Advanced Flat Earth Theory

Flat Earth Theory

New Radical Chronology of History

Riemann's Zeta Function and the Sacred Cubit

Ether/Aether Theory


FET is a subset of a larger topic: the new radical chronology of history.

The new chronology of history: the correct chronology starts in the year 1000 AD, nothing is known prior to 800 AD.

The new radical chronology of history: each and every event assumed to have taken place prior to 1780 AD has been totally forged/invented/falsified. History is just some 365 years old (I started with a figure of 500 years, and slowly reduced the period to 364-365 years).

Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.

The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Each and every statement described above will be proven, using the most precise astronomical datings possible, from Gauss' Easter formula, to the dating using the comets' tails rate of dispersion of matter, see pages 7-12.

The architects of the Gizeh pyramid did use the arctangent function, the precise proofs on page 11.

Many more topics covered: the Allais effect, the acceleration of the rate of axial precession, chaos theory and the RE equations of motion, the Tunguska explosion caused by the ball lightning objects created by N. Tesla, many more details included.


https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183 ( (the first FET faq written some seven years ago; it includes only a small portion of the information covered/updated here in much more details; at that point in time, the elements concerning the new radical chronology of history were not included)

Whilst I greatly admire your research and the wealth of information you have accumulated, I do perhaps think that calling this a 'new FAQ' is perhaps unnecessarily controvertial. I would certainly support it as an alternative theory, but I do think that presenting it as the de facto new FAQ is perhaps as wise. The information is of great value (I am especially interested in the idea of the Antichone), but it is important that we respect the different viewpoints many FE'ers hold.

DAYTON MILLER ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (full analysis)

Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to
dismiss your arguments, and retain clarity about Miller's work.


You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.

How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (part II)

DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Dr. Bruce DePalma, MIT and Harvard

One day, one of the greatest experimental physicists of the 20th century was asked a simple question, by one of his students:

If there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object versus a non-rotating object?

After an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

This became one of the most celebrated experiments in modern physics: the spinning ball experiment.


"Conceptually, the experiment could not have been much cheaper, or easier to carry out:

Two 1-inch steel balls (like those found in every pinball machine in America ...) were positioned at the business end of an ordinary power drill; one ball was in a cup attached to the drill's motor shaft, so it spun -- at a very high rate of speed; the other ball was in an identical cup, attached by a bracket to the stationary drill casing, adjusted so that it was level with the first ball.

The experiment consisted of positioning the drill vertically, cups "up," and pressing the drill switch on the motor.

The drill motor (and its associated cup, containing one of the steel balls) rapidly spun up to approximately 27,000 RPM. The cup attached to the side of the drill (with the second steel ball inside it ...) was not rotating ....

When the drill motor had attained its maximum speed, DePalma (or, more often, Ed Delvers, his assistant ...) would shove the drill into the air with a fast, upward motion -- suddenly stopping the drill it in mid-flight. This would, of course, cause both 1-inch pinballs to fly out of their retaining cups in the same upward direction -- the "spinning ball" (hence the name ...) and the non-spinning ball, right beside it.

DePalma, from his years spent working with Dr. Herald Edgerton at MIT -- the famed inventor of "stroboscopic photography" -- was an expert in such stop-motion photography as well. By positioning Delvers against a gridded black background, in a darkened laboratory (below), and then illluminating the two upward-flying steel balls with a powerful strobe light, DePalma was able to take time-exposure photographs with the camera's shutter open, the "pinballs" only illuminated (at 60 times per second) by the strobe's periodic flash ....

The result was a striking "stroboscopic, time-lapse photograph" of the parabolic arc of both steel balls -- flying upward and then downward under Earth's gravitational acceleration (below)."



Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!


Dr. Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.


The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."


The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


The law of universal gravitation totally violated: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE STEEL BALLS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE ROTATING BALL WEIGHED LESS AND TRAVELED HIGHER THAN THE NON-ROTATING BALL.


More experiments performed by Dr. Bruce DePalma, one of the America's greatest physicists of the 20th century:

A prime example of this is provided by the spinning ball experiments of Bruce DePalma.

He projected two metal balls upwards inside a vacuum container, one spinning at some 20,000 rpm and the other non-spinning, and observed any differences.
He discovered that the spinning ball moved higher and further and also fell faster than the non-spinning one.



Back in the 70's Bruce Depalma did a series of tests involving spinning objects. In his published findings he goes on to describe that a ball spun at a high rate of speed will actually travel higher (sometimes 20% higher) and fall faster then a ball that is not spinning. Now of course the balls are identical and launched at the same trajectory. This test was also done in a vacuum to go on and prove that drag couldn't have an effect on it.


