Advanced Flat Earth Theory

FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED OF GRAVITY IV

Current astronomical observations estimate the phase speed of gravity to be greater than 2x10¹⁰c.


"How then would waves or particles be capable of speeds of 20 billion c, since there is no way to get the vacuum pressure or resistance or impedance (or whatever you want to call it) low enough to allow it? Currently, the vacuum or field has enough impedance to keep even a photon, which is said to have no mass and no radius, at c. To get something to go 20 billion c, you would have to make it 20 billion times smaller and less massive than zero.

Someone might answer me that we should look at energies, not masses or radii or wavelengths. But this would make his graviton 20 billion times less energetic than a low-energy photon, in order to pass through the known field at that speed. Since gravity works at large scales, we have another problem. How can a particle with such a low energy move stars and galaxies?

A further problem arises when we compare charge to gravity. According to the logic above, the gravitational field should be 20 billion times less powerful than the charge field. If its mediating particle is 20 billion times smaller, its field strength should be 20 billion times smaller as well. If we would have more of these gravitons than we have charge photons,  then the density goes back up, more of them collide with the photons (or the vacuum field), and we have impedance again.

How could any medium have so little resistance that it allowed for speeds of 20 billion c?

If gravitons are much smaller than photons, it would have to have a radius on the order of 10^-35 m."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1920865#msg1920865

"Klein theorized that Kaluza's new dimension likely had somehow collapsed down to the "Planck length" itself -- supposedly the smallest possible size allowed by these fundamental interactions: 10^-33 cm."

The boson fulfills perfectly the conditions set by the Kaluza-Klein particle theory.

In Part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell proposed the existence of a sea of  molecular vortices which are composed of a fluid-like aether, whereas in  Part III, he deals with the elastic solid that these molecular vortices  collectively form.

These molecular vortices are the bosons, the Kaluza-Klein particles which forms the basis of the electrogravitational theory.

Bosons propagate through laevorotatory and dextrorotatory subquark strings.


Angular momentum and tidal friction

If gravitational aberration were non-zero, the angular momentum of an orbit would progressively increase with time, an effect that is not observed. Real orbits conserve orbital angular momentum to the accuracy of all observations, except when tidal or non-gravitational forces operate. Carlip claims that the conservation of angular momentum needed by GR justifies the cancellation of transverse aberration. He claims this cancellation is not magical, but arises naturally in the mathematics when one imposes angular momentum conservation.

It is true that imposing angular momentum conservation cancels aberration, but that begs the question. What physical justification exists for simply imposing orbital angular momentum conservation into equations when orbital angular momentum is not conserved by nature for other types of force? D. McCarthy has pointed out that, to the Moon, the offset of the direction of Earth’s gravitational force due to tidal friction is indistinguishable from the offset of the direction of Earth’s gravitational force due to aberration. So if gravitational aberration exists after all because gravity propagates at lightspeed, but is cancelled by a velocity-dependent force provided by nature to conserve angular momentum (as Carlip claims), then nature must also cancel tidal friction because it has no means of distinguishing one type of non-central force from the other. However, that is contrary to observations. But how could the Moon possibly know when to cancel a non-central force component, and when to respond to it?

The only logical answer to this dilemma is that no such mysterious, deus ex machina force exists because gravity has no aberration in need of canceling. In that case, we may be certain that gravity propagates much faster than lightspeed.

Dr. Tom van Flandern


And the Trouton-Noble experiment can no longer be used by relativists to claim that gravity involves velocity-dependent terms that almost exactly cancel the aberration effect arising from the finite speed of propagation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1943392#msg1943392

BOHR MODEL INVALIDATED BY REDSHIFT QUANTIZATION (KARLSSON EFFECT)

Orbiting electrons are undergoing centripetal acceleration, and should therefore give off electromagnetic radiation, the loss of energy also causing them to spiral toward the nucleus, colliding with it in a fraction of a second.

To make matters for the restriction of physical reality from traveling beyond the speed
of light, there is another phenomenon that electrons can supposedly do is namely tunnel through time to go instantaneously from one place inside the atom to another. That is, the electron can go from one place to another without traversing the space in between. This is one of quantum theory’s concepts accepted almost universally by the scientific establishment. The electron’s speed, if it was a thousand times the speed of light, would still be too slow, because it still is traversing the intervening space. Niels Bohr maintained this concept which has become known as a “quantum” – going from point A to point B without traversing the intervening space. He argued that this was reality and scientists must accept it. He did not realize when he adopted this concept that he was harking back to medieval supernatural theological philosophy. This was a question raised by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.

Niels Bohr was bringing science back to medieval theology and showed that an electron could defy the rules that apply to all physical entities. Let us look further into this concept. Max Planck explained that light coming out of the atom came out as discrete packets of energy called quanta. Seeing that there were several levels of these quanta, he devised a formula which fit these different levels. Niels Bohr, then understanding this, wrote formulas that allowed for these unique levels of energy but only on the supposition that when a photon struck an electron, the electron had to jump instantaneously from a lower orbit or place in the atom to another. If it moved through the intervening space, the energy would be smeared and not at only one unique level. He assumed that unique quantum behavior in the atom was required to explain this.

But can light exhibit quantum behavior outside the atom in the observable world as well as in the atom? And can it do so with physical bodies? If there is evidence that, in the observable physical universe, where bodies are moving with respect to one another through space, show light coming from these bodies that also exhibit clear quantum levels, then the basis upon which Bohr and the entire quantum establishment bases their case is false.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937730#msg1937730 (Karlsson effect I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937747#msg1937747 (Karlsson effect II)

The Karlsson Effect: the redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1942735#msg1942735 (Karlsson effect III)


David Wick points to the way in which Niels Bohr derived the concept that electrons jump from one point to another without traveling the intervening space:

“Bohr’s scientific method at the time was opportunistic: he simply lifted relevant formulas from where they were available. For the dynamics of the electron’s orbit [around the atom’s nucleus], he used Newtonian mechanics. For the description of light emitted [and discrete bundles of energy], he assumed Maxwellian theory. But neither theory provided any justification for restricting [electron] orbits to discrete series, or any motivation for an electron to ‘jump’ from one orbit to another. Bohr’s model was a chimera: a quantum head grafted onto a classical body, with a tissue of ad hoc assumptions holding them together.

When we compare Bohr’s quantum jumps with galaxies moving at discrete recessional
speeds, we can see the similarity. Here, Wicks states:

“Bohr’s model was elegant, if implausible. Bohr, took Rutherford’s solar system and simply legislated flight paths for the planets. He postulated that the angular momentum of the electron around the proton can take only one of a discrete series of values. This is as natural [or unnatural] as insisting that all skaters at the ice show twirl at two revolutions per second, four revolutions per second, and so on, with all other speed forbidden. But [mathematically] it worked.”

Galaxies and quasars exhibit light coming out of them, which is quantized, but atoms
have quantum packets of energy coming out of them. The quantum physicists maintain that this can only be caused by electrons going from one point to another without traversing the intervening space. The cosmologists finding a similar quantization effect for galaxies and quasars, knowing these bodies lie at an entire range of distances that are not multiples of a certain number, refuse to accept what the quantum evidence shows. What appears to be the case is that atoms contain elements that give off quantum packets of energy without the necessity of electrons making quantum leaps. There is a sameness to the macro and micro universe that is indicated by the fact that light is quantized in both.

(C. Ginenthal: Newton, Einstein, Velikovsky)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498 (more information on the false Bohr atomic model)

THE MODIFIED MAXWELL EQUATIONS AND THE SCHRODINGER EQUATION

E. Schrodinger derived his wave equation which governs his atomic model directly from the modified Maxwell equations:

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3063/spring15/How%20to%20Derivre%20the%20Schrodinger%20Equation.pdf


Moreover, the Klein-Gordon equation, initially used by Schrodinger to arrive at the final form of the wave equation, can also be derived from the modified Maxwell equations:

http://jpier.org/PIER/pier105/11.10042702.pdf


But the modified Maxwell equations apply ONLY to ripples in the sea of ether - the original set of Maxwell equations is invariant under Galilean transformations and was based totally on the concept of molecular vortices:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1919728#msg1919728

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1920865#msg1920865


And Schrodinger's mathematical description of the electrons as a wave function has further huge problems.

The wavefunction for two electrons is a function of 6 variables, for 3 electrons in 9 variables, and the dimension keeps going up as the electrons become more numerous.

"The solution of the many-electron Schrödinger equation is therefore a complicated function of 3N variables, where N is the number of electrons in the system."

"The ‘complementarity’ model and the mutually exclusive properties of particle and wave imposed on light were not the only problems that wave/particle duality posed.  There was also the problem of Schrodinger’s wave equation.  Schrödinger came up with the "wave packet" to represent the electron. An electron appears to be a particle. But the waves would disperse. A multi-dimensional space was required. Helium required a 6-dimensional space, lithium got 9 dimensions and uranium needed 276. Try as he might, there was no way for Schrodinger to prevent this dispersal of the wave packet. Since it was made up of waves that varied in wave-length and frequency, as the wave packet travelled through space, it would soon spread out as individual waves moved at different velocities. An almost instantaneous coming together, a localization at one point in space would have to take place every time an electron was detected as a particle. Secondly when attempts were made to apply the wave equation to helium and other atoms, Schrodinger’s vision of the reality that lay beneath his mathematics disappeared into an abstract multi-dimensional space that was impossible to visualize.

The wave function of an electron encodes everything there is to know about its single three dimensional wave. Yet the wave function for the two electrons of the helium atom could not be interpreted as two three dimensional waves existing in ordinary three dimensional space. Instead the mathematics pointed to a single wave inhabiting a strange six-dimensional space. In each move across the periodic table from one element to the next, the number of electrons increased by one and an additional three dimensions were required. Schrodinger was never able to come to terms with the fact that his construct did not represent ‘reality’. Yet the question remained how could a system that required so many dimensions, the three dimensions we live in are hard enough to explain, represent how the atom behaved? Is a system requiring 276 dimensions acceptable to a physical explanation at any level ? Most probably not, yet it has been accepted for almost a hundred years! At this point Max Born ( a statistical mathematician and physicist)  put an end to the discussion by claiming that the waves did not have a physical existence but that they were probability waves. This still gave rise to problems because each of these probability waves represented the possibility location of an electron and it was only when it was located that the wave would collapse and the position of the electron be known. I think it is clear that the Quantum Mechanic explanations were highly convoluted and not very realistic. Quantum Mechanics is essentially a statistical science, it holds the view that ‘there is no description of reality’."


A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.

Whittaker’s 1903 discovery that sets of longitudinal waves are the actual basis of all electromagnetic waves: Whittaker showed that vectors can always be further broken down into more fundamental coupled scalar components.

A Hertzian wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether.

Ether = subquark strings = telluric currents

A telluric current is a transversal wave, through which flow/propagate longitudinal waves.

A non-Hertzian wave is just such a longitudinal wave, propagating through the transversal wave.

Bosons (particles) travel through subquark strings (waves).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1920865#msg1920865

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XV

Five elements of the Gizeh pyramid:

26.7
53.4
80
136.1
534

Applying the five elements proportions to the sacred cubit distance:

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

Rotate a model of the Gizeh pyramid clockwise by 90 degrees.

To the right, we have another Gizeh pyramid (the shadow of the first pyramid), which is rotated anticlockwise by 90 degrees, the two pyramid frustums will be facing each other.

Total distance from one subterranean chamber to the other: 534 units.

In the center we have the two apexes of the pyramids forming a merkabah geometrical figure.

Two sothic triangles embed each of the two apexes: the height of the triangle will measure exactly 14.134725 units (the value of the first zero of Riemann's zeta function).

Two other sothic triangles will embed the top portion of the frustums of the two pyramids, again the height of these triangles will measure 14.134725 units.

The distance separating the two sets of triangles, located to the left of the center of the merkabah, will measure exactly 63.6363... units (the sacred cubit distance).

In the same manner the distance separating the two sets of triangles located to the right of the center of the merkabah will also measure 63.6363... units.



The zeros of the Riemann zeta function, having positive values will be distributed as follows on the sacred cubit distance (63.6363...): starting from 14.134725..., all the way to 77.144..., these zeroes will be distributed along the line connecting the tips of the two sothic triangles located to the left of the merkabah, moving from right to left.

The zeros of the Riemann zeta function, having negative values, -14.134725 to - 77.144, will be distributed along the second line, connecting the tips of the two sothic triangles located to the right of the merkabah, moving from left to right.

Then, the next set of zeroes having positive values, from 79.337... to 141.124 will be distributed along the second line, connecting the tips of the two sothic triangles located to the right of the merkabah, moving right to left.

In the same manner, the next set of zeroes having negative values, -79.337 to -141.124,  will be distributed along the first line, connecting the tips of the two sothic triangles located to the left of the merkabah, moving left to right.

That is, each of the two sacred distances will include TWO Riemann zeta functions waves.

14.134725 + 63.6363 = 77.7647

77.7647 + 63.6363 = 141.3947

141.3947 + 63.6363 = 205.0247

205.0245 + 63.6363 = 268.6547

268.6547 + 63.6363 = 332.2847


The sacred cubit fractal (dividing the critical line into 63.6363... segments, and further using the five elements proportions) is the hidden template of the zeta function.

63.636363
16.1773
9.5445
6.36363
3.1815

9.5445 - 6.36363 = 6.36363 - 3.1815 = 3.1815

3.1815
0.80886
0.477225
0.31815
0.159075

16.1773 - 9.5445 = 6.6328

6.6328
1.68632
0.99492
0.66328
0.33164


63.6363 - 16.1773 = 47.459

47.459
12.066
7.11885
4.7459
2.373

47.459 - 12.066 = 35.393

35.393
8.998
5.309
3.5393
1.77

35.393 - 8.998 = 26.395

26.395
6.7106
3.96
2.6395
1.31975

26.395 - 6.7106 = 19.6894

19.6894
5.0045
2.95266
1.96894
0.98422

19.6894 - 5.0045 = 14.68

14.68
3.7372
2.202
1.468
0.734

14.68 - 3.7372 = 10.9478

10.9478
2.7834
1.6422
1.09478
0.5474

10.9478 - 2.7834 = 8.1694

8.1694
2.0757
1.22466
0.81694
0.40822

8.1694 - 2.0757 = 6.0887

6.0887
1.548
0.9133
0.60487
0.304425

6.0887 - 1.548 = 4.5407

4.5407
1.1544
0.681105
0.45407
0.227035

4.5407 - 1.1544 = 3.3863

3.3863
0.861
0.508
0.33863
0.169315

3.3863 - 0.861 = 2.5253

2.5253
0.692
0.3788
0.25253
0.126

2.5253 - 0.692 = 1.833

1.833
0.4661
0.275
0.1833
0.09


12.066 - 7.11885 = 4.947

4.947
1.2577
0.74205
0.4947
0.28735


Then, the values of the subdivision of the sacred cubit distance using the five elements ratios/proportions, will nearly coincide with the values of the zeroes of Riemann's zeta function.

Using the first sacred cubit distance, connecting the tips of the sothic triangles located to the left of the merkabah, the first subdivision will occur from right to left, for the positive values of the zeroes of the zeta function; the second subdivision will occur from left to right, for the similar negative values of the zeroes of the zeta function (starting from the left: 3.1815, 6.6363, 9.5445, 16.1775, then the remaining portion of the sacred cubit distance will be divided using the subdivision of the 47.459 distance ((63.6363 - 16.1773 = 47.459)). The values marked in red will represent the values obtained from this second subdivision, going from left to right.

