrey Davy analysis):




The hypothesis according to which there may have been FOUR CITIES (Pompeii + Herculaneum, destroyed in 79 B.C., and Pompeii + Herculaneum, destroyed in 1631 A.D.), put forward by some historians, is false.


The dinosaurs at Pompeii:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1413765#msg1413765


Still Life style of painting, in the official chronology of history, required many decades of logical development of the various techniques of painting, from Giotto to Caravaggio; yet, the SAME style of painting is to be found exactly at Pompeii...

http://www.dillum.ch/html/neue_matrix_vorschau.htm






POMPEII AHD HERCULANEUM DEPICTED ON MAPS DATED 1725 AND 1778 (attributed ten years after 1769 AD, the real date of the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum):

https://web.archive.org/web/20131020083546/http://halsema.org/people/theleonardifamily/history/mapsof15-18thcentitaly/images/fullsize/3.jpg







Pliny the Elder could not possibly have been present in the year 79 AD, August 24, at or near Pompeii (or near the volcano Vesuvius)...

"Usus ille sole, mox frigida, gustaverat iacens studebatque; poscit soleas, ascendit locum ex quo maxime miraculum illud conspici poterat. Nubes – incertum procul intuentibus ex quo monte; Vesuvium fuisse postea cognitum est – oriebatur, cuius similitudinem et formam non alia magis arbor quam pinus expresserit."


"My uncle was stationed at Misenum, in active command of the fleet. On 24 August, in the early afternoon, my mother drew his attention to a cloud of unusual size and appearance. He had been out in the sun, had taken a cold bath, and lunched while lying down, and was then working at his books. He called for his shoes and climbed up to a place which would give him the best view of the phenomenon. It was not clear at that distance from which mountain the cloud was rising (it was afterwards known to be Vesuvius); its general appearance can be best expressed as being like an umbrella pine."

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.ro/2013/01/plinys-letters-about-vesuvius.html


If you are in Miseno you can not be confusing Vesuvius with any other mountain. Vesuvius from there is in full view and Pliny`s uncle did not have to climb to a higher place to see it.



http://www.tschurilow.de/index.php/de/beitraege/13-raetsel/37-pliny-s-letters-about-vesuvius



Plinian eruption model from San Diego State University

Bibliographical references with show that Pliny the Elder was located actually near Etna, Sicily:

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.ro/2013/01/plinys-letters-about-vesuvius.html

https://books.google.ro/books?id=PW-vAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=suetonius+pliny+the+elder+etna+sicily&source=bl&ots=2GS_ETS-8U&sig=DnWkBub2Rr872v6ghyHaryBuyko&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=pfM4VZT9FMKZsgH-s4DIDw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=suetonius%20pliny%20the%20elder%20etna%20sicily&f=false

POMPEII - HERCULANEUM: 1725 - 1778 III


Archaeomagnetic dating of the artifacts at Pompeii:

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_vez79.html

Dating events "Vesuvius Eruption '79" paleomagnetic characteristics of artifacts

All the artifacts tested belong to the 17TH century (including a fresco attributed to "antiquity").


Limits of the archaeomagnetic dating:

1. Official chronology of history context

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/courses/anth/fagan/anth3/Courseware/Chronology/11_Paleomag_Archaeomag.html

2. New chronology of history context

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch26.htm


The results of the dating:

The whole cluster of "Artifacts" was within the cluster "The first half of the 17th century."



Figure 4. Dating event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" by analogy, having a reliable chronological anchor. Red ellipse is outlined in a cluster corresponding to the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field in the first half of the 17th century. The red dotted line inside the ellipse corresponds approximately to 1631.




Figure 5. Dating event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" calibration curve SIVC (AnTyur). Detail of the calibration curve SIVC (AnTyur) shown in magenta. Red circle shows the average value of the paleomagnetic parameters artifacts. The numbers near the points characterizing paleomagnetic parameters artifacts of Pompeii and Herculaneum, the samples correspond to the numbers in Table 1.


Dating the "antiquity" of Southern Italy paleomagnetic characteristics of artifacts

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_it.html


Conclusion: the whole "antiquity" Southern Italy is mainly formed by artifacts of the first half of the 17th century.


Other works signed A.M. Tyurin:

Radiocarbon dates that characterize the area of ​​Mount Vesuvius

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume7/turin_data_vezuv.php


On the issue of dating errors event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79"

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume7/turin_pogr_vez.php


Status of dating events "Eruption of Vesuvius in '79"

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume7/turin_sost_vez.php



The structure of the calibration curves in archaeomagnetic dating

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.chronologia.org%2Fvolume4%2Fturin_str.html&edit-text=

POMPEII - HERCULANEUM: 1725 - 1778 IV

Paleomagnetic parameters of the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum:



Table 1: Paleomagnetic samples parameters characterizing the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79"


https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_vez79.html


Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:



Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.