DePalma’s experiment with steel balls in 1972 showed that certain physical properties of an object are radically altered—both its mass and inertia—if it is rotated. According to DePalma, rotation produces a force field, specifically around the main axis of the rotating object, that he measured and called a torsion field or spin field. Time-lapse stroboscopic photographs revealed that the steel ball rotating at ~27,000 rpm flew higher and fell faster than the companion ball that was not rotating. DePalma had since conducted experiments on “bodies in rotation” including massive objects (e.g., over 30 lbs), spinning at very high velocities (~7600 revolutions/minute).

GAUSS EASTER FORMULA APPLIED TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF HISTORY

According to the official RE equations of orbital mechanics, the ones in question here, the vernal equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.

I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.

You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.


Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

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.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR



It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.



What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:



Matthew Vlastar:



“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.


Gauss' Easter formula proves immediately the colossal errors inherent in the present day calculations based on the faulty RE equations of orbital mechanics.


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

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).


Dead Sea scrolls forgery:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071018054645/http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18840220&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.ro/2012/02/who-claimed-dead-sea-scrolls-hoax.html

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30145#30145

MAGNETRICITY = ETHER MAGNETISM

Electricity = Magnetism - both consist of subquark flow, one in a conductor, the other in space

This flow is made up of TWO currents, of opposing spin, traveling in double torsion fashion: the dextrorotatory subquarks and the laevorotatory subquarks.


The recent discovery of magnetic monopoles:

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

Magnetic monopoles = subquarks

https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (Dr. Stephen Phillips, Cambridge, UCLA)


PRECISE, REAL TIME, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICAL CURRENTS, THE DOUBLE VORTEX/SPIN/STRINGS AT WORK:









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

https://web.archive.org/web/20160508175955/http://freenrg.info/Misc/The_Secret_World_Of_Magnets.pdf

HERE IS HOW THE FLOW OF SUBQUARKS OCCURS IN A MAGNET:



Not only North-Center-South laevorotatory subquarks, but ALSO a South-Center-North flow of dextrorotatory subquarks/magnetic monopoles.




Absolute proof of the existence of subquarks:


http://web.archive.org/web/20150424110749/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf (Dr. Stephen Phillips, UCLA, Cambridge)


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

This is what the graviton/magnetic monopole looks like, both spins:



HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.


NOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW ELECTRICITY FLOWS:

An electric current brought to bear upon the subquarks checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the subquarks exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The subquarks always set themselves to the current.  In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single subquark.




Let us now back to the Nipher experiments.

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


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.



Electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity.

Since subquarks = magnetic monopoles, we can see the beautiful and superb link between the Biefeld-Brown effect and the DePalma/Kozyrev/Allais effects:

In one case (Biefeld-Brown effect, performed in vacuum) the very strong electrical field will act as an attractor to telluric/subquark strings to form a plasma tornado around the capacitor, thus rendering it opaque to the usual dextrorotatory strings which do cause terrestrial gravity.

In the other, by torsion, in the DePalma experiment, the subquarks strings will also form a tornado around the ball/object thus producing the noted/recorded antigravitational effects.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

Dr. Paul Biefeld - former classmate of A. Einstein

T. Townsend Brown - student of Dr. Biefeld, studied at CalTech, he demonstrated his ideas on electricity and gravity to invited guests such as the physicist and Nobel laureate, Dr. Robert A. Millikan.

When the poles of a freely suspended charged capacitor (even in vacuum) were placed on a horizontal axis, a forward thrust would be produced which would move the capacitor in the direction of the positive pole. The direction of thrust would reverse in conjunction with a polarity change. This is the phenomenon known as the Biefield-Brown Effect.


VACUUM TEST #1

http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


VACUUM TEST #2

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html (includes technical information and video)


VACUUM TEST #3

https://web.archive.org/web/20070212193741/http://www.t-spark.de/t-spark/t-sparke/liftere.htm (includes technical information and video)


MULTIPLE TESTS PERFORMED IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ION WIND COULD NOT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE EXPERIMENTS THEMSELVES:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifteriw.htm


VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)


Reading the section describing the vacuum chamber results, we learn that when the discs are operated at atmospheric pressure they move in the direction of the leading edge wire regardless of outboard wire polarity.  This indicates that in normal atmospheric conditions the discs are propelled forward primarily by unbalanced electrostatic forces due to the prevailing nonlinear field configuration (which causes thrust in the direction of the low field intensity ion cloud regardless of the ion polarity).  On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm

In 1985, Dr. Paul LaViolette was in the Library of Congress in Washington, DC and looked up the work "gravity" in the card catalog. Surprisingly, he found the listing for "Electrogravitics Systems," a report that was missing from the stacks. When the librarian tried to locate any other copies through interlibrary loan, she commented, "It must be an exotic document" because she could find only one in the country which was at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Thus, LaViolette was successful in obtaining a copy of the formerly classified document. The mystery continued: seven years later when contacting the Wright-Patterson AFB Technical Library, they surprisingly found no reference in the computer-based card catalog. They did locate the document on the shelves, however, after being asked to search for it. To summarize, the report has historic value because:

It validates T.T. Brown's experiments;
It lists the major corporations that were collaborating on electrogravitics;
It includes the requirements for supersonic speed;
It shows the continuity from Project Winterhaven in 1952;
The report includes a list of electrostatic patents;
It had been classified by the Air Force for an undetermined amount of time which underscores its importance.