That is, each of the two Riemann zeta function waves is linked to the other wave, since these special values (marked in red) are used to complete the set of figures which can be obtained from the other subdivision of the sacred distance.

     14.134725142 
     21.022039639  20.497725 (14.134725 + 6.363)
     25.010857580  23.679225 (14.134725 + 9.5445)
     30.424876126  30.312025 (14.134725 + 16.1773)
     32.935061588  32.685 (30.312025 + 2.373)
     37.586178159  37.43 (30.312 + 7.11885)
     40.918719012  40.5234 (77.7647 - 16.1773 - 12.066 - 8.998)
     43.327073281  42.37 (30.312 + 12.066)
     48.005150881  47.68 (42.37 + 5.309)
     49.773832478  49.554 (77.7647 - 16.1773 - 12.066)
     52.970321478  51.37 (42.37 + 8.998)
     56.446247697  55.336 (51.37 + 3.96)
     59.347044003  58.08 (51.37 + 6.7106) or 59.07 (51.37 + 6.7106 + 0.98422)
     60.831778525  60.05 (58.08 + 1.96844)
     65.112544048  65.06 (60.05 + 5.0045)
     67.079810529  67.26 (65.06 + 2.202)
     69.546401711  68.79 (65.06 + 3.7322)
     72.067157674  71.575 (68.79 + 2.7834)
     75.704690699  75.1988 (71.575 + 2.0757 + 1.548)
     77.144840069  77.214 (75.1988 + 1.1544 + 0.861)

Law of five elements:

1→3
3→5
5→2
2→4
4→1

++-+-

or

-++-+
+-+-+
-+-++

Applying this sequence of subsequent additions and substractions to the value 20.497725 (which is 14.134725 + 6.3636), we obtain:

20.497725 + 0.80886 = 21.3066

3.1815
0.80886
0.477225
0.31815
0.159075

(9.5445 - 6.3636 = 3.1815, the interval which is to be subdivided further)

0.80886 - 0.477225 = 0.331635

0.331635
0.084315
0.049745
0.0331635
0.01658

21.3066 - 0.331635 = 20.975

0.0331635 - 0.01658 = 0.01658

0.01658
0.0042153
0.002487
0.001658
0.000829

20.975 + 0.0042153 = 20.9792, which is a very good approximation to the value of 21.022 (the value of the second zero of the zeta function)

This is more elegant than using straightforward additions (20.97445, 21.00761, 21.01183, 21.015, 21.01734, 21.0191, and so on).

Further subdivisions using the same law of the ratios of the five elements will form an infinite series which will approximate exactly the value of each of the zeroes of Riemann's zeta function.

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XVI

     79.337375020  78.574 (77.7647 + 0.80886)
     82.910380854  82.3 (141.3947 - 16.177 - 12.066 - 8.998 -
                                6.7106 - 5.0045 - 3.73 - 2.7834 - 2.0757 - 1.548)
     84.735492981   84.12 (77.7645 + 6.363)
     87.425274613   87.31 (77.7647 + 9.5445)
     88.809111208   88.995 (87.31 + 1.68632)
     92.491899271   92.44 (141.3947 - 16.177 - 12.066 - 8.998 - 6.7106 - 5.0045)
     94.651344041   93.94 (77.7647 + 16.1773)
     95.870634228   96.315 (93.94 + 2.373)
     98.831194218   98.688 (93.94 + 4.746)
    101.317851006  101.06 (93.94 + 7.11885)
    103.725538040  104.15 ((141.3947 - 16.177 - 12.066 - 8.998)
    105.446623052  106.01 (93.94 + 12.066)
    107.168611184  107.78 (93.94 + 12.066 + 1.77)
    111.029535543  111.317 (106.01 + 5.309)
    111.874659177  111.38 (141.3947 - 16.177 - 12.066 - 1.77)
    114.320220915  115.01 (106.01 + 8.998)
    116.226680321  116.326 ( 115.01 + 1.31975)
    118.790782866  118.966 (115.01 + 3.96)
    121.370125002  121.72 (115.01 + 6.7106)
    122.946829294  123.68 (121.72 + 1.968)
    124.256818554  124.67 (121.72 + 2.9566)
    127.516683880  126.72 (121.72 + 5.0045)
    129.578704200  128.92 (126.72 + 2.202)
    131.087688531  130.45 (126.72 + 3.7322)
    133.497737203  133.23 (130.45 + 2.7834)
    134.756509753  135.3 (133.23 + 2.0757)
    138.116042055  138.213 (141.3947 - 3.1815)
    139.736208952  139.555 (138.002 + 0.861 + 0.692)
    141.123707404  141.076 (141.3947 - 0.31815)


    143.111845808  142.2 (141.3947 + 0.80886)
    146.000982487  145.929 (205.0247 - 16.1773 - 12.066 - 8.998 - 6.7106 - 5.0045 - 3.7322 -                                            2.7834 - 2.0757 - 1.548)
                                 145.38 (141.3947 + 3.1815 + 0.80886)
    147.422765343  147.76 (141.3947 + 6.3636)
    150.053520421  149.55  (205.0247 - 16.1773 - 12.066 - 8.998 -
                                 6.7106 - 5.0045 - 3.7322 - 2.7834)
    150.925257612  150.94 (141.3947 + 9.5445)
    153.024693811  152.63 (150.94 + 1.68632)
    156.112909294  156.07 (205.0247 - 16.1773 - 12.066 - 8.998 -
                                 6.7106 - 5.0045)
    157.597591818  157.57 (150.94 + 16.1773)

The Lehmer phenomenon, a pair of zeros which are extremely close, is related to the close proximity of some of the values of the two subdivisions of the 63.6363... segment, one going from left to right, the other one occurring from right to left: very close values right from the first level of the subdivision process such as 111.317 and 111.38.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1858153#msg1858153

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1855591#msg1855591




http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/zeta_tables/zeros1 (list of the zeroes of the zeta function)

The next step, of course, would be to understand why, as an example, the subdivision values of 2.373 and 7.11885 are used in approximating the zeroes 32.935 and 37.586, and not 4.7459 (there are no other zeroes between 32.935 and 37.586). 2.373 corresponds to the 26.7 ratio value in the five elements proportions, 7.11885 is matched with the figure of 80 in the same sequence of fundamental proportions, while 4.7459 coincides with the 53.4 ratio in that sequence.

534           47.459
136.1        12.066
80             7.11885
53.4           4.7459
26.7           2.373

GEOGRAPHICAL CENTER OF THE EARTH: THE LOCATION OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN

http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/8.htm

In the classic work Die Erdkarte der Urbibel (1931), A. Herrmann asserts that the geographical chapters 8 and 9 of the Book of Jubilees are an older redaction of the Priestly document, indeed older than the sources of Genesis, dating from the period of King Solomon (official chronology). The Book of Jubilees is not a revision of the Genesis, on the contrary, the opposite applies.


And the Book of Jubilees states quite clearly that the geographical center of the Earth is the very same location as for the Garden of Eden.

Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon (Nile), toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk  the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon (Nile), along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."

Notice that the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version served by the corresponding chapters in the Genesis.

If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050125005755/http://www.bostontoistanbul.com/maps/MarmaraRegionMap.jpg

THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEA OF MARMARA (sea of Propontis) (SEA OF MIOT), IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF ANATOLIA: a region with which cannot be accessed by land or sea (we have the same situation at the North/South Poles, which have never been actually discovered or located precisely, see The Hollow Earth by R. Bernard, Raymond Benard - The Hollow Earth ), etherically veiled from view completely. Mount Olympus is also located there (with a height of at least 25 km, the first Dome is located below the peak of this mountain), the very center of the surface of the flat earth.


Now, let us make the connection between the BOOK OF ENOCH, BOOK OF JUBILEES and the BOOK OF NOAH:

Book of Enoch:
And they took  me to the living waters, and to the fire (Volcano) of the west, which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to a river of fire (river of lava) in which the fire flows like water and discharges itself into the great sea towards the west .

Book of Jubilees: 
...to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil.

Book of Noah:
And they will shut up those Angels, who showed iniquity, in that burning valley, (Eden Valley) which my great-grandfather Enoch had shown to me previously, in the west, near the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).

The true name of the first son of Noah, PELASG/PELASGOS,  was changed to Shem.

All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg; and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia (a portion of land given to the descendants of the sons of Khem/Ham; namely, the northern part was given to Misraim and some of his sons, and the southern portion was taken over by Nimrod and his sons).


Christ was crucified at Constantinople, and not in Jerusalem; and not 2,000 years ago, but some 250 years ago.

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1673763#msg1673763


The application of the Gauss Easter formula to historical events leaves no room for errors:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652


Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed at least after 1750 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages)


The most direct proof that the biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, was faked/falsified/forged during the Renaissance:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674108#msg1674108

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1674662#msg1674662

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


Galileo and Kepler, fictional characters invented at a later time in history:

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


When did Shakespeare live?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1620012#msg1620012


L. Euler: a fictional character invented at the end of the 18th century:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483598#msg1483598

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1483917#msg1483917


The astronomical recordings attributed to Benjamin Franklin and the London Royal Society during the 18th century could not possibly be true:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1484659#msg1484659

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1488947#msg1488947

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XVII

The next step, of course, would be to understand why, as an example, the subdivision values of 2.373 and 7.11885 are used in approximating the zeroes 32.935 and 37.586, and not 4.7459 (there are no other zeroes between 32.935 and 37.586). 2.373 corresponds to the 26.7 ratio value in the five elements proportions, 7.11885 is matched with the figure of 80 in the same sequence of fundamental proportions, while 4.7459 coincides with the 53.4 ratio in that sequence.

534           47.459
136.1        12.066
80             7.11885
53.4           4.7459
26.7           2.373

The large gaps within a subdivision of the sacred distance (63.63... units) are due to the fact that they include the zeroes from the other Riemann zeta wave.

Starting from the right and moving toward the left (see the two previous messages on this subject, on this page), let us list all of the zeroes and their corresponding values on the sacred distance (according to the law of the five elements):

The first column contains the values of the zeroes themselves (including both waves: 14.134725 to 77.7649, from right to left, and -77.7649 to -141.3947, from left to right). The second column includes the values of the subdivision of the sacred distance which are very close to the figures of the zeroes of the zeta function. The third column lists the result of the substraction 141.3947 - (the values from the second column), for the wave which moves from left to right, and the result of the addition 14.134725 + (the values from the second column), for the wave which travels from right to left.


141.12   0.31815   141.07

139.736 1.41347   139.98

138.11   3.1815     138.213

134.75   6.363 + 0.31815   134.713

21.022   6.363 +  0.477225   20.9747

We can already see that the gap between the first two zeroes, 14.134725 and 21.022, is being filled by the values of the zeroes from the second wave in a precise manner.

133.05   6.363 + 1.41347   133.618

131.087   9.5445 + 0.66328   131.187

25.0108   9.5445 + 0.995   24.674


3.1815
0.80886
0.477225
0.31815
0.159075

3.1815 - 0.80886 = 2.3726

2.3726
0.60332
0.3559
0.23726
0.11863

16.1773 - 9.5445 = 6.6328

6.6328
1.68632
0.995
0.66328
0.33164

We can observe that 0.80886 + 0.60332 = 1.4122, which is very close to 1.4134725, which is why I preferred to include the second value in the list as it provides a better overall picture of the values obtained.


129.578   9.5445 + 1.4134725   130.437

127.516   14.134725   127.26

30.424     16.1773       30.312

124.256   14.1347 + (1.41347 x 2)        124.434

123.68     [14.1347 + (1.41347 x 2)] + 1.41347    123.02

32.935     16.1773 + 2.373     32.685

121.37     {[14.1347 + (1.41347 x 2)] + 1.41347} + 1.41347     121.6

When listed in this manner, it becomes apparent that the values of the zeroes of the zeta function are positioned on the sacred distance in a very precise fashion.

The alleged randomness of the values of the zeroes disappears completely: we can see at a glance how the zeroes follow one another in an accurate and logical manner.




"One of the most exciting possibilities involves an astonishing, unexpected connection
between the distribution of prime numbers and the energy levels of excited atoms. The
vehicle is a branch of mathematics known as random matrix theory.

If the random matrices belong to a class of matrices known as the Gaussian Unitary
Ensemble (GUE), physicists obtain good estimates of the average spacing between
consecutive energy levels of heavy atomic nuclei and other complex quantum systems.
It turns out that the spacings between consecutive zeros of the zeta function also
appear to behave statistically like the spacings between consecutive eigenvalues of
these large, random matrices. Indeed, this observation also suggests that the infinitely
many zeros specified in the Riemann hypothesis are irregularly distributed in a
particular way along the line 1/2 + bi."

But they ARE NOT irregularly distributed along the 1/2 + bi line.

The mathematicians, so far, have missed the connection between the sacred cubit and the value of the first zero of the zeta function, 14.134725, and the fact that there are two zeta function waves travelling at the same time, on the same sacred cubit distance.

Once we make that connection, (Quantum Riemann's Zeta Function I - XVII series of messages), everything becomes very clear: the values of the zeroes are distributed a very precise manner along the sacred cubit distance.

How then could this extraordinary mathematical relationship arise out of a totally random process described by the big bang theory/stellar evolution hypotheses?


How could the architects of the Gizeh pyramid have known the value of the first zero of the zeta function, and at the same time build the pyramid to a precise height which equals 141.347 meters?

G.F.B. Riemann's derivation of the Riemann-Siegel formula still counts as the most difficult calculation ever undertaken in the 19th century.

It is still being regarded as "magical":

https://michaelberryphysics.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/berry483.pdf


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1859126#msg1859126 (the sequence of the moments of the zeta function and the quantum energy levels)


“There’s a complexity to the zeta function that we have not been able to grasp"

The series of messages dedicated to the Riemann zeta function and the sacred cubit has proven otherwise: it is completely within our reach to grasp the complexity of the function, once we realize that the value of the first zero is the value of the height of the Gizeh pyramid divided by 10.


In 1985, it became possible for the very first time to measure the height of the masonry base very precisely:



One author noted the following:

As our drawing clearly shows, not only the pyramid's envelope but also everything inside it was determined with the aid of three equal circles. Theodolitic equipment placed within shaft D beamed upward a key vertical line whose function we shall soon describe. But first this equipment beamed out the horizontal rock/masonry line, on which the centers of the three circles were placed. The first of these (Point 1) was at D; Points 2 and 3, where its circle intersected the line, served as centers for the other two, overlapping circles. To draw these circles the pyramid's architects, of course, had to decide on the proper radius.

Our own calculations show that the radius adopted for the three circles envisioned by us was equal to 60 such Sacred Cubits; the number 60 being, not accidentally, the base number of the Sumerian sexagesimal mathematical system. This measure of 60 Sacred Cubits is dominant in the lengths and heights of the pyramid's inner structure as well as in the dimensions of its base.

However, the builders MUST have had ALL of the other measurements of the pyramid (angles, lengths, displacement factor) at their disposal BEFORE proceeding with the drawing of the circles, which must have been a geometrical aid meant to correctly place the other features of the Gizeh Pyramid on a drawing. And this fact, of course, takes us right back to the core the problem: calculation of arctangents and arcsines, using power series approximations.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1836001#msg1836001

QUANTUM RIEMANN'S ZETA FUNCTION XVIII

At the present time, there is no way to precisely predict where the explicit location a zero of the zeta function might occur.