The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum belong to the 17th century



Figure 4. Dating event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" by analogy, having a reliable chronological anchor. Red ellipse is outlined in a cluster corresponding to the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field in the first half of the 17th century. The red dotted line inside the ellipse corresponds approximately to 1631.


The reason why archaeologists and physicists have not yet realized these facts, lies with the calibration curves accepted in the conventional chronology: FAMC - The France Archaeological Magnetic Curve si SIVC - The South Italian Volcanic Curve.




A.M. Tyurin examines the errors inherent in the calibration curves:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.chronologia.org%2Fvolume4%2Fturin_str.html&edit-text=


The situation is similar to that which describes the second derivative of the moon's elongation:

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20130511130053/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm




https://web.archive.org/web/20130511090410/http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, unexplainable by present geophysical theories ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs"


The FAMC and SIVC calibration curves cannot be true for the historical period prior to 1600 AD, since the speed ​​variations in the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field cannot be explained by current geophysical theories:



The calibration curve arheomagnetic FAMC (The France Archaeological Magnetic Curve).




The calibration curve archaeomagnetic dating FAMC. Speed ​​variations in the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field. Squares of red - the results of instrumental observations of geomagnetic field variations.

A.M. Tyurin:

Such variations in the velocity spread of the vector direction of the geomagnetic field are unlikely to be due to the inertia of the planetary process.


https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ro&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.chronologia.org%2Fvolume4%2Fturin_str.html&edit-text=

(The Calibration Curve FAMC section)


In the same section from the The Structure of the Calibration Curves in Archaeomagnetic Dating, A.M. Tyurin explains the discrepancies and errors which lead to the incorrect official dating of the artifacts.


The new, correct calibration curve (FAMC [AmTyur]):




The calibration curve archaeomagnetic dating FAMC (AnTyur). Black color is shown a calibration curve archaeomagnetic dating FAMC [11, Fig 1]. Curve (band) FAMC (AnTyur) is shown the red lines. The solid line corresponds to the central axis of the calibration curve, dotted lines - its borders. The blue dotted lines indicate the boundaries of the segments of the curve FAMC (AnTyur).


Two other works by A.M. Tyurin examine the errors in dating the geological and geophysical data at Vesuvius:

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_dat.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_geol.html


Moreover, a careful reexamination of the hypotheses on which conventional (but incorrect) paleomagnetic dating is based (antiquity to the 17TH century),  should also include the geological/astronomical cataclysms which occurred during the 18th century (new radical chronology of history): thus the correct date of approximately 1770 - 1775 AD for the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum should be reached (see also the perfectly flat window glass at Herculaneum, a technology which was developed only after 1688 AD, at St. Gobain, and the maps dated 1725 and 1778 which feature Pompeii and Herculaneum).

We can also infer that in 1775 we are just at the beginning of the falsification of history, since no churches can be found at Pompeii (there is the temple of Isis, http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-isis2.jpg ).

SOUTHERN ITALY ARTIFACTS CONVENTIONALLY DATED 800 BC - 500 AD ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE 17TH CENTURY


List of 31 artifacts, paleomagnetic parameters:



Dating the "antiquity" of Southern Italy
paleomagnetic characteristics of artifacts

https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=ro&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://new.chronologia.org/volume6/tur_it.html (all the details on the paleomagnetic dating of the artifacts in Southern Italy)


Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:



Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.





Figure 2. The parameters of the samples (archaeological date, declination and inclination vector residual magnetization) characterizing artifacts Southern Italy a period of 800 BC - 500 AD [Evans, 2005]. The numbers near the points - the date archaeological samples: (+) corresponds to the years AD, (-) - BC



The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found in Southern Italy ("800 BC - 500 AD") belong to the 17th century:



Figure 4. The paleomagnetic data on Southern Italy, describing the evolution of the vector direction of the geomagnetic field in the period 1600-2000 years BC and 800 BC - 500 years BC .. Red crosses correspond to the declination and inclination vector residual magnetization patterns characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD [Evans, 2005]. The points correspond to samples that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79": pyroclastic rocks (volcanic tuff deposits) - the point of the blue, the artifacts - the point is red. Green diamond corresponds to the archaeological site Carthage. The diameter of a circle of red color corresponds approximately to the "linear" speed variations in the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field (over 100 years in the scale plate). The rest of the symbols are shown in Figure 1.


A.M. Tyurin:

Comparison of the parameters of the samples with the actual data that characterize the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005], gave surprising results (Figure 4). Paleomagnetic parameters for the Archaeological Site Carthage, samples of artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" and most of the specimens, artifacts characterizing the period 800 BC - 500 AD, roughly correspond to the parameters of the geomagnetic field of the first half of the 17th century.


Even more striking results were obtained when comparing between them averaged parameters of the samples (Figure 5). It was found that the parameters of the Archaeological Site Carthage, averaged parameters of the samples of artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" and averaged parameters of the samples, characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD practically coincide (Figure 5, they circled in red ellipse).