This is real science, the greatest American physicist of the 20th century, T. Townsend Brown: it should be the privilege of the FES to immediately claim that the Biefeld-Brown effect can only take place on a flat surface of the earth, but instead, it chooses to post on its official page (no less) the catastrophic UA conjecture, without any proofs.


Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

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


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


Let us also remember the Eotvos experiments, which recorded gravitational anomalies, which also would contradict the UA:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html

CLOUDS

Let us now apply the foregoing mass of theory and experimental data to the one problem which has NEVER been solved in either the RE scenario, or the failed UA conjecture.


A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.

The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

"Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation."

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD, which would move right along with the cloud on a random trajectory.

Under the catastrophic UA scenario, there is no way to explain the presence of clouds from a gravitational point of view: clouds are the most obvious and apparent counterexample to the failed hypothesis in which the Earth is moving upwards.


Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.


Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 1 million pounds. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 MILLION TONS.

Let us go directly to the official textbook on ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE.


Cloud droplets are also about 1000 times heavier than evaporated water, so they are much heavier than air.

Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density

Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billion km in volume

total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water, or 1.1 million pounds

OFFICIAL STANDARD TEXTBOOKS:

Clouds can have a large range of mass per volume, depending on how large and numerous the cloud droplets or ice crystals are that are in them.

How much does the water in a cumulus cloud weigh? Peggy limee, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, did the numbers.

"The water in the little cloud weighs about 550 tons," she calculates.


Another concerned scientist writes:

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity. The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt convection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Another writer states:

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm

Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.


ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float above the ground.


"It is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the Biefield-Brown Effect, where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometers above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.


THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT EXPLAINS HOW millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometers above the earth by electrical means.

http://repository.ias.ac.in/16485/

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


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

A TOTAL CONFIRMATION OF THE EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT BY DR. FRANCIS NIPHER.

Nikola Tesla, clouds, and stationary waves (telluric currents, ether strings), confirming the discoveries made by the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center:

“It was on the third of July–the date I shall never forget–when I obtained the first decisive experimental evidence of a truth of overwhelming importance for the advancement of humanity.

A dense mass of strongly charged clouds gathered in the west and towards the evening a violent storm broke loose which, after spending its fury in the mountains, was driven away with great velocity over the plains. Heavy and long persisting arcs formed almost in regular time intervals.

My observations were now greatly facilitated and rendered more accurate by the experiences already gained. I was able to handle my instruments quickly and I was prepared. The recording apparatus being properly adjusted, its indications became fainter and fainter with the increasing distance of the storm until they ceased altogether. I was watching in eager expectation. Surely enough, in a little while the indications again began, grew stronger and stronger and, after passing thru a maximum, gradually decreased and ceased once more.

Many times, in regularly recurring intervals, the same actions were repeated until the storm, which, as evident from simple computations, was moving with nearly constant speed, had retreated to a distance of about three hundred kilometers. Nor did these strange actions stop then, but continued to manifest themselves with undiminished force. Subsequently, similar observations were also made by my assistant, Mr. Fritz Lowenstein, and shortly afterwards several admirable opportunities presented themselves which brought out still more forcibly and unmistakably, the true nature of the wonderful phenomenon. No doubt whatever remained: I was observing stationary waves."

Nikola Tesla, “Transmitting Electrical Energy Without Wires, Scientific American, June 4, 1904, supplement

Tesla's device recorded the influence of stationary waves (telluric currents) upon and from the charged clouds.

"The discovery of the stationary terrestrial waves [indicates]... that, despite its vast extent, the entire planet can be thrown into resonant vibration like a little tuning fork; that electrical oscillations suited to its physical properties and dimensions pass through it unimpeded, in strict obedience to a simple mathematical law, has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth, considered as a channel for conveying electrical energy... is infinitely superior to a wire or cable...

Nikola Tesla, 'Tuned Lightening', 1907


THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.

www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction."

Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

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

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


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


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

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

Published in the Physical Review Journal

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

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

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




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

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.



An overview of the Allais effect (parts I - VII):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115 (the Black Sun and the laevorotatory subquarks)

TOTAL DEMOLITION OF STR/GTR

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html



The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Moreover, Einstein made a terrible blunder.

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

We can infer immediately that Einstein had no knowledge whatsoever of the original ether equations derived by Maxwell, and based his false/erroneous conclusions on the MODIFIED/CENSORED Heaviside-Lorentz equations.