The frequency of the zeroes Riemann-Mangoldt equation is not exact, nor is the average spacing between the zeroes formula.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1855726#msg1855726

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1856911#msg1856911

The approach using interpolating determinants (with functions which closely resemble the Riemann-Siegel formula) leads very quickly to insurmountable problems: for zero #47 (138.11) a term like 10^-1216 has to be used; for zero #220 (427.21) the value of that term increases to 10^-17793, for zero #400 (679.74) the new value will be 10^-52001. To even achieve these results, which deal with the first few hundreds of zeroes of the zeta function, several computing centers from several universities around the world had to be used.


The distances between the values of the two subdivisions of the sacred distance can be used to infer the precise location of the next zero of the zeta function.

141.12

Using the subdivision of the sacred distance, from right to left (3.1815, 6.363, 9.5445, 16.1773, 63.6363), and the next level of subdivisions applied to the 3.1815 distance:

3.1815
0.80886
0.477225
0.31815
0.159075

141.3947 - 0.31815 = 141.076

Using the subdivision of the sacred distance, from left to right:

138.02 + 0.861 + 0.692 + 0.4661 = 140.02

Subdividing further the segment 1.833 - 0.4661 using the five elements ratios, we get the values: 0.3475, 0.26, 0.1932, 0.1441, 0.10745.

So, adding these values successively to 140.02 we get:

140.3675
140.6275
140.821
140.965
141.072

We can see immediately that the values which most closely resemble each other (in fact they are practically equal) are:

141.076 (from the right to left subdivision)

141.072 (from the left to right subdivision)


141.3947 - 0.159075 = 141.2356, the values obtained from the other subdivision are not even close to this one.

141.3947 - 0.477225 = 140.917, not a direct match with the values from the other subdivision

141.3947 - 0.80886 = 140.5858

Not even if we use the next level of subdivision values for the interval 3.1815 - 0.80886 (2.3726, 0.60322, 0.3559, 0.23726, 0.11863), the figures obtained will not match the ones listed above, 141.076 and 141.072 (the difference will become even smaller if we further subdivide those segments using the five elements ratios).

In my opinion, these calculations serve as a precise evidence that a zero of the zeta function has to be located right next to the 0.31815 value of the subdivision of the sacred distance.


139.736

Using the left to right subdivision, we get:

139.555 (138.002 + 0.861 + 0.692)

Using the right to left subdivision:

141.3947 - 0.80886 - 0.60322 - 0.45 = 139.533

141.3947 - 0.80886 - 0.60322 - 0.17694 = 139.541

2.3726 - 0.60322 = 1.7694 (1.7694, 0.45, 0.26541, 0.17694, 0.08847)


138.11

141.3947 - 3.1815 = 138.213

133.23 + 2.07 + 1.548 + 1.1544 = 138.002

138.002 + 0.169315 = 138.171


143.111

141.3947 + 0.80886 + 0.60322 + 0.26541 = 143.0722

205.0247 - 16.1773 - 12.066 - 8.998 - -6.7106 - 5.0045 - 3.7322 - 2.7834 - 2.0757
- 1.548 - 1.1544 - 0.861 - 0.692 - 0.1833 = 143.0383


Other features, such as applying the musical scale to the sacred distance might be used to clarify things further (two lateral octaves).




Five whole tones: DO-RE, RE-MI, FA-SOL, SOL-LA, LA-SI
Two half-tones intervals: MI-FA and SI-DO


However, the ability to actually predict where the next value of a zeta zero will occur on the sacred cubit distance is most important (on the location of Lehmer pairs see the discussion posted earlier on this page).


The precise relationship between primes and zeroes of zeta:

http://people.reed.edu/~jerry/361/lectures/rvm.pdf



https://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/encoding1.htm

"The sequence of nontrivial zeta zeros is sometimes described as being "dual" to the sequence of primes."

But the sequence of nontrivial zeta zeroes is totally based on the subdivision of the sacred cubit distance using the five elements ratios/proportions and the fact that there not one, but two zeta function waves which complement each other and which propagate at the same time on the 63.6363... segment, one travelling from right to left, the other one from left to right.

STATIONARY EARTH: EXPERIMENTAL PROOFS

Hoek Experiment

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Hoek/Hoek_Experiment.html

Martinus Hoek, “Determination de la vitesse avec laquelle est entrainée une onde
lumineuse traversant un milieu en mouvement,” Arch. Neerl., 1868, 3, pp. 180-185;
and 1869, 4, pp. 443-450

"In 1868, M. Hoek, an astronomer from Utrecht, split a light beam so that it would travel in opposite directions, and he had the beams travel through both water and air. Again, since light travels slower in water, then as the light beams meet back at the starting point, one beam will come in slower than the other and cause what is known as “fringes” on the receiving plate, that is, alternating light and dark patterns. Working on the idea that as the Earth moved through space it was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against the light (and which Fresnel described as a “drag”), if the apparatus of Hoek’s experiment were turned in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and then subsequently perpendicular to it, there would not only be fringes but a noticeable shifting of the fringes.

To his surprise, Hoek noticed no significant difference in the fringes, not in accord with an Earth supposedly moving 30 km/sec."



In 1892, H. Lorentz was summoned to come up with some kind of explanation in order to account for the results of the Hoek experiment and also for the Michelson experiment of 1881.

With just one stroke of a pen, Lorentz discarded all asymmetrical terms of the original set of Maxwell's equations and introduced his own version of electromagnetic theory (“La theorie electromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants.” Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles 25 (1892): 363–552).

But there is no such thing as the Lorentz transformation:

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7149

The colossal mistakes committed by Lorentz and Einstein in deriving the Lorentz transformation/factor:

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-4-the-michelson-morley-experiment/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-5-the-lorentz-transformation/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/

Dr. Hans Zweig, Stanford University: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/hans-j-zweig/

"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation.

Consequently velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded.

The common representation of Maxwell’s [modified] equations is valid only for static systems.

The physicists at the turn of the twentieth century were unaware of this limitation. They assumed that Maxwell’s [modified] equations were universally valid (i.e.: applicable to any inertial coordinate system) and tried to apply them to dynamic systems which led to inconsistencies. But instead of realizing and correcting the error (by modifying Maxwell’s equations; [i.e., using the original ether equations published by Maxwell in 1861) they introduced the Lorentz transformation which was the foundation of the flawed theory of relativity."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701

Rigorous proof that discarding the Lorentz condition produces energy from the vacuum systems is given by Evans:

M. W. Evans et al., “Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Physica Scripta, 61, 513-517 (2000)

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1238/Physica.Regular.061a00513/meta

http://www.academia.edu/25242199/Classical_Electrodynamics_without_the_Lorentz_Condition_Extracting_Energy_from_the_Vacuum

And this is the same Lorentz who in 1886 made this statement:

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”

(“On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” as quoted in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20)


Mascart Experiment

E. Mascart, "Sur les modifications qu'eprouve la lumiere par suite du mouvement de la source lumineuse", Ann. de l'Ecole norm. 1, 1872, 157-214

Still another experiment was performed just one year after Airy’s findings to test for the motion of the Earth. In 1872 Eleuthère Elie Nicolas Mascart devised an experiment in which he could detect the motion of the Earth through ether by measuring the rotation of the plane of polarization of light propagated along the axis of a quartz crystal. Mascart was awarded the 1873 Grand Prix of the Paris Academy of Sciences for this work

Polarization is a phenomenon of white light, which propagates along the axis of forward movement at many different angles but is reduced to just one angle. Polarizers are filters containing long-chain polymer molecules that are oriented in one specific position. As such, the incident light vibrating in the same plane as the polymer molecules is the only light absorbed, while light vibrating at right angles to the plane is passed through the polarizer. Mascart set up the experiment so that if the Earth were passing through the ether at the expected clip of 30 km/sec, then the light’s plane of polarization would be affected. Mascart found no such results. His experiment was just another indication that Earth was not moving.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)


Airy Experiment

George Airy belonged to the exclusive Astronomer Royal of England, thus he was a well-respected scientist and had quite a reputation and audience for his endeavors.

Airy had to figure out some way of determining whether the light from a star was affected by Earth’s supposed motion. Whereas Bradley used only one kind of telescope, Airy had the ingenious idea of using a second telescope filled with water. Since Arago/Fresnel/Fizeau had already shown that light’s speed was slowed by glass or water, Airy assumed that if a telescope was filled with water then the starlight coming through the water should be slower than it would be in air, and thus bend the starlight outward toward the upper side of the telescope and away from the eyepiece (just as we see light bent when we put a pencil in water). In order to compensate for the outward bending of the starlight, Airy assumed he would have to tilt his water-filled telescope just a little more toward the lower end of the star so that its light would hit his eyepiece directly rather than hitting the side of the telescope.

Although Airy had suspected the outcome prior to the actual experiment, indeed, he soon discovered that he was not required to tilt his water-filled telescope toward the star to any greater degree than his air-filled telescope. These results indicated that Earth wasn’t moving, since if there is no additional adjustment necessary for a water-filled telescope toward the direction of the starlight, it means the starlight is coming into both telescopes at the same angle and speed, that is, directly overhead. If Earth were moving, then a water-filled telescope would have to be titled toward the starlight a little more acutely than an airfilled telescope: in the heliocentric model, the Earth is moving sufficiently against the incidence of distant starlight upon it, and thus the water-filled telescope would not be able to catch all of the starlight in the slower medium of water. It would have to be titled slightly ahead of the air-filled telescope to make up for light’s slower speed in water.

In other words, if Earth were moving, it would be moving against the ether, and thus the ether wind, as it were, would be expected to push the starlight past the telescope. Airy showed that the ether was not pushing the starlight faster through one medium than the other since both of his telescopes could view the star from the same angle.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

G. B. Airy's experiment (1871)

'Airy's failure' (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's 'speed around the sun'. Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)

It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120206194913/http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm


Michelson Experiment (1881)

Just a few years after George Airy’s experiment, Albert Michelson invented a somewhat sophisticated piece of equipment to test Airy’s results. The interferometer he assembled was similar to Hoek’s, but it was built a little better and was more accurate, yet it was very sensitive to vibration and heat, and therefore its results could be thrown off a bit. Nevertheless, if the Earth were moving through ether this machine was designed to detect it. The idea was to split a light beam into two beams and send them in perpendicular directions, which beams are then reflected back and recombined on a photographic plate. The distances traveled by the beams are not the same, thus the waves from the two beams will not be in synch, producing a pattern of light and dark fringes after they recombine. These fringes prove that the principle behind the interferometer indeed works, since non-synchronous light waves will produce fringes. Identical to Hoek’s experiment, Michelson’s procedure was to turn, slightly and periodically, the table on which the interferometer rested. The speeds of the two beams with respect to the ether will thus change, and so will the times taken for the beams to recombine. Because troughs and crests of the light waves would not match up the same as in a non-rotating table, the original fringes would shift in their pattern of bright and dark lines.

The first interferometer trial was in 1881. After Michelson drew up plans for the device and submitted them to a company in Berlin for construction, Alexander Graham Bell, famous for the invention of the telephone, provided the needed funds. Michelson had not met Edward Morley as yet and thus he worked alone. Lo and behold, when Michelson performed the experiment he did not see a significant shifting of fringes, at least not those he was expecting. Using a 600 nanometer wavelength of light, Michelson expected to see fringe shifts (or, as he called them, “displacement of the interference bands”) of at least 0.04 of a fringe width. The 0.04 figure corresponds to an Earth moving at 30 km/sec around the sun. If this was combined with what Michelson believed was the solar system’s apparent movement toward the constellation Hercules, the fringes should have shifted on the order of 0.10 of a fringe width. But Michelson didn’t see any fringe shifting close to either value.

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

Unfortunately for the heliocentrists, Michelson only confirmed Airy’s results and, in the process, overturned the hypothesis of Fresnel and Fizeau, who claimed that the Earth moved through space at 30 km/sec and was doing so against the ether, which creates friction against a light beam pointed in the same direction, and which would thus decrease the speed of the light beam.

Michelson’s experiment, as he says himself, also overturned the idea that “the Earth moves through the ether.” On the surface, this is a rather amazing admission by Michelson. Perhaps he did not realize what he had said; nevertheless, there it is. He did not say that the ether did not exist; rather, he said Earth does not move through the ether. Fresnel had “presupposed” that the Earth moved at 30 km/sec through ether, but Michelson’s results said no. At this point Michelson was being very honest with his own results.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

It is to be noted that Lorentz was called upon again in 1882 to try to explain the Michelson experiment, but all he could do is try to make use of an early version of the transformation that bears his name, thus nullifying his very own argument.


The orbital Sagnac effect is completely missing:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1911899#msg1911899

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

In addition, the orbital solar gravitational potential is not being registered either by the GPS satellites' clocks.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


Thus, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are totally fulfilled:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

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


Given the results of the Michelson experiment (1881) which proved that the Earth does not move through ether, the results of the Ruderfer experiment prove one thing very directly: it is the dynamical ether which rotates above the surface of a stationary Earth.

GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE: GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

In the recently published book by Oxford University Press titled The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, author and astrophysicist Jonathan I. Katz of Washington University, a scientist who admits of no partiality toward a geocentric universe, includes a chapter titled The Copernican Dilemma.

Katz’s studies have found that, when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and catalogued, they show Earth to be in the center of it all.

He writes:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible).

To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated.


Gamma-ray bursts are equivalent to 10⁴⁵ watts of energy, which is over a million trillion times as powerful as the sun.


No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge. Beyond this edge the density of burst sources decreases to insignificance.

Jonathan Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 111

Studies of the cosmic background radiation have confirmed the isotropy of the radiation, or its complete uniformity in all directions. If the universe possesses a center, we must be very close to it…otherwise, excessive observable anisotropy in the radiation intensity would be produced, and we would detect more radiation from one direction than from the opposite direction.

Joseph Silk, University of California (Berkeley)

In other words, the isotropy of the CMB can only be true from an Earth-centered location. If observed anywhere else in the universe the CMB will appear anisotropic.

In 1995, G. J. Fishman and C. A. Meegan, after analyzing a number of gamma-ray bursts, came to the only logical conclusion: “The isotropy and inhomogeneity of the bursts show only that we are at the center of the apparent burst distribution.”

Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics 33, 415, 1995

During the same time, S. E. Woolsey’s review of gamma radiation stated the logical conclusion even more directly: “The observational data show conclusively that the Earth is situated at or very near the center of the gamma-ray burst universe.”

“Gamma-Ray Bursts: What Are They?” in Seventeenth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology, New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1995, p. 446


Cosmic Ether Background:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1828839#msg1828839


How significant is this quadrupole-octopole alignment? As a simple definition of preferred axis [it] denotes the spherical harmonic coefficients of the map in a rotated coordinate system….if the CMB is an isotropic Gaussian random field, then a chance alignment this good requires a 1-in-62 fluke.

Max Tegmark, Angélica de Oliveira-Costa and Andrew J. S. Hamilton, “A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP,” Physical Review D, July 26, 2003, p. 14

Angélica de Oliveira-Costa stated that the cosmic quadrupole and octopole are both very planar and aligned, which according to the CERN correspondent reporting the interview means that the points “happen to fall on a great circle on the sky,” and we are in the center of that great circle.

Perhaps just as important is the following remark by the Tegmark team:

What does this all mean?…it is difficult not to be intrigued by the similarities [of our findings] with what is expected in some non-standard [i.e., non Big Bang] models, for instance, ones involving a flat “small Universe” with a compact topology and one of the three dimensions being relatively small.