Figure 5. The paleomagnetic data on Southern Italy, describing the evolution of the vector direction of the geomagnetic field in the period 1600-2000 years BC and 800 BC - 500 years BC .. red four-pointed star averaged values ​​correspond to the declination and inclination vector residual magnetization patterns characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD Green filled circle - the averaged value of the parameter sample artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79." The numbers about stars, diamonds and circles denote their corresponding year. The remaining symbols are shown in figure 1 and 4 and in the text.

Outside this forum I have seen a couple of prominent flat earthers deny any climate change or global warming based on man made causes. I would like to know the view of flat earthers in this forum.

To qualify as a "prominent" flat earther, one must understand the aether/ether physics/subject very well in order to be able to answer any and all questions posed by the RE (such as, for example, the beam neutrinos thread http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.VZUl-Bvtmko )


The climate changes are simply a manifestation of a very important fact: we are nearing the end of a world age, as I have documented here for the past several years.

This means that the vibration of the dextrorotatory subquarks (terrestrial gravity) has increased to some degree with the following effects: the "melting" of the Greenland/Antarctica ice sheets (due to the surge of the immediate effects of terrestrial gravity, decomposition/disintegration, AND NOT due to an increase in global temperature/emission of gases; that is, the ice sheets are disintegrating faster and not melting more speedily), the exacerbation of the desertification process (W. Reich was the first to understand that this is due to the increase effects of terrestrial gravity [what he called DOR], and was able to nullify these same effects by raising the level of the vibration of the laevorotatory subquarks strings [ORGONE], using the Cloudbuster), the changing rates of radioactive decay.


EDIT

I have updated the links in the R. Hess/Projekt Kronos section:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg976837#msg976837

Foucault Pendulum is evidence the earth is rotating. They are latitude dependent, which is only possible on a round earth.

The Allais effect demolishes the notion that Foucault's pendulum is evidence the earth is rotating.

Trying to use Foucault's pendulum as proof for heliocentricity really backfired when Maurice Allais repeatedly observed pendulums slowing their motion during eclipses! This implies that either the "rotating Earth" decelerates during eclipses or the firmament does.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642668#msg1642668 ( FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM ANOMALIES - STATIONARY EARTH: THE ALLAIS EFFECT VII ) :

The Allais effect proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the anomalies registered during the solar eclipses discussed above show that Foucault's pendulum is actually the very best proof that the Earth is stationary: it is the effect of the telluric currents/subquark strings/ether upon the pendulum which is responsible for the movement of the Foucault's pendulum, this effect was carefully documented also by Dr. Dayton Miller, as discussed earlier.


"Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais had to go and throw another monkey wrench in the spokes of the heliocentric bicycle. Allais performed a marathon 30 day Foucault Pendulum experiment in 1954. During the experiment an eclipse occurred. Surprisingly, the pendulum changed angles by a significant 13.5 degrees! This suggests something in space was affecting the pendulum, not the motion of the earth."

FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX UPDATED

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.

According to evolution, about four billion years ago when life supposedly first arose on Earth, the temperature had to have been close to what the temperature is today. But if that were the case, the subsequent increase in the Sun's luminosity would have made Earth far too hot for life today. One could naively suggest that Earth began cooler than it is today and has been slowly warming with time. But this is not an option because geologists note that Earth's rock record insists that Earth's average temperature has not varied much over the past four billion years, and biologists require a nearly constant average temperature for the development and evolution of life. This problem is called the early faint Sun paradox.

Evolution proposes that the early atmosphere contained a greater amount of greenhouse gases (such as methane) than today. This would have produced average temperatures close to those today, even with a much fainter Sun. As the Sun gradually increased in luminosity, Earth's atmosphere is supposed to have evolved along with it, so that the amount of greenhouse gases have slowly decreased to compensate for the increasing solar luminosity.

The precise tuning of this alleged co-evolution is nothing short of miraculous. The mechanism driving this would have to be a complex system of negative feedbacks working very gradually, though it is not at all clear how such feedbacks could occur. At any point, a slight positive feedback would have completely disrupted the system, with catastrophic consequences similar to those of Venus or Mars. For instance, the current makeup of Earth's atmosphere is in a non-equilibrium state that is maintained by the widespread diversity of life. There is no evolutionary imperative that this be the case: it is just the way it is. Thus the incredibly unlikely origin and evolution of life had to be accompanied by the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in concert with the Sun.

The implausibility of such a process has caused Lovelock to propose his Gaia hypothesis. According to this, the biosphere (consisting of Earth's oceans, atmosphere, crust, and all living things) constitutes a sort of super organism that has evolved. Life has developed in such a way that the atmosphere has been altered to protect it in the face of increasing solar luminosity. Lovelock's hypothesis has not been generally accepted, largely because of the spiritual implications. Indeed, it does seem to lead to a mystical sort of view.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


See also: http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm (collapsing tests of time)

Electrical Sun: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm


DATING METHODS OF THE PAST:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735


The Faint Young Sun Paradox remains to this day one of the most devastating proofs against the spherical earth hypothesis (not nearly enough time for the earth's formation/evolution).

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX UPDATED


"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."


First, the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

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



Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm



NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.

DR. T. HENRY MORAY: DISCOVERY OF ETHER WAVES


Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, an electrical engineer, began research on aerial static generators in 1910. He succeeded in deriving usable electrical energy from the earth's electrostatic field. Many others had achieved similar results in the century preceding Dr. Moray. Patents of "aerial batteries" fill the archives (Vion, Ward, Dewey, Palenscar, Pennock, Plausen). Their remarkable efficiency required only the establishment of elevated stations in appropriate places, each differing in the actual mode of extracting the atmospheric energies.


During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.


http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm

(Superb biography of Dr. T. Henry Moray, extraordinary details...sections Electric Rock, Ground Energy, The Swedish Stone, Crucible of the Stars, Space Rays, Sea of Energy, Radioactive Impulses...)

Recently, there have been questions re: the "atmospheric momentum", even a whole thread dedicated to the subject...


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1618928#msg1618928 (geocentric Coriolis force, angular momentum, boundary layer, stationary earth, restoring forces paradox)

WHAT IS LIGHT?

MAGNETIC MONOPOLES = SUBQUARKS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813


A graviton is NOT electrically neutral.

The recent discovery of magnet monopoles and relationship with subquarks means the following:

The dextrorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the actual graviton.

The laevorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the antigraviton.


THE LAMOREAUX EFFECT/THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

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


SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf



An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.


SCALAR WAVE = A SINGLE SUBQUARK (MAGNETIC MONOPOLE) STRING

TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY = DEXTROROTATORY SCALAR WAVE

ANTIGRAVITATIONAL WAVE (EMPLOYED BY TESLA, BROWN, LEEDSKALNIN, KEELY) = LAEVOROTATORY SCALAR WAVE



BOSONS = PHOTONS = NEUTRINOS

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813


BIOHOMOCHIRALITY AND TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624


A ray of light DOES NOT split into any component colours

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1394310#msg1394310


Ether waves are transversal waves which flow in a double torsion motion (that is, there are two scalar waves: dextrorotatory and laevorotatory, right-handed spin and left-handed spin).

It is through these waves that longitudinal waves travel (what we call light, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma, and waves of even higher frequencies): these waves consist of bosons (photons, neutrinos).

I like to tell this story. Once, in the twilight hour, a visitor came to my study, a distinguished-looking gentleman.

He brought me a manuscript dealing with celestial mechanics. After a glance at some of the pages, I had the feeling that this was the work of a mathematical genius.

I entered into conversation with my visitor and mentioned the name of James Clerk Maxwell. My guest asked: "Who is he?" Embarrassed, I answered: "You know, the scientist who gave a theoretical explanation of the experiments of Faraday."

"And who is Faraday?" inquired the stranger. In growing embarrassment 1 said: "Of course, the man who did the pioneer work in electromagnetism." "And what is electromagnetism?" asked the gentleman.

"What is your name?" I inquired. He answered: "Isaac Newton."

I awoke. On my knees was an open volume: Newton's Principia.

This story is told to illustrate what I have said before. Would you listen to anybody discuss the mechanics of the spheres who does not know the elementary physical forces existing in nature? But this is the position adopted by astronomers who acclaim as infallible a celestial mechanics conceived in the 1660s in which electricity and magnetism play not the slightest role.

(from Earth in Upheaval)

THE SIRIUS MERIDIAN TRANSIT PERIODS DATA: INEXISTENCE OF EARTH’S AXIAL PRECESSION


https://web.archive.org/web/20100305042618/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/diagrams/SiriusTransitObservations.shtml

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/SiriusResearch.shtml

Extended sidereal time-measurements from 6 April 1994 to 6 April 1996 revealed a total negative time deviation of 1.6 seconds from tropical-sidereal time. According to 'precession' this difference should be about 3.34 seconds per year. Hence a total negative deviation of about 6.68 seconds was to be expected, but did not occur in reality.

The continuous measurement of 6 April 1994 to 5 April 2000 confirmed this fact conclusively. In that period the total negative deviation of 'Sirius time' from the total mean sidereal time accumulated to 4.1 seconds. This means about negative 0.68 s per year (!). Again, according to 'precession' a negative time difference of 6 × 3.34 s or about 20 seconds should have occurred, but did NOT occur with respect to Sirius!

As a matter of fact, the mean rotation period of the earth relative to Sirius is nearly identical to the time interval of the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 seconds.

Even more surprising is the observation that the mean time interval of the sidereal year, as measured with respect to Sirius is nearly identical (by less than one second) to the time interval of the tropical year. According to the theory of 'precession', a yearly time difference of about 1223 s is supposed to occur between a sidereal year and the tropical year.

The meridian transit measurements of Sirius have shown that neither a time difference of 6 × 1223 s, nor a difference of 6 × 3.34 s has occurred over the 6-year observation period from April 1994 to April 2000.