Working alongside mathematician Jeffrey Weeks, New Scientist reports:

Scientists have announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever….Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593)….Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything inside.” Spergel adds: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It would really change our view of the universe”

New Scientist, October 8, 2003

In a recent publication, the team of Dominik Schwarz, Glenn Starkman, et al., discovered that:

The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary cosmology….the quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded from being a chance occurrence in a gaussian random statistically isotropic sky at >99.87%….The correlation of the normals with the ecliptic poles suggest an unknown source or sink of CMB radiation or an unrecognized systematic. If it is a physical sources or sink in the inner solar system it would cause an annual modulation in the time-ordered data….Physical correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the inclination of the Earth’s spin axis.

Dominik J. Schwarz, Glenn D. Starkman, Dragan Huterer and Craig J. Copi, “Is the
Low-l Microwave Background Cosmic?” Physical Review Letters, November 26, 2004,
pp. 221301-1 to 4

Schwarz and Starkman then refer to the study of Tegmark and Oliveira-Costa we covered above, noting that the “preferred axes of the quadrupole modes…and the octopole modes…were remarkably closely aligned” (i.e., geocentric), and they add the study of Hans Kristian Eriksen in 2003 at the University of Oslo, citing that:

What they found contradicted the standard inflationary cosmology – the hemispheres often had very different amounts of power. But what was most surprising was that the pair of hemispheres that were the most different were the ones lying and below the ecliptic, the plane of the earth’s orbit around the sun. This result was the first sign that the CMB fluctuations, which were supposed to be cosmological in origin…have a solar system signal in them – that is, a type of observational artifact.

The significance of Eriksen’s finding may go over the heads of most people not familiar with astrophysical language, but the simple interpretation is that all the radiation in the universe, whether it is symmetric or asymmetric, is centered around the Earth (although because Eriksen is a Copernican he refers to it as “the plane of the earth’s orbit around the sun”). This is confirmed when Schwarz, et al., state later: “Within that plane, they sit unexpectedly close to the equinoxes – the two points on the sky where the projection of the earth’s equator onto the sky crosses the ecliptic.” In other words, all the data show that, as far out as our telescopes can see, space is oriented geocentrically. What are the chances that this could happen by accident? The team of Copernicans has to admit that the “combined chance probability is certainly less than one in 10,000.”

In conclusion, all the investigations show that the characteristics of the CMB: (a) lean heavily against the Big Bang theory and (b) suggest that our local system (e.g., sun, Earth and planets) is either a central source or the central depository or “sink” for the CMB radiation. This means that the Earth and its neighbors are in the center of the phenomenon. He further adds that the positioning of the poles symmetrically above and beneath the sun’s ecliptic is to be interpreted as no accident. The CMB poles couldn’t position themselves in respect of the Earth’s rotation or translation since the poles have no reaction to such movement. As such, the orientation of the CMB is purely geocentric.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE II: X-RAY BURSTS

BL Lacertae (or BL Lac) objects are somewhat between a quasar and a galaxy, since their spectra are dominated by a non-thermal radiation, but one that is continuous and which features radio and X-ray emissions. Although more rare, they are similar to quasars, and one would expect BL Lac’s to have the same periodicity. Indeed they do. Interestingly enough, the data supporting this is documented in one of the standards of the industry, the 1995 Véron and Véron catalogue.

The catalogue’s graph shows BL Lac distribution occurring in redshift clumps of 0.30, 0.60 and 0.96 km/sec. This precise periodicity, of course, is giving the same evidence of the centrality of Earth that gamma-rays and quasars have given.

The periodicity of the galaxy-quasar pairs that come in the mathematical intervals noted earlier (see page 14 of this thread) constitutes another proof as to the position of the Earth in the exact center of these periodicities.

The same periodicity was found of X-ray clusters using the German-built X-ray telescope, ROSAT.

In a survey conducted by Marguerite Pierre, et al., Dr. Halton Arp writes:

The most amazing thing about this investigation is perhaps the obvious non-random distribution of the X-ray clusters in this region of the sky and the failure of the investigators to comment on it. Perhaps the next most amazing aspect is that the largest grouping of the brightest X-ray clusters in this whole region conspicuously coincided with the brightest galaxies in the region – but went unremarked.

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE III: QUASAR SPHERICAL SHELLS

All kinds of interesting objects and forces were being found in man’s telescope, e.g., quasars, gamma-ray and X-ray bursters, cosmic background microwave radiation, and a wide assortment of galaxies and star clusters. To the utter consternation of the world’s scientists, each of the newfound discoveries kept revealing the same piece of startling information – that Earth was right smack in the center of it all. In the words of astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni of the University of Ottawa who specialized in quasars:

The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

Astrophysics and Space Science, 43:3 (1976), p. 8

Astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. In 1975 he catalogued 384 quasars between redshift of 0.2 and 3.53 and, amazingly, found that they were formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the Earth. He made the following startling conclusion:

...the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological interpretation of the redshift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

“The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?” Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1), (1976), p. 3

Varshni first based his calculations on the spectra of the quasars and then did a second test on their actual redshifts. Both tests produced the same results.

Varshni calculated the odds against such an arrangement and found:

From the multiplicative law of probability, the probability of these 57 sets of coincidences occurring in this system of 384 QSOs is ≈ 3 × 10^-85. We hope this number will be convincing evidence that the coincidences are real and cannot be attributed to chance.

Soon after Varshni’s work, astronomers found over 20,000 quasars, and none of them altered Varshni’s original results. In fact, they refer to it as the “quasar distribution problem.”

The other “problem,” of course, is that since these quasars are distributed around Earth with such specific periodicity, this means that Earth is situated in a quasar-free hole, and that no other such “holes” exist anywhere else in the universe. Moreover, even if one were to dispute Varshni’s findings by positing an alternative explanation for redshift (e.g., the belief that red-shift does not measure distance), the 57 concentric groupings of quasars will appear nonetheless when put in terms of “phase space,” which, in astrophysics, is a multidimensional view of the sky utilizing Cartesian dimensions coupled with time and momentum to plot positions on a map.

A year after Varshni’s 1976 paper, C. B. Stephenson attempted to explain the startling findings by suggesting that the Big Bang produced periodic bands of quasars that spread out over time.

Astrophysics and Space Science, 51, 117-119 (1977)

Varshni wrote back to the same periodical a few months later critiquing Stephenson’s
proposal, saying:

Instead of having Earth at the center, now we have to assume that the Universe evolved in fits and starts of quasar production. The concept of preferred epochs for quasar production is hardly any more aesthetic than that of a preferred position for the Earth.”

Astrophysics and Space Science, 51, 121, 1977

Perhaps getting wind of Varshni’s results, in the same year a team of astronomers from California Institute of Technology led by Vera C. Rubin set out to disprove the geo- or galacto-centric findings. That they may have been motivated to refute Varshni’s findings is suggested by one conspicuous comment in their report reflecting the possible upsetting of their evidence: “Hopefully, it will not force a return to the pre-Copernican view of a hierarchy of motions whose sum is zero at the Sun.” The team set out to prove that the sum total of motions in the universe did not add up to zero in our local system, for a null sum would mean that the Earth-based observer was not in motion. Try as they may, the team was not able to rule out a null sum pointing to a geocentric universe.

Vera C. Rubin, Norbert Thonnard and W. Kent Ford, Jr., “Motion of the Galaxy and the Local Group determined from the velocity anisotropy of distant Sc I galaxies,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 81, No. 9, Sept. 1976, p. 735

Another study conducted in 1976 by Paul Schechter of the Steward Observatory analyzed the data of Rubin’s team and sought to determine whether the results could be controverted, but found they could not. Schechter found the same canceling of galactic motion centered on the Earth-based observer as did the Rubin team.

Paul L. Schechter, “On the Solar Motion with Respect to External Galaxies,” Astronomical Journal, vol. 82, August 1977, pp. 569-576

Not only does the new scientific evidence show us that Earth is in the center of these heavenly bodies, it may also require us to accept that the universe is much smaller than Big Bang hypothesizers have led us to believe. Note this admission from the previous author:

On the other hand, if the redshifts displayed by the object were false indicators of recession velocity, then the sources could be nearby and the problem of the energy source would go away.

But the implications of this explanation were even more horrifying to astronomers. If some entirely unknown physical mechanism could mimic the Doppler displacement of the emission lines of a receding object, then the whole concept of an expanding universe would be thrown into question; the Hubble scale of cosmic distances an essential tool for both astronomers and cosmologists would have to be discarded.

Not only does Varshni’s evidence compel him to dismiss Einstein’s Relativity, but Edwin Hubble’s theory that the universe is expanding is also suspect. Varshni’s astounding evidence has also been confirmed by other astrophysicists, with even more extensive studies.

The Ukrainian team of N. A. Zhuck, V. V. Moroz, A. A. Varaksin, who examined 23,760 quasars, confirm the following:

Regularity in quasar allocation…revealing that the quasars are grouped in thin walls of meshes [with] quasars spatial distribution in spherical and Cartesian coordinates…quasars have averages of distribution, root-mean-square diversion and correlation factors, typical for uniform distribution of random quantities; in smaller gauges the quasars are grouped in thin walls of meshes…. It is impossible to term these results, and the results of other similar investigations, as ordinary accidental coincidence. Obviously we have the facts confirming that the quasars are distributed uniformly in the universe…

“Quasars and the Large Scale Structure of the Universe,” N. A. Zhuck, V. V. Moroz, A. A. Varaksin, Spacetime and Substance, International Physical Journal, Ukraine, Vol. 2, No. 5 (10) 2001, p. 193, 196

They conclude that the “quasars’ allocation in meshes correlates with galaxy allocation,” which means that the same spherical groupings noticed in quasars are also true for galaxies.

In addition, their evidence brings them to the same conclusion as Varshni’s in the discovery of the distribution of his quasars. The Ukrainian team states that their result “…confirms the concept of the stationary inconvertible universe and to reject [the] concept [of a] dynamic dilating universe which [was] erroneously formed in the XXth century and taking a beginning from a so-called Big Bang….Such a model is based on the non-steady solutions of the Einsteinian equations obtained by Soviet geophysicist and mathematician Friedmann at the beginning of the 1920s and the dynamics of the exploding commencement…advanced by American physicist Gamov at the end of the 1940s.”

(from Galileo Was Wrong)

DARK FLOW II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936995#msg1936995 (Dark Flow, part I)



Dark flow may extend across the entire observable Universe.

Dr. Alexander Kashlinsky (senior staff scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, PhD Cambridge):

The measurements of the “Dark Flow” (DF) take on additional importance due to the fact that the DF may be the most direct observational link thus far to the physics of the Quantum Cosmology era.


The cosmological implications of the large-scale motion of galaxy clusters are as follows.

Dark Flow totally defies the law of "universal" gravitation.

Dark Flow completely disobeys the theory of General Relativity.

"According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old; yet the gravitational attractor, tugging only on galaxy clusters, is some 32-34 billion light years away. Additionally, this gravitational force is unique and selective in its action; only affecting galaxy clusters, but not everything else. Gravity undoubtedly must affect the motion of all massive bodies and, therefore, since it is pulling the galaxy clusters, it should be pulling everything else to it, not just galaxy clusters, based on Newtonian Law.

In terms of Einstein, the identical problem exists. A massive object outside the Universe has warped space to cause galaxy clusters to move toward or away from it; that warping of space should do the same for all matter in the Universe. In terms of Dark Energy, all galaxies are supposedly moving away from each other and, therefore, would not also, at the same time, permit only galaxy clusters to not follow this expansion, but move to or away from a preferred area. If Dark Energy existed, these galaxy clusters should also be moving away from one another in different directions.

These clear-cut findings defy the Big Bang theory and, thus, have made the Dark Flow evidence very unwelcome for many cosmologists."





Newton's law of universal gravitation is totally DEFIED on a grand cosmic scale by the large scale motion of the galaxy clusters.

Einstein's GTR is made completely useless by Dark Flow.

In a series of papers over the past three years, Kashlinsky and his colleagues have shown that the huge region of space in which we live a region at least 2.5 billion light-years across is moving relative to the rest of the universe, and fast, in total defiance to the accepted laws of gravitation.


In an important development, published in the peer reviewed and prestigious journal Physical Review D, cosmologist C. Tsagas has proven that the universe either has dark flow or dark energy, but not both. Tsagas argues that the dark flow is skewing our perspective on the behavior of the universe as a whole. Without considering the dark flow, but just knowing that light we observe from nearby galaxies left its source more recently than light from galaxies farther away, we get the false impression that the whole of space recently entered an accelerating phase. According to Tsagas' work, the acceleration of the universe in our immediate vicinity is caused by its motion alone. The universe beyond our region isn't accelerating outward; rather, it is safely rolling to a stop.

In other words, given the irrefutable evidence for Dark Flow, the invocation of the existence of "dark energy," a mysterious, invisible substance that permeates space and drives its outward expansion to account for the "expanding" universe hypothesis, is no longer possible.

Then, modern cosmology has another quandary on its hands: it claims that 95% of the known universe is not observable (dark matter and dark energy), while at the same time it dismisses the aether/ether theory on the same grounds.

But ether drift can be detected:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

Dark Flow not only defies Newtonian graviation and GTR, but also proves that there is no such thing as dark energy.

https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/426/1/L36/988475/Dark-flows-and-the-cosmological-axis (C. Tsagas, Dark flows and the cosmological axis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, Volume 426, Issue 1, 1 October 2012, Pages L36–L40)


In another outcome, based on the experimental data, scientists have proved that the space of the Universe revolves.

For example, Professor Michael Longo (University of Michigan in Ann Arbor), having studied [1,2] in the framework of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) database project SDSS DR5, which contains about 40,000 galaxies (of them - more than 15,000 spiral galaxies), for where the value of redshift z < 0.04, came to the conclusion that the number of left twisted spiral galaxies is much larger than spiral galaxies swirling right.

Conclusions of professor Michael Longo were confirmed by a group of scientists led by Professor Lior Shamir (Lawrence Technological University).

They investigated about 250 thousand spiral galaxies, for which the value of redshift z < 0.3. Professor Lior Shamir also found that galaxies to the left more than to the right. Symmetry breaking between the right- and left - twisted spiral galaxies is about seven percent, but the probability that is a cosmic accident is very low - claims Professor Michael Longo. The results of research professors Michael Longo and Lior Shamir contradict the notion that the Universe is homogeneous and symmetric.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269311003947

http://ccapp.osu.edu/workshops/GLCW8/glcw8/talks/mLongo.pdf

The stakes here are big. If there is a preferred direction:

Cosmological principle is violated. ("On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.")

Einstein Equivalence is violated. (“The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the freely-falling reference frame in which it is performed.”)

Lior Shamir, ”Handedness asymmetry of spiral galaxies with z¡0.3 shows cosmic parity
violation and a dipole axis”, Physics Letters B, Volume 715, Issues 1-3, 29 August 2012,
Pages 25-29.


Most cosmologists have no idea that Kurt Godel provided an exact solution of the Einstein field equations that described a rotating universe.

Dark Flow is simply the rotation of the heavenly bodies contained within the space between the two aether domes. It also detected the existence of the second dome, within the flat earth theory context.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/-is-the-universe-spinning-new-research-says-yes.html


Concerning the Cavendish experiment, in the official chronology of history, Cavendish discovered that when he heated one of the objects the attraction between the objects increased. For over two hundred years the physics establishment has either ignored, or tried to explain away, this result.