These observations clearly indicate that the so-called 'precession of the earth' is NOT a scientific fact.

 Note: The actual time difference between the mean solar day of 86400 seconds and the mean sidereal day of 86164.0905382 seconds is exactly 235.9094618 seconds per complete rotation. Due to earth's orbital motion this difference accumulates in a complete revolution of the earth to the time period of one complete solar day. Hence, the total number of earth's rotations in one complete 360° period of revolution around the sun is expressed by the following two equations:

86400 s ÷ 235.9094618 s = 366.24219878
365.24219878 × 86400 s = 366.24219878 × 86164.0905382 s


Practical Observation and Measurement of Sidereal Time with respect to Sirius:

My meridian transition time measurement with respect to Sirius (using the UTC atomic-time radio signal from WWV Fort Collins/Colorado), which I conducted over a period of 5 consecutive years, resulted in the following mean sidereal rotation time for the Earth.

Obviously, as indicated by the adjective mean all variations in time caused by periodic or any other fluctuations of the Earth's axis, as well as the assumed precession of the axis, must be included in the 5-year observation period. Technically speaking this is still the easiest and best available method to measure and determine a mean sidereal day.

First meridian transition time of Sirius on 20.04.1994 at 20:16:48.5 hours
Last meridian transition time of Sirius on 19.04.1999 at 20:21:34.5 hours

The total time span between those two measurements is exactly 157 680 286 seconds.
(5 calendar years including one leap day is 5 x 365 days of 86400 s each, plus the time difference of 286 s on the last day)

In this same time interval exactly 5 x 366 sidereal days (meridian transitions) were completed. As a result, the mean sidereal day with respect to Sirius is:

157 680 286 s ÷ 1830 = 86164.09071 seconds.

Note: The mean sidereal day is officially published with 86164.091 s mean solar time, while the mathematically calculated mean sidereal day is exactly 86164.0905382 seconds. Therefore, my precise measurement of 86164.09071 s with respect to Sirius is within the acceptable range of accuracy.

A maximum error in observation of ± 0.5 seconds between the two (first and last) meridian transition of Sirius during the period of 5 years would have the following results:

minimum: 157 680 285.5 s ÷ 1830 meridian transitions = 86164.09044 s
maximum: 157 680 286.5 s ÷ 1830 meridian transitions = 86164.09098 s

Due to the apparent precession, the measurable mean sidereal day should be about 86164.09966 seconds, since logically the actual mean rotation time of the Earth by 86164.0905382 seconds can only be measured with a delay in time relative to the inertial position of the fixed stars. In other words, if precession were indeed to occur, absolutely no fixed star can ever have a mean meridian transition time of 86164.0905382 seconds.

This physical fact would imply that my measurement with respect to Sirius contains an error of observation by about 16.7 seconds (5 x 3.34 s per year), not to mention the +1223 s with each sidereal year!

https://web.archive.org/web/20040214111127/http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/article3.htm


Much more information, including additional arguments, here:

http://www.poleshift.org/PrecessParadox.html

http://www.poleshift.org/from%20Hom-Precession.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-Pg_fpjxNA4J:www.journaloftheoretics.com/articles/3-3/Uwe-pub.htm+&cd=2&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/srg/Sirius%20Transit%20Data/PDFs/Homann's%20Explanation%20of%20the%20Transit%20Periods%20of%20Sirius%20-%20Results.pdf



A video explaining all of the necessary data required to understand the astronomical situation/setting:

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


A response from one of the authors of the articles mentioned above:

It was argued that the observations of Sirius are ambiguous. Two transit times were chosen in an attempt to calculate the length of time it takes the Earth to move 360 degrees around the sun (sidereal year). The calculation, however, is based on the false premise that the complete orbit period is being affected by accumulating and variable rotation time differences, as measured on the last transit for instance.

It is an erroneous belief that time variations relative to the absolute rotation period of the Earth on its axis (mean sidereal day) must translate into a roughly 366-fold time difference for the Earth to move 360 degrees around the sun.

The rotation of the Earth is not completely predictable. The observations of Sirius have shown that throughout Earth's orbital period the rotation period can be subject to significant daily variations, presumably due to oscillations of the axis of rotation. There is nothing ambiguous about such observations.

The mean transit time of Sirius, as determined by method of direct transit measurement, does not conform to the model of lunisolar precession:

1994 06.04. 21h11'50"
2000 05.04. 21h13'41"
(2191 solar days × 86400 s + 111 s) ÷ 2197 transits of Sirius = 86164.0924 seconds

In practice, the results of long-term transit measurements get applied in order to determine the mean sidereal day of 86164.0905382 seconds. The adjective mean denotes here that periodic and non-periodic variations have been averaged out, the mean rotation being affected only by the apparent daily regression of the stars. Based on the adopted value of 50.26" per tropical year, the extra rotation time relative to the stars is about 9.12 millisecond per day and not 3.34 seconds per day, as one is misled to believe.

The absolute rotation period plus 9.12 ms represents a rotation of 360° 0.1368". The difference of 9.12 ms must be removed to calculate the 360-degree orbit period during which the Earth makes exactly one absolute rotation more relative to inertial space than relative to the sun.

The mathematical facts are conclusive. Irrelevant of the rate of the apparent annual regression of the stars, it takes the absolute center of the Earth 31,556,925.97474 seconds to move 360 degrees around the sun relative to the inertial point of reference that remains fixed with respect to the orientation of the Earth's axis in space.


The Allais Effect VI (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior.After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).


The Allais Effect VII (stationary earth/Foucault's pendulum anomalies)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642668#msg1642668

The physical reality is this. The Allais effect noticed can be due to either a momentary fluctuation in the earths rotation, or in the aethers rotation over that area of space where the alignment occurs.  The former for obvious reasons (the energy factor) is illogical.

"Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais had to go and throw another monkey wrench in the spokes of the heliocentric bicycle. Allais performed a marathon 30 day Foucault Pendulum experiment in 1954. During the experiment an eclipse occurred. Surprisingly, the pendulum changed angles by a significant 13.5 degrees! This suggests something in space was affecting the pendulum, not the motion of the earth."


The entire historical/astronomical data has been faked/forged, from Hipparchus and Ptolemy to Galilei and Kepler:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638504#msg1638504

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1638725#msg1638725


How to calculate the sun’s precession on a flat earth surface: the history of the world cannot be more than 500 years old

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1651574#msg1651574

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

THE EXTENDED SCHROETER EFFECT: THE EVENING STAR AND THE MORNING STAR ARE TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS


Official astronomy science:

In 1793, J. H. Schroeter reported, for the first time, observing the southern limb of the planet Venus remaining concave up to about eight days before or after its conjunction with the Sun, according to his best estimate.

In general, the time difference between the time of theoretical dichotomy and the time of observed dichotomy is about four to six days.

The various theoretical interpretations of this long-standing anomaly, whether they be atmospheric, kinematic or optical, have not been able to explain the basic Schroeter effect: they cannot explain in any way the extended Schroeter effect.


Nonetheless, the phase anomaly of Venus is much wider than the Schroeter's effect, and can produce differences of ± 0.10 for all phases from near 0.1 Phase to 0.9 Phase; and not just at 0.5 Phase alone.


Eastern elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000080.000.html

Western elongation Venus Schroeter effect data:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000081.000.html


Notable differences observed:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/2005JBAA..115...79H/0000082.000.html



The superb analysis of the Schroeter effect in the context of geocentrism:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726101423/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Schroter.htm (it includes a different proof of the fact that the Schroeter effect can only take place within the geocentric context, many other quotes concerning the Schroeter effect)


http://www.issibern.ch/teams/venusso2/multimedia/pdf/Krasnopolsky_06.pdf (unsolved problems for the atmosphere of Venus)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969JBAA...79..286J (the phase anomalies of Mercury)


The original discussion on the hypothesis that the Evening Star and Morning Star are two different planets:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1650377#msg1650377


The Morning Star and the Evening Star in the mythology of the American Indian tribes, are two different planets:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120421071508/http://www.mythopedia.info/Sosondowah.pdf (superb analysis)

(Note: the Evening Star is not Mars, see: http://www.masseiana.org/smithe.htm )


Xolotl and Mercury:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=MofGZF5Nt-QC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=xolotl+mercury+evening+star&source=bl&ots=gVq9QAhxkf&sig=OC-K66Cs5-zBxaajgRQIB_PQO3o&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAGoVChMI3-_rr5PyyAIVyW0UCh1o9wPO#v=onepage&q=xolotl%20mercury%20evening%20star&f=false

(Heaven and Earth in Ancient Mexico, S. Milbrath, pg. 73, 83-87, plates 8-10)


XOLOTL = TYPHON = HESPEROS

http://www.gnostics.com/archives.pantheon.html

http://www.vopus.org/en/content/view/120/


XOLOTL = EVENING STAR

http://www.azteccalendar.com/god/xolotl.html

http://www.mythologydictionary.com/xolotl-mythology.html


PHAETHON = EVENING STAR = ADYMNUS

https://books.google.ro/books?id=qXMvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=phaethon+evening+star&source=bl&ots=jirRAD0yWq&sig=XQTWE5L5faBwb7zS6B7f3_I9lRY&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwB2oVChMIseCFm8ayyAIVJABzCh34FgEe#v=onepage&q=phaethon%20evening%20star&f=false

http://www.24grammata.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Robert-Graves-The-Greek-Myths-24grammata.com_.pdf

PHAETHON = TYPHON

http://www.blavatsky.net/index.php/37-topics/atlantis/54-phaeton-and-atlantis

PALLAS = TYPHON

http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/Svbasic.htm#_Toc368234329


The only author who thinks that Aten is Mercury (that is, Typhon, the Evening Star):

http://www.gks.uk.com/akhenaten-amarna-mercury/



On the angular size of Mars:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/The-resolution-of-Mars,4


In fact, the only thing that Galileo's findings showed was that the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system were much larger than had previously been suspected.