Cavendish discovered that "the arm moved backwards, in the same manner that it before move forward". Gravity is not supposed to involve repulsion. The second result was that after heating one of the weights "the effect was so much increased, that the arm was drawn 14 division aside, instead of about three". Heating one of the weights increased the attraction. The heating increased the emission of the weight and when this was absorbed by the other weight it increased the attraction.

Therefore, the Cavendish experiment proved that gravity effects varied with temperature. Convection currents fail to explain how such an effect could be observed.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840 (Dr. F. Nipher experiments: the relationship between gravitation and the electric field)

WHEN DID SHAKESPEARE LIVE? II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1620012#msg1620012 (part I, includes the fact that the references to Paul in the plays could not have been made in the early part of the 17th century and that Shakespeare owned a copy of Ortelius' maps dated 1570, which feature Pompeii and Herculaneum as thriving cities in Italy, 1570AD)

In The Great Cryptogram, by Ignatius Donnelly, extraordinary circumstantial evidence is invoked to prove that both the plays attributed to Shakespeare and the works published by Francis Bacon were written by one and the same person.

https://archive.org/stream/greatcryptogramf00donnrich#page/n12/mode/1up

The author of the Shakespearean plays had a very good knowledge of Latin and Greek.

"The greater part of the story of Timon was taken from the  untranslated Greek of Lucian."

"Shakespeare's plays," says White, " show forty per cent of  Romance or Latin words, which is probably a larger proportion  than is now used by our best writers; certainly larger than is  heard from those who speak their mother tongue with spontaneous, idiomatic correctness."

"The writer was a classical scholar. Rowe found traces in him of the Electra of Sophocles; Colman, of Ovid; Pope, of Dares Phrygius, and other Greek authors; Farmer, of Horace and Virgil; Malone, of Lucretius, Statius, Catullus, Seneca, Sophocles, and Euripides; Stevens, of Plautus; Knight, of the Antigone of Sophocles; and White, of the Alcestis of Euripides.

White says:

His very frequent use of Latin derivatives in their radical sense shows a somewhat thoughtful and observant study of that language.

White further says:

Where, even in Plutarch's pages, are the aristocratic republican tone and the tough muscularity of mind, which characterized the Romans, so embodied as in Shakespeare's Roman plays? Where, even in Homer's song, the subtle wisdom of the crafty Ulysses, the sullen selfishness and conscious martial might of broad Achilles; the blundering courage of thick-headed Ajax ; or the mingled gallantry and foppery of Paris, so vividly portrayed as in Troilus and CreSsida ?

Knight says:

The marvelous accuracy, the real, substantial learning, of the three Roman plays of Shakespeare present the most complete evidence to our minds that they were the result of a profound study of the whole range of Roman history, including the nicer details of Roman manners, not in those days to be acquired in a compendious form, but to be brought out by diligent reading alone."

"And again:

In his Roman plays he appears co-existent with his wonderful characters, and to have read all the obscure pages of Roman history with a clearer eye than philosopher or historian. When he employs Latinisms in the construction of his sentences, and even in the creation of new words, he does so with singular facility and unerring correctness.

Appleton Morgan says:

In Antony and Cleopatra, Charmian suggests a game of billiards. But this is not, as is supposed, an anachronism, for the human encyclopedia who wrote that sentence appears to have known — what very few people know nowadays — that the game of billiards is older than Cleopatra."

Alexander Schmidt, in his lexicon, under the word Adonis, quotes the following lines from Shakespeare:

Thy promises are like Adonis' gardens,

That one day bloomed and fruitful were the next. 

Upon which Schmidt comments:

Perhaps confounded with the garden of King Alcinous in the Odyssey?

Richard Grant White says:

No mention of any such garden in the classic writings of Greece and Rome is known to scholars.

But the writer of the plays, who, we are told, was no scholar, had penetrated more deeply into the classic writings than his learned critics; and a recent commentator, James D. Butler, has found out the source of this allusion. He says:

This couplet must have been suggested by Plato. (Phaedrus, p. 276.) The translation is Jowett's — that I may not be suspected of warping the original to fit my theory:

Would a husbandman, said Socrates, who is a man of sense, take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to be fruitful, and in sober earnest plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? Would he not do that, if at all, to please the spectators at a festival? But the seeds about which he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practices husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months they arrive at perfection.

Here we clearly have the original of the disputed passage:

Thy promises are like Adonis' gardens,

That one day bloomed and fruitful were the next. "

"W. O. Follett in his pamphlet, Addendum to Who Wrote Shakespeare, quotes a remark of the brothers Langhorne in the preface to their translation of the Lives of Plutarch, to this effect:

It is said by those who are not willing to allow Shakspere much learning, that he availed himself of the last mentioned translation [of Plutarch, by Thomas North]. But they seem to forget that, in order to support their arguments of this kind, it is necessary for them to prove that Plato, too, was translated into English at the same time; for the celebrated soliloquy, " To be or not to be," is taken almost verbatim from that philosopher; yet we have never found that Plato was translated in those times. "

"The story of Othello was taken from the Italian of Cinthio's II Capitano More, of which no translation is known to have existed; the tale of Cymbeline was drawn from an Italian novel of Boccaccio, not known to have been translated into English, and the like is true of other plays.

Richard Grant White conclusively proves that the writer of Othello had read the Orlando Furioso in the original Italian; that the very words are borrowed as well as the thought; and that the author adhered to the expressions in the Italian where the only translation then in existence had departed from them. The same high authority also shows that in the famous passage, "Who steals my purse steals trash," etc., the writer of Othello borrowed from the Orlando Innatnorato of Berni, "of which poem to this day there is no English version."

"It further appears that Shakespeare found the original of The Merchant of Venice in an untranslated Italian novel. Mr. Collier says:

In the novel Il Pecorone of Giovanni Fiorentino, we have the words in the Italian: li chel Giudeo gli potesse levare una libra di came d'addosso di qualumque luogo e' voiesse," which are so nearly like those of Shakespeare as to lead us to believe that he followed here some literal translation of the novel in Il Pecorone. None such has, however, reached our time, and the version we have printed at the foot of the Italian was made and published in 1765."

The plot of Hamlet was taken from Saxo Grammaticus, the Danish historian, of whom, says Peter Whalley (An Enquiry into the Learning of Shakespeare) writing in 1748, "no translation hath yet been made."  So that it would appear the author of Hamlet must have read the Danish chronicle in the original tongue."

"In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare places Romeo in a sycamore grove outside the walls of Verona. Shakespeare scholar Richard Roe has gone to all the locations in Italy and when he went to Verona he found there was a huge ancient grove of sycamores there. Some people say Shakespeare picked that up from a traveller but what traveller, having seen Venice and all the antiquities, would remark on a grove of sycamores outside Verona? No one would. That is the observation of someone who has been there."

In Act I Scene I, Benvolio tells Romeo’s mother:

underneath the grove of sycamore

That westward rooteth from the city’s side,

So early did I see your son…



BOOK I.— THE ARGUMENT.

PART I.

WILLIAM SHAKSPERE DID NOT WRITE THE PLAYS.

Chapter I. — The Learning of the Plays, 13

II. — Shakspere's .Education, 27

III. — Shakspere's Real Character, 44

IV. — The Lost Manuscripts and Library, 73

V. — The Author of the Plays a Lawyer, 102

PART II.

FRANCIS BACON THE REAL AUTHOR OF THE PLAYS.

Chapter I. — Francis Bacon a Poet, 121

II. — The Author of the Plays a Philosopher, 149

III. — The Geography of the Plays, 161

IV. — The Politics of the Plays, 173

V. — The Religion of the Plays, 196

VI. — The Purposes of the Plays, 212

VII. — The Reasons for Concealment, 246

VIII. — Corroborating Circumstances, 259

PART III.

PARALLELISMS.

Chapter I. — Identical Expressions, 295

II. — Identical Metaphors, 335

III. — Identical Opinions, 370

IV. — Identical Quotations, 397

V. — Identical Studies, 411

VI. — Identical Errors, -437

VII. — Identical Use of Unusual Words, 444

VIII. — Identities of Character, 462

IX. — Identities of Style, 481


But the works attributed to Francis Bacon must have been written much later in time, at least after 1750AD.

http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4649/1/John_Dee_and_the_English_Calendar__Science%2C_Religion_and_Empire_by_Robert_Poole___Institute_of_Historical_Research.pdf

"John Dee concluded that the calendar had indeed slipped out of line by ten days since the time of the council of Nicaea, but more to the point that it had slipped by eleven days since the time of Christ. An eleven-day alteration, to the time of Christ, rather than a ten-day alteration to the time of Nicaea, was needed, concluded Dee."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg758652#msg758652

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.

Gauss' Easter formula proves that the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD, and that the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 743 AD (and not in the year 325 AD).

And John Dee was Francis Bacon's mentor, in the official chronology of history.

WHEN DID SHAKESPEARE LIVE? III

“So far as anybody actually knows and can prove, Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon never wrote a play in his life.”

M. Twain

“It is undeniably painful to all of us that even now we do not know who was the author of the Comedies, Tragedies and Sonnets of Shakespeare.”

S. Freud


https://doubtaboutwill.org/

https://doubtaboutwill.org/pdfs/SAC_beyond_reasonable_doubt_1.pdf


"How could an untraveled, poorly-schooled commoner have written so widely on topics about which he would have had no first-hand knowledge – court intrigue, the legal process, life in other countries, even stories and information that had never been translated into English?"

https://doubtaboutwill.org/declaration

The following are among the many outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen of the past who have expressed doubt that Mr. “Shakspere” wrote the works of William Shakespeare:

Mark Twain
Henry James
Walt Whitman
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Sir George Greenwood
Orson Welles
Tyrone Guthrie
Charlie Chaplin
Sir John Gielgud
Hugh Trevor-Roper
William James
Sigmund Freud
Clifton Fadiman
John Galsworthy
Mortimer J. Adler
Paul H. Nitze
Lord Palmerston
William Y. Elliott
Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English professors. Brunel University in West London, and Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, now offer degree programs in authorship studies.

https://doubtaboutwill.org/past_doubters


And yet none of these famous thinkers have issued the most important and pertaining question: WHEN were the works/plays attributed to Shakespeare actually created?




Unpathed Waters: Studies in the Influence of the Voyages on Elizabethan Literature (Robert R Cawley)

The Works of Francis Bacon, Volume II, p. 208



A Companion to Global Historical Thought


http://alteagallery.com/stock_detail.php?ref=11185

ORTELIUS, Abraham.
Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. Antwerp: Gillis van den Rade, 1575. Folio, contemporary full calf gilt rebacked, bookplate on front pastedown; engraved titlepage in original colour with gold highlights including a mss presentation inscription from Anthony Bacon; pp. (xix), 70 maps, as called for, in original hand colour, five maps with minor repairs to either centrefold or margin.
A fine example of the first regularly produced atlas, as well as an important association copy, with a gilt mss presentation inscription from Anthony Bacon to "B. Turræo Italo DDD". Anthony Bacon (1558-1601), foster-brother of Francis Bacon and nephew of William Cecil, Lord Burghley.



Ortelius' atlas "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum"

Map "Regnum Neapolitanum", 1570, which features Pompeii as a thriving city in full activity:





https://www.ideararemaps.com/en/product/regni-neapolitani/


Thus Anthony Bacon and Francis Bacon had full knowledge of the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum map which exhibited in plain view the city of Pompeii in 1570 AD.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (five consecutive messages, a full analysis of the fact that Pompeii and Herculaneum were destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius volcano at least after 1750 AD: maps, paleomagnetic dating, frescoes)


Official chronology information about Sebastian Munster’s Cosmographia:

Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia was an immensely influential book that attempted to describe the entire world across all of human history and analyze its constituent elements of geography, history, ethnography, zoology and botany. First published in 1544 it went through thirty-five editions and was published in five languages, making it one of the most important books of the Reformation period.

Sebastian Münster: Cosmographia, "1544 AD", p. 479:



The eruption of Vesuvius is now set as the year 79 AD and Pliny’s Historia Naturalis is described by Munster as having been a major influence upon his own work.

http://www.mapforum.com/10/10munster.htm

Amazingly, then, for the 1588 edition of the Cosmographia, Sebastian Henricpetri substituted new maps taken from Ortelius, but using woodcuts cut in emulation of the copperplate style of Ortelius's maps, even the Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570).


Shakespeare's plays and Bacon's works were created during the later decades of the 18th century.

POMPEII - HERCULANEUM: 1725 - 1778 VI

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (parts I-V, five consecutive messages)

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=

On the way from Naples to the south to Torre Annunziata, 15 kilometers from Naples, one can see a monument on the façade of the Villa Pharao Mennela, an epitaph for the victims of the eruption of Vesuvius in 1631, on two stone slabs with the text in the Latin language , On one of these are the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum, as well as Resina and Portici, in the list of destroyed cities.

AT O
VIII ET LX POST ANNO XVII CALEND (AS) IANUARII
PHILIPPO IV REGE
FUMO, FLAMMIS, BOATU
CONCUSSO CINERE ERUPTIOHE
HORRIFICUS, FERUS SI UNQUAM VESUVIUS
NEC NOMEN NEC FASCES TANTI VIRI EXTIMUIT QUIPPE, EXARDESCENTE CAVIS SPECUBUS IGN, IGNITUS, FURENS, IRRUGIA,
EXITUM ELUCTANS. COERCITUSAER, IACULATUS TRANS HELLESPONTUMDISIECTO VIOLENTER MONTISCULMINE,
IMMANI ERUPIT HIATU POSTRIDGE,
CINEREM
PONE TRAFFIC AD EXPLENDAM VICEM PELAGUS IMMITE PELAGUS
FLUVIOS SULPHUREOS FLAMMATUM BITUMEN,
FOETAS ALUMINE CAUTES,
INFORME CUIUSQUE METALLI RUDUS,
MIXTUM AQUARUM VOIURINIBUS IGNEM
FEBRVEM (QUE) UNDANTE FUMO CINEREM
SESEQ (UE) FUNESTAMQ (UE) COLLLUVIEM
IUGO MONTIS EXONERANS
POMPEIOS HERCULANEUM OCTAVIANUM, PERSTRICTIS REАTINA ET PORTICU,
SILVASQ (UE), VILLASQ (UE), (UE)
MOMENTO STRAVIT, USSIT, DIRUIT
LUCTUOSAM PRAEA SE PRAEDAM AGENS
VASTUMQ (UE) TRIUNPHUM.
PERIERAT HOC QUOQ (UE) MARMORALTE SEPQLUM CONSULTISSIMI NO MONUMENTUM PROREGIS.
NE PEREAT
EMMAHUEZL FONSECA ET SUNICA COM (ES),
MONT IS RE (GIS) PROR (EX),
QUA ANIMI MAGNITUDINE PUBLICA CALAMITATI EA PRIVATAE CONSULUIT
EXTRACTUM FUNDITUS GENTIS SUI LAPIDEM.
COELO RESTITUIT, VIAM RESTAURAVIT,
FUMANTE ADHUC ET INDIGNANTE VESEVO.
AN (NO) SAL (UTIS) MDCXXXV,
PRAEFECTO VIARUM
ANTONIO SUARES MESSIA MARCHI (ONE) VICI.