As for the Tychonic model of Geocentrism, if one uses the same elliptical orbits of Kepler, the result is that two epicycles in the Ptolemaic system will translate into one ellipse, per planet, in the Tychonic system. Thus, around the sun, Mercury and Venus would each have a perigee and an apogee, and each locus of points along that polarity would show the respective phases of Mercury and Venus, as viewed from earth. (R. Sungenis) - (this is how, on a flat earth, we correctly explain the phases of Venus photograph: http://s23.postimg.org/sfm8mp8p7/venus_phase1.jpg )

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT APPLIED TO WATER MOLECULES: THE ICOSAHEDRON AND ETHER WAVES


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332 (MAGNETRICITY)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935 (BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759968#msg759968 (CLOUDS)


"A recent theory by Martin Chaplin Professor of Applied Science Water and Aqueous Systems Research of the London South Bank University demonstrates that water molecules can arrange themselves in various structures and configurations based on the icosahedron. The most amazing structure is a super icosahedral structure that exists of 13 smaller icosahedral structures with a total of 1820 water molecules."



Icosahedral super water cluster of 1820 H2O molecules

"Chaplin’s model of the molecular structuring of water is able to explain many of the anomalous properties of water, such as its expansion between 0 en 4 degrees, its high boiling point and many other strange properties that makes water such a rare fluid. So what this theory shows is that water dynamically creates these super icosahedral clusters to give water its exclusive properties."


ICOSAHEDRAL WATER CLUSTERS:

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters_overview.html

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/cluster_evidence.html


Let us remember that the water molecule itself, H₂O, is actually in the shape of an icosahedron:



http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr13.pdf


Baryons, mesons, quarks, subquarks:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


"Water can perhaps best be understood -from pure symmetry terms - as a device to permit the successful compression of electrical charge. To complete compression successfully - nature uses what every mathematician knows is the ONLY geometry for infinite or perfected - compression: FRACTALITY (self similarity)."


"Now here’s the secret of water in relation with ether energy, these icosahedral structures resonate with the telluric currents through form! They are the waveguides that allow the subquark strings to implode [that is, to form a double torsion tornado around the water molecule itself]. The icosahedral water clusters simply, nest or fit recursively into the fractal matrix of imploding waves that sustains matter, i.e. the atoms of the water molecules."

 http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/water4.html

"Water through this internal self-similarity with the internal structure of the atom in fractal form, will start to act like a super conductor to this imploding ether energy."


The very shape of a water droplet is actually an ideal capacitor:

https://web.archive.org/web/20091106165712/http://www.goldenmean.info/biophoton/


The relationship between a water molecule and the local capacitive charge field:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080624000331/http://www.goldenmean.info/rain/



http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.

THE CHARGED DROPS WILL EVAPORATE LESS THAN THE UNCHARGED DROPS. WHY? BECAUSE OF THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, WHICH DOES PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY (ANTIGRAVITATIONAL) IN THE FORM OF LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS.

ETHER DRIFT RESULTS: CONFIRMATION OF DAYTON MILLER'S RESULTS/EXISTENCE OF DYNAMIC ETHER

Yuri Galaev, Ph.D.; Senior research officer of the Institute for Radiophysics & Electronics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (RANS)

The most significant development since Miller has been the
experiments of Yuri Galaev of the Institute of Radiophysics and
Electronics in the Ukraine. Galaev made independent measure-
ments of ether-drift using radiofrequency and optical wave
bands. His research not only "confirmed Miller's results down
to the details"but also allowed computation of the increase of
ether-drift with altitude above the Earth's surface (calculated to
be 8.6 m/sec per meter of altitude).

http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf (Dr. James DeMeo's superb presentation of ether drift results)


Now, the English translations of Dr. Yuri Galaev's groundbreaking work and most precise confirmation of the existence of dynamic ether (experiments carried out over the course of several years). Let us remember that, in what follows, it is the ether itself which flows above the flat surface of the earth and not the other way around... that is, both Miller and Galaev measured precisely the velocity and physical qualities of ether as it travels/propagates above the flat earth.


http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev2.pdf

journal pgs 207-224

pg 210 interferometer description
pg 220 ether drift velocity measurements/data

THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The positive results of three experiments [1-3], [7- 9], [10] give the basis to consider the effects detected in these experiments, as medium movement developments, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

Such medium was called as the ether [11] at the times of Maxwell, Michelson and earlier. The conclusion was made in the works [1-3], that the measurement results within millimeter radio waves band can be considered as the experimental hypothesis confirmation of the material medium existence in nature such as the ether. Further discussions of the experiment results [1-3] have shown the expediency of additional experimental analysis of the ether drift problem in an optical wave band.