Pompeii Grafitti, gladiators with helmets which feature mobile visors, a XVth century invention (official chronology of history):

WHEN DID SHAKESPEARE LIVE? IV

Shakespeare in Italy



“A fascinating look at a largely untouched aspect of Shakespeare’s identity and influences. Recommended for Shakespeare enthusiasts and scholars as well as travelers looking for a new perspective, this is also particularly intriguing as a companion to specific plays.” (Library Journal (starred review))

“An exceptionally entertaining, enlightening, and handsome companion for a thrillingly literate Italian sojourn.” (Booklist)

“Exciting, original, and convincing....This book is essential reading for all concerned with who really wrote the works of Shakespeare. A thrilling journey of discovery.” (Sir Derek Jacobi)

“This is a revolutionary and revelatory book, part thrilling detective story and part sober scholarly treatise.” (Michael York, Shakespearean actor of stage and screen and co-author of A Shakespearean Actor Prepares)

“This represents a hugely significant intervention in the study of Shakespeare and his dramatic works.” (Dr. William Leahy, Head of the School of Arts, Shakespeare Authorship Studies, Brunel University)

“Unless someone can prove him wrong, anyone who claims to have written the plays of Shakespeare needs to show some Italian travel documents.” (Mark Rylance, Founding Artistic Director, Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, London)

Richard Paul Roe spent more than twenty years traveling the length and breadth of Italy on a literary quest of unparalleled significance.

Using the text from Shakespeare’s ten “Italian Plays” as his only compass, Roe determined the exact locations of nearly every scene in Romeo and Juliet, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado about Nothing, The Tempest, and the remaining dramas set in Italy. His chronicle of travel, analysis, and discovery paints with unprecedented clarity a picture of what the author of the Shakespearean plays must have experienced before penning his plays.

Equal parts literary detective story and vivid travelogue—containing copious annotations and more than 150 maps, photographs, and paintings—The Shakespeare Guide to Italy is a unique, compelling, and deeply provocative journey that will forever change our understanding. . . and irrevocably alter our vision of who William Shakespeare really was."


http://www.shakespeare-today.de/index.203.0.1.html (review by some of the greatest Shakespearean actors)

"The so-called Italy plays of Shakespeare are the subject of Roe’s tremendous inquiry, and his more than two decades of painstaking investigation and research have resulted in the landmark book, The Shakespeare Guide to Italy, Retracing the Bard’s Unknown Travels.

Roe, not coincidentally an attorney as well as an author, does something never before achieved: he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the playwright of Romeo and Juliet, Much Ado About Nothing, and the eight (yes, ten plays in total, to be clarified below) other Shakespeare plays set in Italy actually went to Italy.

Roe upends the centuries-old truism that would have us believe that the author invented a fanciful version of Italy filled with myriad factual errors.  In fact, Roe demonstrates, it is the scholars who have erred.  Their sin, dating from the early 18th century “biographers” of Shakespeare to modern editors of the Arden, Riverside, Folger et al editions of the plays, is to never do what Roe does: go to the source, the land in question, Italy.

Now that Roe has proved the writer was there, he has, in essence, thrown the Stratford-centric theory of authorship on the dust heap of faulty theories, because there is absolutely no evidence that man who signed his name Shaksper, Shakspe, Shakspere and Shakespeare, and who hailed from Stratford, ever left the shores of his mother country."


https://deveresociety.co.uk/articles/review-2012March-cole-roe.pdf


"If Shakespeare was never personally in Italy, then...

- How did he know there are sycamore trees on Verona’s west side?

- How did he receive the precise knowledge of Milan to know that, even though Mantua and Verona are due east, the fastest way to get to them was through Milan’s north and not east gate, which led to rice marches, unpaved roads and uncrossable tributaries?

- How did Shakespeare know that the inland city of Bergamo was famous for sail-making?

- How did he know that Guilio Romano, known in England as a painter, was also a sculptor?

- How did he know that the Venetian “Doge” was called a “Duke”?

- How did he know that in Florence there was a lodging house for pilgrims named “Saint Francis” beside the port on the way to the pilgrimage site of “San Giacomo Maggiore”?

- How did he know that in Padua there is a lodging house, merchant homes and the parish church of  St Luke’s all by the port?

- How did he know that in Milan there was a place, not on any map in England, called “St. Gregory’s Well,”?

- How did he know that in Venice there is a dark, narrow street called the Sagittary, where the arrow makers lived?

- How did he know about the common ferry that brought visitors to Venice, and the precise distance between Belmont and Venice?

- How did he know there was a statue on the Rialto called “El Gobbo”?

- How did Shakespeare know that in the floor of the Sienna cathedral was a circular mosaic that depicted the Seven Ages of Man… used by him in Jacques famous seven ages of man speech in As You Like It ?"


Roe's book one chapter at a time, highlights from Chapter 1.

1C. Saint Peter’s Church [Act III, Sc. 5]. Though no scene is set there it is mentioned in connection with Juliet. No other version of the story mentions it, so why would Shakespeare? And why this church name of all others. Roe reasoned it had to be the Capulet parish church. Even the modern local guides don’t seem aware of it as the author did, suggesting he had a ‘keen knowledge of the layout of Verona’. For instance, though unaware of the Capulet church, the modern locals realize that the early fight scene would have been fought at the end of Via Cappello, at Stradone San Fermo, when the Stradone was called ‘il Corso.’“ So if Shakespeare knew something that even the modern locals don’t know that would be an indication of his intimate knowledge of the town. Roe found four Saint Peter’s churches that had been there around Shakespeare’s time. He found one perfectly located. The San Pietro Incarnario is the local parish church on the direct path from the Capulet home to the cell of Friar Francis.

4G. Twice in the play is there a line saying “Pisa, renowned for grave citizens” (1,1 and 4,2). Yet in my edition of the play there is no note offering any explanation for the citizens being renowned for their being grave. Roe explains it, which the author obviously knew as well since he uses the pun several times. At the Campo Santo, were entombed in stately marble structures, often quite large, the elite or honored citizens of Pisa. It was a place of quite renown and still is a major tourist site today.

4H. Finally, the author also knew, unlike editors who find it hard to believe for a city far from the sea, that “Bergamo was the principal source of sails for the Mediterranean world”. Would this likely be another casual comment a traveler would make, if they would even be likely to know it, and that the Stratford William would just happen to hear? And even if possible, would it be as likely as that learned by a genuine English traveler through Northern Italy?

https://www.playshakespeare.com/forum/authorship-debate-and-apocrypha/6887-shakespeare-and-italy?limitstart=10


Titian’s Painting of “Venus and Adonis”



"Professor Magri further researched Italian Renaissance Art in the Shakespeare works.

Let's start with Shakespeare's 'first heir' of his invention, Venus and Adonis.

Her main argument here is that this poem was NOT based on the literary work of Ovid or Virgil, nor even Titian's painting that is called Venus and Adonis. This one is called the Prado version.

Rather, she says, it was based on a version of this Titian painting that was present, at that time, only in Venice. The Prado version does have strong similarities to Shakespeare's poem. You may enjoy examining this painting as it and the poem are described. One problem for this version as the poem source is its location. Titian had created it for Philip II of Spain, son of Emperor Charles V. It was intended for the marriage of Philip to Queen Mary Tudor, Elizabeth's half-sister. The painting was brought to London in September of 1554 for the marriage. However, Philip left England in 1555 and took all his Titian paintings with him. It was not there for any chance for Stratford's Shakspere. This Prado V&A has remained in the Royal Collection of Madrid since 1556. And so there was hardly anyone in England then who could have seen it and enable it to be sourced when Shakespeare's poem was written.

Magri says that the V&A myth in Ovid's Metamorphoses "is totally different from Titian". In Ovid, but not in the painting and not in the Shakespeare's poem, Adonis responds favorably to Venus' love for him. Many other artists, following Ovid, represent Adonis as "a tender, sweet, even sensuous lover". But "Titian departed from the Ovidian source". She then gives details of how the poem and painting correspond.

Five versions of Titian's V&A are considered as possible matches to the poem, and only one fits it faithfully. This one is the Barberini version, now in Rome. The main parallels between this particular painting and Shakespeare's poem are:
•   Venus invites Adonis to sit down by her [The painting seems to show him just after standing up to leave her].
•   She keeps embracing him, and is sure she will win him.
•   He is resolute to return to the boar hunt and tries to twist away from her.
•   He looks at her "all askance".
•   Venus shed tears. [the painting, after recent restoration, showed faded traces of paint on her cheeks that suggest tears].

In addition, Magri shows how Shakespeare alluded to an actual painting, rather than of a narrative, of the subject matter:

Fie, lifeless picture, cold and senseless stone
Well-painted idol, image dull and dead
Statue contenting but the eye alone

Similarly with Adonis' horse:

Look when a painter would surpass the life
In limning out a well-porportion'd steed,
His art with nature's workmanship at strife

Finally, ONLY in the Barberini painting does Adonis wear a 'bonnet'.

"And with his bonnet (which) hides his angry brow"
"Bonnet nor veil henceforth no creature wear"
"And therefore would he put his bonnet on"
"The wind would blow it off""

"The author of Venus and Adonis by “William Shakespeare” (1593) describes a painting by Tiziano Vecellio, or Titian, in which Adonis wears a bonnet or cap.

This was the only Titian painting with that detail and, during Shakespeare’s time, it could have been seen only at Titian’s home in Venice.

I continue to be struck by the simplicity and clarity of this piece of factual evidence presented in an article by the brilliant scholar Dr. Noemi Magri.

In her essay, entitled The Influence of Italian Renaissance Art on Shakespeare’s Works; Titian’s Barberini Painting: the Pictorial Source of “Venus and Adonis,” Dr. Magri writes that Titian made many replicas of his work and that Shakespeare based his poem on the only autographed replica in which Adonis wears a bonnet or hat:

“Titian’s painting was his source of inspiration, the thing that stimulated him to write a poem about this subject though he also had a thorough knowledge of Ovid … Shakespeare describes the painting in detail: he portrays the painting in words and the description is too faithful to ascribe it to mere coincidence…

“It is evident that Shakespeare’s Adonis is wearing a hat, a bonnet.  The mention of the bonnet is not coincidental.  This is the detail here taken as evidence of the pictorial source.”

With one fair hand she heaveth up his hat – line 351

Bonnet nor veil henceforth no creature wear – line 1081

And therefore would he put his bonnet on – line 1087"


But now, both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have a huge problem.

It was first observed by the great Swiss historian, Dr. Christoph Pfister.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (C. Pfister archive, who discovered that there was no human settlement prior to 1700 AD in Switzerland, and that all gothic/medieval buildings and all ancients documents pertaining to the period 500 AD - 1600 AD were actually created in the 18th Century AD)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830487#msg1830487 (C. Pfister archive II)



Abbildung 11: Italienische oder pompejanische Renaissance:
Tizian: Liegende Kurtisane (unten) und liegende Mänade aus
Pompeji (oben)
Abbildung der Mänade aus: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabiae, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

Figure 11: Italian Renaissance and Pompeian:
Titian: Horizontal courtesan (below) and from lying maenad
Pompeii (top)
Figure out the maenad: Pietro Giovanni Guzzo: Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, Oplontis;
Napoli 2003, 75

The well-known painting by Titian copied perfectly at Pompeii...

As Titian did not have at his disposal a space-time machine to take him back to the year 79 AD, we can only infer that the authors of both paintings/frescoes were contemporaries, perhaps separated only by a few decades in time.

"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."


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=


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1683424#msg1683424 (Pompeii-Herculaneum, 1725-1778, five consecutive messages)

TORONTO - NEW PHOTOGRAPHS II

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616955#msg1616955 (part I)

Another photograph signed Ms. Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km (Grimsby-Toronto), the boat is not part of either an ascending slope or a descending slope:



Two photographs taken from the Niagara escarpment: the boats are not part of either an ascending slope or a descending slope, no curvature of 59 meters whatsoever all the way to the other shoreline:




Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:










Let us increase the distance to 33.6 km, zero curvature (supposed to be 22 meters), Oakville - Toronto:



We now go to Etobicoke, some 6 miles from Toronto, no 1,8 meter curvature, no ascending slope:





There is no curvature whatsoever across lake Ontario.

DUFOUR-PRUNIER EXPERIMENT

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdf

A. Dufour and F. Prunier created Sagnac interferometers that were composites of moving and stationary paths, including stationary sources and stationary detectors. This was essentially to test if the relativistic approach could be distinguished from the classical approach.

"In all cases of this experimental test, the Sagnac effect was the same. This overturned Langevin’s analysis, and in 1937, he had to revise his explanation, as pointed out by Kelly: 

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

In 1939, Dufour and Prunier carried out their
final experiment. They did a test with both the
beginning and end of the light path on the
spinning disc, but with the middle portion of
the path reflected off mirrors fixed in the
laboratory (directly above the disc). In this
test, they had both the light emitter and the
photographic recorder fixed in the laboratory.

The fringe shifts resulting from all the above
Dufour and Prunier tests were the same as in
their original Sagnac-type tests.

In 1942 Dufour and Prunier published a
composite paper reviewing their total
experimental work to date. At the end of this
paper they state that "the relativity theory
seems to be in complete disagreement with the
result which was garnered from the
experiment ".

Herbert Ives, Light Signals Sent Around a Closed Path:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf

 Ives was a pioneer in the development of television at Bell Telephone Laboratories.  The following quotations are from his 1938 article.
 
     The experiment was interpreted by its author as positive evidence for the existence of the luminiferous ether…

     It is the purpose of this paper first to show that the Sagnac experiment in its essentials involves no consideration of rotation, and second to investigate the results obtained when transported clocks are used.
 
Ives analyzed the Sagnac experiment using a hexagonal path rather than a circular one.
 
He concluded with this statement:
 
     The net result of this study appears to be to leave the argument of Sagnac as to the significance of his experiment as strong as it ever was.

The Sagnac effect is not due to rotation, but instead is a linear effect due to a true anisotropic light speed in a moving frame.

ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC: AN EXACT FORMULA

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3912&start=60

"Let tr = 4(Ar)(wr)/c² be the sagnac for the rotation and
to = 4(Ao)(wo)/c² be the sagnac for the orbit.

Let's choose distance for the experiment say 30km.
Light takes 0.0001 seconds to travel for that distance.
In that time period, it is your contention that tr/to > 1. That is your whole point.

tr/to = 4(Ar)(wr)/c² / 4(Ao)(wo)/c² = (Ar)(wr)/(Ao)(wo)

The distance to the sun is 150,000,000 km
The linear speed of the earth's orbit is 30km/s
The earth's radius is 6360 km
The linear speed of the earth's rotation is 0.462 km/sec

Let's calculate the angular speed for each.
w = v/r
wr = 0.462/6360 = 7.264e-5
wo = 30/150,000,000 = 2.0e-7

A = (θ/360)πR²
To calculate θ/360 for the earth's rotation, it is θ/360 = 30km/ 2 π Rr
Hence, Ar = 30Rr/2 = 15 Rr

The same is true for Ao
Ao = 15 Ro

So,
Ar = 15 Rr = 15 * 6360 = 93900
Ao = 15 Ro = 15 * ( 150,000,000 ) = 2250000000

Now, lets do the ratio of tr/to
tr/to = (Ar wr ) / (Ao wo ) = (93900 * 7.264e-5) / (2250000000 * 2.0e-7) = 6.82 / 450 = 0.015

As we can see, the rotational sagnac in any time period is smaller than the orbit.

In fact, the orbital is 450/6.82 = 66.
This is consistent with my logic.

The earth's orbital speed is 30km/s and the rotational is 0.462.
30/0.462 = 66.

As we can see, the ratio of the sagnacs is based only on the linear speeds of each and the orbital sagnac is 66 times greater for two way. One way is half that. It is not at all based on the ratios of the angular speeds. We can see with math that is false."


But the orbital Sagnac is not being registered/recorded by the GPS satellites, which means the Earth is stationary:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1917978#msg1917978

ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC: AN EXACT FORMULA II

(ω_oR_o)/(ω_rr_r) = v_o/v_r


The orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac at least by a factor of 60.

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3912&start=60

"A = π r ²

It is A = π r ² only if the light makes a complete circle back to the receiver.

Since we are dealing with 30 km, we must use the area of a sector of the circle representing the 30 km.

The normal derivation is

2πr ( 1/ (c-v) - 1/(c+v))

The 2πr is the distance between the emitter and the receiver for the light path.

Now, we do not have the full 2πr. We only have a portion of it. So, we have 2πrK where 0 <= K <= 1. Remember, we must know the distance betweern the emitter and the receiver. Mathpages assumes light traversed the entire circle ± vt. That is not our experiment.

Now, let's continue.

∆t = 2πrK ( 1/ (c-v) - 1/(c+v)) = 2πrK ( 2v / ( c² - v²) ) = 4πrKv / (c² - v²).

Let's use angular velocity ω = v/r.

Hence,

∆t = 4πrKv / (c² - v²) = 4πr²Kω / (c² - v²)

Now, let's use the area created by the distance between the the emitter and the receiver.

A = Kπr²

∆t = 4πr²Kω / (c² - v²) = 4Aω / (c² - v²).

Since v is so small, it is usually eliminated from the denominator.

Hence,

∆t = 4Aω /c².

Now, let's try to understand A.

A = Kπr²

Since K is only a subset of the circumference, then K can be expressed as θ/360 since the full circumference is 360 degrees and we are only using a portion of it.

Hence, A = (θ/360) πr²

which is the familiar area of a sector of a circle.

Now, this is two way light travel and the total correction.


∆t = 4Aω /c²

Assume 30 km of a distance between the emitter and the receiver




Rotation of the earth

Earth radius 6378
ω - 7.292 e-5 radians/s

A = (θ/360) πr²

Calculate the number of degrees 30 km represents of the earth's circumference.

θ = (30) (360 ) / ( 2 π r ) = (30) (360 ) / ( 2 π 6378 ) = 0.27

A = (θ/360) πr² = (0.27/360) π (6378)² = 95798.77

Now for the calculation of the sagnac correction for 30 km
∆t = 4Aω /c² = 4 (95798.77)(7.292 e-5 )/c² = 3.105 e-10

So, the rotational sagnac is
∆t = 3.105 e-10




Orbit of the earth

Earth distance to sun 150,000,000
ω - 2.0 e-7

A = (θ/360) πr²

Calculate the number of degrees 30 km represents of the earth's orbit.

θ = (30) (360 ) / ( 2 π r ) = (30) (360 ) / ( 2 π 150,000,000 ) = 1.146 e-5

A = (θ/360) πr² = (1.146 e-5/360) π (150000000)² = 2249025000

Now for the calculation of the sagnac correction for 30 km
∆t = 4Aω /c² = 4 (2249025000)(2.0 e-7 )/c² = 2.0e-8

So, the orbital sagnac is
∆t = 2.0e-8


Now, let's go a little further to understand what this means.

Take the ratios of the two sagnacs

2.0e-8 / 3.105 e-10 = 64.4

The linear velocity of the rotation of the earth is 0.465 km/s
The linear velocity of the orbit of the earth is 30 km/s

Take the linear velocity ratios
30/ 0.465 = 64.5

Ths difference above is rounding.

Hence, this proves the sagnac correction is a function purely of the linear velocity NOT THE ANGULAR VELOCITY of the receiver on the circular path.

If this statement is false, then this ratio would have other factors so that sagnac ratio would not equal the linear velocity ratio."






"Satellites transmit their signal to Earth and that’s that.  There’s no transmission back to the satellites, or between satellites, and none of their signals are made to loop the equator.

(The notable exception would be in the synching of ground-monitoring stations.  There are six monitoring stations located roughly along the equator and these would need to be kept in-synch with each other.  Such a process would need to adjust for the Sagnac effect, in the shape of a loop, as the signal from the designated master station was transmitted to the others.)"

"The motion of the earth's orbit is also a sagnac effect. We should see light path distance differentials caused by the orbit just like we see if for earth's rotation.

The orbital path is simply longer and nothing else.

The earth - sun orbital frame is a sagnac rotating frame.

The Sagnac correction for the earth's rotation is applied because as the light moves toward the receiver, the receiver rotates with the earth changing the distance the signal travels.

In the same light, if the unit had been at the equator at noon, then it should see the full effect of the Sagnac effect of the earth's revolution around the sun.
In other words, assume a satellite is low on the horizon in the east at the equator.

We should measure a sagnac correction for the earth's rotation on its axis and a sagnac correction of the earth's rotation/revolution around the sun.
If sagnac is true for the earth's rotation, then light travels at one speed c. the speed of light cannot be increased by circular motion and presumably not by linear motion either.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.
The earth is rotating at 1000 mph. This shows up in GPS as c+v and c-v as you would expect with Sagnac.

All that is fine.

When the satellite emits at c, the earth rotates the receiver at v and so a correction is needed.

This is all OK.

Now, the earth is revolving around the sun at 67000 mph, as we are told by the heliocentrists.

Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Try to imagine the center of the earth as the sun and the earth's orbit as the surface. So, the earth is in a rotational/circular pattern in its orbit. Just like the rotational sagnac, the earth rotates toward where the satellite emitted the signal, and with the orbit, the earth, the unit is orbited toward where the signal was emitted.

Then we simply apply the well-known formula to this situation, where R = 150,000,000 km, v = wR (=30km/s).

The orbital Sagnac is much greater than the rotational Sagnac and that it is missing.


The path of the light signal from the GPS satellites to the receiver on the surface of the Earth is a uniform/translational Sagnac effect.

The delay is being caused not by the rotation of the Earth around its own axis (since the orbital Sagnac is totally missing), but by the rotation of the ether field above the surface of the flat earth.

Heliocentrists will state that there are two choices:

(a) a rotating Earth in a fixed ether, or

(b) a rotating ether above the surface of a fixed Earth


The reason that (a) must be excluded is the missing orbital Sagnac effect: if one claims that the Earth is rotating in a fixed ether, then in order to account for the four seasons, one must also say that the Earth is also revolving around the sun.






https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.


Faced with the missing orbital Sagnac effect, relativists have begun to renounce both STR/GTR and to rely on the local aether model (MLET, Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

http://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/qem/f3c.pdf

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


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


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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706


This means that the hypotheses of the RUDERFER EXPERIMENT are totally fulfilled:
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721 (M. Ruderfer experiment)

Given the outcome of the Michelson experiment (1881) which proved that the Earth does not move through ether, the results of the Ruderfer experiment prove one thing very directly: it is the dynamical ether which rotates above the surface of a stationary Earth.

When Michelson performed the experiment he did not see a significant shifting of fringes, at least not those he was expecting. Using a 600 nanometer wavelength of light, Michelson expected to see fringe shifts (or, as he called them, “displacement of the interference bands”) of at least 0.04 of a fringe width. The 0.04 figure corresponds to an Earth moving at 30 km/sec around the sun. If this was combined with what Michelson believed was the solar system’s apparent movement toward the constellation Hercules, the fringes should have shifted on the order of 0.10 of a fringe width. But Michelson didn’t see any fringe shifting close to either value.

The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous. This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.

Albert A. Michelson, “The relative motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous ether,”
The American Journal of Science, Vol. 3, No. 22, 1881, p. 128

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008 (fake special theory of relativity experiments)

ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC: AN EXACT FORMULA III


Satellites do not register/record the orbital Sagnac effect, which is at least 60 times greater than the rotational Sagnac effect.

The Stanford Gravity Probe B (GPB) experiment was mentioned above. It involves a mechanical gyroscope, but I know of no physicist who would argue that a mechanical and an optical gyroscope would give different results. It is the intent of GPB to measure the Lense-Thirring frame dragging from earth rotation and the geodetic precession (spinorbit and space curvature effects). The former will amount to about 0.05 arc seconds per year and the latter to about 6.9 arc seconds per year. By contrast, if the gyroscope were affected by the orbital rotation, an additional anomalous precession of 1,296,000 arc seconds per orbit results. This insensitivity of mechanical gyroscopes to orbital rotation is clearly illustrated by the early TRANSIT (Navy navigation) satellites. During launch the satellites acquired a large spin, and the satellites themselves acted like large mechanical gyroscopes. In order to point the transmit antenna toward the earth, a boom with attached mass had to be deployed to cause gravity-gradient stabilization. But the satellite spin had to be removed before the gravity-gradient stabilization could occur—precisely because a gyroscope is not itself affected by the orbital rotation.

Ronald Hatch

Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc.
Institute of Navigation (ION), including Chair of the Satellite Division, President and Fellow.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/


The local aether model hypothesized by the proponents of the MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) cannot be correct.

This local aether model is the last stand of the relativists, once they are confronted with the missing orbital Sagnac effect and with the result of the M. Ruderfer experiment.





Moreover, the local aether model has to be extended to the solar system, the Milky Way and to the Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies.



(ω_oR_o)/(ω_rr_r) = v_o/v_r

We can obtain the Galactic Sagnac effect formula and Universal Sagnac formula:





v_g/v_o = 240km/s/30km/s = 8

v_u/v_g = 600km/s/240km/s = 2.5

It is known that the speed of the Vela supercluster is some 14,500 km/s:

http://www.businessinsider.com/vela-galaxy-supercluster-discovered-2016-11



None of these Sagnac effects are being recorded by the GPS satellites.

As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals
which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)


The local aether model has to assume that geosynchronous satellites which orbit beyond the outer boundary of the ether envelope (20,000 km), at an altitude of 35,786 kilometers (22,236 mi) or at an altitude of 1,528,483 kilometers (1 million miles) (SOHO satellite)  will not register the orbital Sagnac effect in the same fashion as would the satellites which do orbit below the inner boundary of the ether envelope.

The LISA (Light Interferometer Space Antenna) poses another problem for the local aether model.






The proponents of the local aether model also have to assume that the gravitational field drags the ethers around its gravitational field. The local ether envelope is thus stationary but does not rotate with the Earth around its own axis, however it does orbit the Sun together with the Earth.

But ether theory has nothing to do with attractive gravity; on the contrary, ether theory is a form of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

The Allais effect, the DePalma effect, the Kozyrev effect, the Biefeld-Brown effect, the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, the Nipher effect all prove very conclusively that the ether is form of gravitational pressure and has nothing to do with attractive gravity. The quotes and letters attributed to Newton mention only PRESSURE GRAVITY and nothing on attractive gravity.

There is another way to prove this using one of the most intriguing and baffling problems which has to be solved by the proponents of the local aether model.

Dr. William H. Cantrell explains:

The Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering Petr Beckmann proposed that the outdated term "aether" could be replaced with the more modern term "gravity." Clearly, a gravitational field would have characteristics very similar to a partially entrained aether. Both would cause the bending of light rays. Gravity would be strongest near the surface of the planet where the partially entrained aether was most dense. Light would still behave in the same manner, if the speed of light is constant with respect to the source of the dominant gravitational field. This would square with all of the known experimental data because in nearly every case, the observer has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of reference—so we substitute the word "gravity" for the word "aether." Obviously gravity exists and we know that, although gravity is "emitted" by the Earth, it does not rotate with it. So this is a very plausible replacement for a partially entrained aether.

The double-star evidence is often used to discount alternative theories such as this one. Consider a binary star system revolving around its common center of mass, located a considerable distance from Earth. According to Beckmann’s theory, each star emits light at a velocity of c with respect to the source of its own gravitational field. Given the proper orientation in the ecliptic with respect to the center of mass, the velocity of light initially emitted is c + v from one star and c – v from the other (assuming a tangential velocity of revolution, v, for both stars). As each star revolves about the other, their roles will reverse as will the sinusoidal ± v light speed component from each. Although small at first, if any difference in velocity were to remain in effect over the years or centuries it would take for the two sources of starlight to reach the Earth, the slower light from one star (at a given point in their revolution) would never catch up with faster light from the other star, even if given a slight head start due to fortuitous positioning. This would cause peculiar visual effects on Earth that astronomers simply do not observe—unusual Doppler shifts and other anomalies.

But there is more to Beckmann’s theory. The gravitational fields of the two stars will, of course, merge into one combined field at a suitable distance from their common center of mass, and the light from the two stars will transition to a common value of c. This, however, is not the end of the story. As the starlight traverses the heavens, it will speed up and slow down so as to always propagate at the speed of light with respect to whatever source of gravitational field it encounters. Upon entering our solar system, the starlight will transition to a heliocentric frame of reference, and upon encountering the Earth’s gravitational field, it will adjust once again to speed c with respect to our own reference frame. This is definitely heresy—the two sources of starlight will indeed travel with two different speeds initially, before stabilizing at a common velocity. And this velocity will change as the starlight enters our own solar system, and change yet again as it enters the gravitational pull of the Earth. The speed of transition will, of course, be gradual as one gravitational field yields to another more dominant field in its local neighborhood. This is an intriguing "make-sense" theory, not only because it replaces the partially entrained aether theory described earlier, but because it also squares with the Pioneer 10 and 11 deep-space radio data (and probably with the Venus radar data from the 1960s).


The dextrorotatory ether/scalar wave causes terrestrial gravitation.

The laevorotatory ether/scalar wave is the antigravitational wave.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1920865#msg1920865 (subquarks: the building blocks of the universe, absolute proofs coming from ether quantum mechanics)

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


Therefore, the local ether field CANNOT travel with the Earth anywhere, as there is no such thing as attractive gravitation.

The local ether field is rotating above the flat surface of the Earth.

In the local aether model, this ether envelope is STATIC; however, the experiments performed by Dr. Dayton Miller and Dr. Yuri Galaev show very clearly that the ether is DYNAMIC (ether drift tests).

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm

SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA FOR A RECTANGULAR INTERFEROMETER

For a interferometer in the shape of a rectangle:

Here is a list of the scientific publications signed A. Tartaglia and A. M. Ruggiero:

http://porto.polito.it/view/creators/Ruggiero=3AMatteo_Luca=3A004059=3A.scopus_impact.html

The Sagnac for a parallelogram shaped interferometer.







Published in the  AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS, vol. 83, pp. 427-432. - ISSN 0002-9505

dt = 2Lv/c2


How do the best physicists in the world actually compare the Sagnac effects?

Dr. A.G. Kelly, one of the best experts of the 20th century regarding the Sagnac effect (Dr. Kelly discovered the huge errors in the Hafele-Keating paper).

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf





The linear velocities (the circumferential tangent speeds at the end point) are being compared and NOT the angular velocities.

LISA (LIGHT INTERFEROMETER SPACE ANTENNA) ORBITAL SAGNAC > ROTATIONAL SAGNAC



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

See also: Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis for orbiting LISA

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.102003

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."



"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."



Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:



The original arm length for LISA: 5,000,000 km (L)

Earth - Sun radius: 150,000,000 km (R)

ORBITAL SAGNAC/ROTATIONAL SAGNAC =~ R/L = 30





But the orbital Sagnac is missing. The time delay of the signal from the Lisa Pathfinder to Earth (which was in orbit from 2015 to 2017 (according to ESA), sending signals to Earth from a 1,500,000 km distance) would have been much greater had the orbital Sagnac been recorded/registered by the light interferometer.