Thus, in the work, the hypothesis experimental verification about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation, in the optical wave band has been performed. The estimation of the ether kinematic viscosity value has been performed. The first order optical method for the ether drift velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity measuring has been proposed and realized.

The method action is based on the development regularities of viscous liquid or gas streams in the directing systems. The significant measurement results have been obtained statistically. The development of the ether drift required effects has been shown. The measured value of the ether kinematic viscosity on the value order has coincided with its calculated value.

The velocity of optical wave propagation depends on the radiation direction and increases with height growth above the Earth's surface. The velocity of optical wave propagation changes its value with a period per one stellar day. The detected effects can be explained by the following:
 
optical wave propagation medium available regarding to the Earth's movement;
 
optical wave propagation medium has the viscosity, i.e. the feature proper to material mediums composed of separate particles;

the medium stream of optical wave propagation has got a space (galactic) origin.

The work results comparison to the experiment results, executed earlier in order of the hypothesis verification about the existence of such material medium as the ether in nature, has been performed. The comparison results have shown the reproduced nature of the ether drift effect measurements in various experiments performed in different geographic requirements with different measurement methods application. The work results can be considered as experimental hypothesis confirmation about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.

The following model statements are used at measuring method development [4-6]: the ether is a material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation; the ether has properties of viscous gas; the metals have major etherdynamic resistance. The imagination of the hydroaerodynamic (etherdynamic) effect existence is accepted as the initial position. The method of the first order based on known regularities of viscous gas movement in tubes [27-28] has been proposed and realized within the optical electromagnetic waves band in the work for measuring of the ether drift velocity and ether kinematic viscosity.


http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Galaev.pdf

journal pgs 211-225

ETHERAL WIND IN EXPERIENCE OF MILLIMETRIC RADIOWAVES PROPAGATION Yu.M. Galaev The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine


The ethereal wind speed value, measured in a radio frequency band at the work, is close to the ethereal wind speeds values, measured in electromagnetic waves optical range in the experiments of Miller [5, 6], Michelson, Peas, Pearson [11]. Such comparison results can be considered as mutual confirmation of the research results veracity, the experiment [5, 6] and the experiment [11].

The executed analysis has shown, that this work results can be explained by radiowaves propagation phenomenon in a space parentage driving medium with a gradiant layer speed in this medium ow near the Earth's surface. The gradiant layer available testifies that this medium has the viscosity -- the property intrinsic material media, i.e. media consisting of separate particles. Thus, the executed experiment results agree with the initial hypothesis positions about the Aether material medium existence in the nature.


Dr. Maurice Allais' analysis of the Dayton Miller ether-drift experiments:

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media12-1.htm


The most striking effect upon living matter of such ether waves (both laevorotatory and dextrorotatory) is the biohomochirality phenomenon, completely unexplained by modern science (RE/UA), as documented here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488624#msg1488624



AWT (aetheric wind theory) misconceptions:

Dark matter which fills 'empty' space is otherwise known as the aether. Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.


Let me explain:

Aether = medium through which ETHER flows

Ether = scalar waves consisting of subquarks strings

The density of aether can vary.


RE theory requires a full void, otherwise the equations which "describe" the orbits of the planets will have to include friction terms.


KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.

References for Celestial Mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics:

V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1978

C.L. Siegel and J. Moser, Lectures on Celestial Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1971

J. Moser, Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems, Princeton Univ. Press, 1973

Area Preserving Maps, Nonintegrable/Nearly Integrable Hamiltonians, KAM Theory:

http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf


Stability of the heliocentric planetary system:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg987360.html#msg987360 (chaos/horseshoe theory, original quotes from Henri Poincare and much more)


ONCE ONE MENTIONS AETHER, THE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS WHICH DESCRIBE THE MOTION OF THE CELESTIAL SPHERES, IN THE HELIOCENTRICAL THEORY, WILL NO LONGER BE A HAMILTONIAN, THAT IS, FRICTIONAL TERMS WILL HAVE TO BE INSERTED.

Aether/Ether = Physics of a cavity resonator

On July 3, 1899, Tesla discovered terrestrial stationary waves within the earth. He demonstrated that the Earth behaves as a smooth polished conductor and possesses electrical vibrations. He experimented with waves characterized by a lack of vibration at points, between which areas of maximum vibration occur periodically. These standing waves were produced by confining waves within constructed conductive boundaries. Tesla demonstrated that the Earth could respond at predescribed frequencies of electrical vibrations.

Between the nearly perfectly conducting terrestrial surface and ionosphere, a resonating cavity is formed. Broadband electromagnetic impulses, like those from lightning flashes, fill this cavity, and create globally the so-called Schumann resonances at frequencies 5 - 50 Hz (Schumann, 1952; Bliokh et al., 1980; Sentman, 1987).


Here is another misconception:

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...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

He did not realize that ether = friction, so therefore, the very equations of motion, thought to be Hamiltonian, must be modified to include the frictional effect of ether/aether upon the celestial bodies...