LISA (LIGHT INTERFEROMETER SPACE ANTENNA) GALACTIC SAGNAC > ORBITAL SAGNAC II



The laser frequency stability for LISA is currently at 30Hz/√Hz.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060012084.pdf

It is hoped that the figure can be reduced to 10Hz/√Hz.

However, the paper published in the Classic and Quantum Gravity journal has lowered the threshold to 5Hz/√Hz.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306096.pdf

The initial estimate, based on the calculation of the rotational Sagnac effect for LISA, was much lower: 0.1Hz/√Hz.

"This is a very difficult requirement to satisfy".

The angular velocity for LISA is the same as the orbital angular velocity of the Earth (https://lisa.nasa.gov/archive2011/Documentation/sts_1.04.pdf ).


And yet, the full effects of the orbital Sagnac upon the calculations of the laser frequency stability have not been taken into consideration.

As has been proven in the previous message, the calculations of Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.

However, the galactic Sagnac effect is eight times greater than the orbital Sagnac effect.



v_g/v_o = 240km/s/30km/s = 8

http://www.technocrates.org/astronomers-calculate-speed-of-the-solar-system/15096/



The LISA antenna rotates along with the Sun around a galactic orbit (heliocentric version). Thus the galactic Sagnac effect must be accounted for in the calculations for the laser frequency stability.

After the rotational Sagnac calculations for the laser frequency stability, the threshold had to be lowered to 0.1Hz/√Hz and upon using a very complex analysis, it was possible to raise it to 5Hz/√Hz.

But the orbital Sagnac effect is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac effect for LISA, as proven and calculated by Dr. R.K. Nayak and Dr. J.Y. Vinet.



This will lower the threshold of the laser frequency stability to a much greater extent. And the galactic Sagnac effect must be included as well, which is eight times greater than the orbital Sagnac.

The requirements for the LISA Pathfinder are similar, with respect to the laser frequency stability:

http://www.ice.csic.es/research/IGWMweb/talks/Nofrarias_IGWM2012.pdf

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/grav/2017/transparencies/3_tuesday/1_morning/5_heinzel.pdf

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/lisasymposiumx/resources/contributions/Th3a_6_Ferroni.pdf

Why then did the LISA Pathfinder not record/register both the orbital Sagnac effect and the galactic Sagnac effect?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/lisa-pathfinder-mission-paves-way-for-space-based-detection-of-gravitational-waves

Either the LISA Pathfinder mission never took place, or the hypotheses of the M. Ruderfer experiment were fulfilled which proves the existence of ether meaning that the Earth is stationary:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982291#msg1982291


Any Sagnac interferometer is detecting gravitational waves (dextrorotatory ether waves) a fact which seems to escape the research currently performed on the subject:

https://web.stanford.edu/~rlbyer/PDF_AllPubs/1996/311.pdf

LISA (LIGHT INTERFEROMETER SPACE ANTENNA) ORBITAL SAGNAC > ROTATIONAL SAGNAC III



Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta






In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R_⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

The computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.



"In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."

ORBITAL SAGNAC/ROTATIONAL SAGNAC =~ R/L = 30

This fact is true for each and every satellite orbiting above the surface of the Earth, especially the GPS satellites.

This immediately proves the existence of ether: the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled, the orbital Sagnac effect is not being registered by the GPS satellites.

It also proves that the Earth is stationary: no orbital Sagnac effect is being recorded at all. And neither is the galactic Sagnac effect.


SAGNAC EFFECT WITHOUT AN AREA OR A LOOP

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf

The use of a phase-conjugate mirror has permitted new breakthroughs in the experimental science of the Sagnac effect.



The equation which expresses the relationship between interference fringes and time differences is F=dt[c/λ] (where dt = 4vL/c²).

This experiment shows us two important points. First, it confirms the phase reversal of a PCM and demonstrates the Sagnac effect in an arc segment AB, not a closed path. Second, it gives us important implications: The result, φ = 4πRΩL/cλ, can be re-written as φ = 4πvL/cλ where v is the speed of the moving arc segment AB (where R is the radius of the circular motion, Ω is the rotational rate).

If we increase the radius of the circular motion as shown in Fig. 6, the arc segment AB will approach a linear segment AB, the circular motion will approach the linear motion, the phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment will approach the phase-conjugate first-order experiment as shown in Fig. 4, and the phase shift is always φ = 4πvL/cλ.


The Sagnac effect for a ROTATING LINEAR SEGMENT interferometer IS: 2vL/c², where v=RΩ.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf

Let's observe that this is very similar to the formula for a triangular interferometer derived earlier:

4ωA/c2 = (4ωhL/2)/c2 where h is the height of the triangle to point D (midpoint between A and B), and L is the distance from A to B.

dt = 2vL/c2 where v = the speed at point D, the midpoint between A and B.


The Sagnac effect for a ROTATING LINEAR SEGMENT interferometer IS: 2vL/c², where v=RΩ.

Using the values for v for both the orbital Sagnac and the rotational Sagnac we can see immediately that v_o/v_r = 60.

LISA (LIGHT INTERFEROMETER SPACE ANTENNA) ORBITAL SAGNAC > ROTATIONAL SAGNAC IV



https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ




Actually, there is no difference in the path lengths: the light signals take different times around the path, amounting to two different speeds c + v and c - v, which of course would be equivalent to admitting that STR is false.

Therefore, the papers have to mention the difference in path lengths to avoid admitting that STR is false.



The formula for the difference in path lengths is:

dp = 2ΩA/c (p = path length)

Then, the difference in time will be:

dt = 2dp/c


The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.

The formula used for the ORBITAL SAGNAC (difference in path lengths) is 2VL/c, V = RΩ.

R = Earth - Sun distance

Ω = orbital angular velocity

This formula is extremely similar to the formulas derived earlier for a triangular interferometer and for a rotating linear segment (phase conjugate mirror).

GALILEO WAS WRONG



“It is both amusing and instructive to speculate on what might have happened if such an experiment could have been performed in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries when men were debating the rival merits of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems. The result would surely have been interpreted as conclusive evidence for the immobility of the Earth, and therefore as a triumphant vindication of the Ptolemaic system and irrefutable falsification of the Copernican hypothesis."

Dr. G. J. Whitrow
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Fellow of the Imperial College
Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society

Experiments which found no translational motion corresponding to a 30km/s orbital motion of the Earth, while at the same time did detect the rotational ether drift:

Hoek (1868)
Mascart (1872)
Michelson (1881)
Michelson-Morley (1887)
Miller (1925-1933)
Galaev (2001-2002)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1780340#msg1780340

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

Fake special theory of relativity tests:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg865008#msg865008


The four part series on the LISA space antenna orbital Sagnac (see the previous four messages) has revealed that the orbital Sagnac effect is much larger than the rotational Sagnac effect, and yet it is not being registered/recorded by satellites.

The solar gravitational potential effect upon the satellites' clocks also does not show up at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

"The 1971 JPL document giving the equations used to model roundtrip and one-way signals between a space probe and the earth prescribed the use of a sun-centered isotropic-lightspeed frame. Clearly, both the probe and the detector (or observer) on the earth are moving in this frame. The equations clearly show that the speed of light was not assumed to be isotropic with respect to the observer. Instead, when a signal was in transit from the probe to the earth, the motion of the earth-observer during the transit time was clearly accounted for. This motion included the earth’s spin, the earth’s orbital velocity, and even the motion of the earth caused by its orbit around the earthmoon center of gravity."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710017134.pdf (160 page state of the art technical report requested/commissioned by Nasa, issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, pg. 15 18 53 61* 100-101 143*)

"In fact, it can be safely said that no experiment has ever been performed with such agonizing persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable way, as that of determining whether the Earth is indeed moving through space. The haunting fact is: all of them have failed to detect any motion."


"How is it that a treatise riddled with geometrical and mathematical presumptions, in addition to being one of the less-popular and least-studied books of its day, became the world’s most sacrosanct “fact” of existence?"

Because Koppernigk's "treatise" was written by the same group of people who forged the works attributed to Kepler.

The entire Nova Astronomia was faked, each and every entry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

Koppernigk: a fictional character invented at least after 1600 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860

"What about optical telescopes during galileo's time? HE saw jupiter's moons' orbit and he HIMSELF made his telescope so how could there be pre-programmed images in there during the 17th century?"

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719875#msg1719875

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719879#msg1719879

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1719889#msg1719889


(from Galileo Was Wrong, by Dr. R. Sungenis and Dr. R. Bennett)

“There is a strangely consistent parallel between Copernicus’ character, and the humble, devious manner in which the Copernican revolution entered through the back door of history, preceded by the apologetic remark: ‘Please don’t take seriously – it is all meant in fun, for mathematicians only, and highly improbable indeed’”

"What we call the Copernican revolution was not made by Canon Koppernigk. His book was not intended to cause a revolution. He knew that much of it was unsound, contrary to evidence, and its basic assumption unprovable. ….As a result of all this, Canon Koppernigk’s lifework seemed to be, for all useful purposes, wasted. From the seafarers’ and stargazers’ point of view, the Copernican planetary tables were only a slight improvement on the earlier Alphonsine tables, and were soon abandoned. And insofar as the theory of the universe is concerned, the Copernican system, bristling with inconsistencies, anomalies, and arbitrary constructions, was equally unsatisfactory, most of all to himself. In the lucid intervals between the long periods of torpor, the dying Canon must have been painfully aware that he had failed."

A. Koestler

But this apparent economy of the Copernican system, though it is a propaganda victory that the proponents of the new astronomy rarely failed to emphasize, is largely an illusion…The seven-circle system presented in the First Book of the De revolutionibus, and in many modern elementary accounts of the Copernican system, is a wonderfully economical system, but it does not work. It will not predict the position of planets with an accuracy comparable to that supplied by Ptolemy’s system.

…this brief sketch of the complex system of…Copernicus…indicates the third great incongruity of the De revolutionibus and the immense irony of Copernicus’ lifework. The preface to the De revolutionibus opens with a forceful indictment of Ptolemaic astronomy for its inaccuracy, complexity, and inconsistency, yet before Copernicus’ text closes, it has convicted itself of exactly the same shortcomings. Copernicus’ system is neither simpler nor more accurate than Ptolemy’s. And the methods that Copernicus employed in constructing it seem just as little likely as the methods of Ptolemy to produce a single consistent solution of the problem of the planets. The De revolutionibus itself is not consistent with the single surviving early version of the system, described by Copernicus in the early manuscript Commentariolus. Even Copernicus could not derive from his hypothesis a single and unique combination of interlocking circles, and his successors did not do so…Judged on purely practical grounds, Copernicus’ new planetary system was a failure; it was neither more accurate nor significantly simpler than its Ptolemaic predecessors."

T. Kuhn

"It makes no sense, accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions. What has been considered as the greatest discovery of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth value."

H. Reichenbach

"The Copernican system is not a discovery…but a last attempt to patch up an out-dated machinery by reversing the arrangement of its wheels. As a modern historian put it, the fact that the Earth moves is “almost an incidental matter in the system of Copernicus which, viewed geometrically, is just the old Ptolemaic pattern of the skies, with one or two wheels interchanged and one or two of them taken out.”"

A. Koestler

"I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will communicate, too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.”"

A. von Humboldt

"Einstein was well aware of the anti-Copernican implications of the interferometer experiments. In the words of one of his biographers:

The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable.

Everyone in the physics establishment saw the same implications, and they were beside themselves with consternation. As several authors describe it:

The data [of the interferometers] were almost unbelievable…There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the Earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous.

In the effort to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment…the thought was advanced that the Earth might be stationary….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our Earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by revolving around it.

Even Albert Michelson couldn’t avoid the implications of his own experiment:

This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the Earth moves…”

So shocked was Hubble when he examined the peculiar light coming from the stars that the only thing he could offer to refute an Earth-centered cosmos was to say:

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favored position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

After Hubble, all kinds of interesting objects and forces were being found in man’s telescope, e.g., quasars, gamma-ray and X-ray bursters, cosmic background microwave radiation, and a wide assortment of galaxies and star clusters. To the utter consternation of the world’s scientists, each of the newfound discoveries kept revealing the same piece of startling information – that Earth was right smack in the center of it all."

"Whatever the name, it is a fact that no other scientific hypothesis comes close to the effect that removing the Earth from the center of the universe has had upon the thinking and aspirations of mankind."

"But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus….Possibly mankind has never been demanded to do more, for considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change: a second Paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety: the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetical and religious faith. No wonder his contemporaries did not wish to let all this go and offered every possible resistance to a doctrine which in its converts authorized and demanded a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed not even dreamed of."

J.W. von Goethe

"One can imagine the sheer embarrassment modern science would face if it were forced to apologize for 500 years of propagating one of the biggest blunders since the dawn of time. This is not the Middle Ages, a time in which mistakes can be excused due to primitive scientific tools and superstitious notions. This is the era of Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Darwin, Einstein, Edison, Planck, Hubble, Hawking, and scores of other heroes of science. If heliocentrism is wrong, how could modern science ever face the world again? How could it ever hold to the legacy left by these scientific giants if it were forced to admit it was wrong about one of its most sacrosanct and fundamental beliefs? Admitting such a possibility would put question marks around every discovery, every theory, every scientific career, every university curriculum. The very foundations of modern life would crumble before their eyes. Not only would Earth literally become immobile, but it would figuratively come to a halt as well, for men would be required to revamp their whole view of the universe.


Galilei and Kepler, fictional characters invented at least after 1750 AD:

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


Koestler remarks on the effect of Commentariolus: “…the first pebble had fallen into the pond and gradually, in the course of the following years, the ripples spread by rumour and hearsay in the Republic of Letters. This led to the paradoxical result that Canon Koppernigk enjoyed a certain fame, or notoriety, among scholars for some thirty years without publishing anything in print, without teaching at a university or recruiting disciples. It is a unique case in the history of science. The Copernican system spread by evaporation or osmosis, as it were”.


The Karlsson effect, the redshift is systematically quantised in discrete values along preferred peaks.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1937730#msg1937730 (two consecutive messages)

Flat earth geocentrism, the ultimate proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938384#msg1938384 (three consecutive messages)

Ten page summary of Galileo Was Wrong (1,200 pages) by Dr. R. Sungenis:

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_5969.pdf

FAKE FIRST LAW OF PLANETARY MOTION DERIVED FROM THE FORGED LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION

In fact, a strong argument for the validity of Newton’s laws of motion and gravity was that they could be used to derive Kepler’s laws.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-sciences/12-201-essentials-of-geophysics-fall-2004/lecture-notes/ch2.pdf

But the entire Nova Astronomia was faked/falsified, each and every entry:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was elliptical."

"The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind."

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

http://radio.astro.gla.ac.uk/a1dynamics/ellproof.pdf




A perfect match.

Newton's fake law of universal gravitation leads of course to the three body problem paradox:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581


The Earth does not orbit the Sun in the shape of an elliptical path: the solar gravitational potential is not being recorded/registered by the GPS satellites:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf

RAILGUN EXPERIMENT DISPROVES RELATIVISTIC ELECTROGMAGNETISM

Dr. Peter Graneau's railgun recoil experiment was published in the Journal of Physics D (IOP article/Institute of Physics):

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/20/3/023









See also:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V00N15PDF/V00N15ISS.pdf

More details, including an analysis of other physicists' response to the experiment:

https://archive.org/stream/NewtonianElectrodynamics/Newtonian%20Electrodynamics#page/n0/mode/1up  (pg. 169-172)


The original set of Maxwell's equations DOES NOT contradict the Galilean transformations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1918701#msg1918701