"Einstein claims that “The principle of the constancy of the velocityof light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”.

If the Lorentz force had still been included as one of Maxwell’s equations, they could
have been written in total time derivative format (see Appendix A in ‘The Double
Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field’) and Einstein would not have been able to make
this claim. A total time derivative electromagnetic wave equation would allow the
electromagnetic wave speed to alter from the perspective of a moving observer."


Here are the censored Heaviside-Lorentz equations, USED BY EINSTEIN to justify his erronous claim regarding the speed of light:



HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:




http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1608815#msg1608815 (more information on the set of original Maxwell equations)


http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf
(also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D)

E = vXB − ∂Α/dt +gradψ

The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf


"A solution to the original/corrected Maxwell equations indicates that these equations are invariant under the Galilean transformation. Velocity vectors are additive, which means that the speed of light can be exceeded."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776


The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)

PAGE 10

The Allais effect and the Black Sun


EDIT

A compendium of my messages posted on the proboards website for the past several years (http://only1rad.proboards.com/ )...

As I said five years ago: it is very easy to see/discover that the Beatles songs are actually modified classical scores.

Martha my Dear is a modified classical song, Martha by von Flotow (see #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> ). It is obvious that Paul II had no idea about this connection, when he said that Martha refers to his sheepdog...

Yellow Submarine is actually the theme from Verdi’s Aida March combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.


I invite everybody here again to study the actual complexity of the Beatles songs: it is unimaginable that, as raylo said before: "the beatles went from being a garage band to suddenly composing sophisticated tracks like 'and i love her' overnight, then advanced exponentially and levelled off quickly maintaining that level of musical quality and then broke up and suddenly became virtual garage players again. as judge judy says, 'if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true'."


www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml
www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml


Absolute proofs that only an expert in classical music could have been responsible for writing the Beatles music.


Yes, Adorno wrote the entire British invasion by modifying classical tunes, and yes he developed different styles for each and every group; he did not compose the music for money, not at all. Adorno was part of a secret society who recognized his amazing skills in teaching/understanding classical music and put them to good use. Before his death in August 1969 (the very reason the Beatles disbanded, as their master composer was gone) Adorno wrote hundreds of songs to be distributed later (1969 - 1975) to various groups, that is why the early 70s music sounded so much better than the late 70s music, and the very reason why Led Zeppelin were musically dead after the last of the Adorno songs, KASHMIR, was included on Physical Graffiti.

Perhaps you all are curious to understand how did Adorno manage to create a masterpiece such as KASHMIR. Actually it is made up of three classical songs: Ravel's Bolero and Holst's Mars the Bringer of War, combined with the 1st movement from Korsakov's Scheherazade ( #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">  5:05 to 5:30, especially 5:20 to 5:30  )


Here is another example for all of you.

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

The adaggio from Spartacus was modified by Adorno: first into SOMETHING (of course, for the Beatles), then into the RAIN SONG (given to Led Zeppelin).


Had Adorno lived a few more years, there would have been more Beatles albums containing the following songs, among others already mentioned in my first two messages:

Admiral Holsy
Live and Let Die
My Love
Imagine
What is Love


Again, raylo:

"about a yr ago at a friends party i mentioned the theory to the host who is a classically trained musician. he raised an eyebrow and said there's no way they could have written all that music in that little time. it's just not possible. someone helped, coached or wrote for them.
lyrically i believe they, especially lennon wrote a great deal even if the subject matter was impressed upon him. he was clever with words. he was no dummy, but he was no musical genius. listen to his 'rock and roll' solo album. come on people. listen to free as a bird and most of the other feeble efforts he soloed. yes i'm aware of instant karma, imagine, etc. but most of it was dribble compared to the beatles. it's like comparing basic addition with advanced trigonometry.
a few days ago after reading the first comment on this thread i called my previous mentioned friend and started naming the songlist of classical music and its corresponding beatles song. i said 'aiva' etc was yellow sub. he paused for a second, i heard a few 'da da hum daaah, DEE dah da's' and then a yup or ahuh. this was the case for every song on the list. he also stated that it was common in HWD, NY and motown, etc to have classical composers in almost every studio to smooth out the song."


PS Can anybody here guess which classical tune was copied by Adorno and transformed into OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY given to Led Zeppelin?




Let us concentrate on just two songs: Martha My Dear and Kashmir.


MARTHA MY DEAR


www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/mmd.shtml

The original Paul had no knowledge of the Martha classical tune by von Flotow, nor could he have modified it into Martha My Dear as he could not write/read music; George Martin certainly knew about the classical tune, but he had no musical skills to turn it into Martha My Dear; after 1969 the magical orchestration in the Beatles music (see the Let It Be album) and Paul II's own albums was completely gone.


Analysis of the Martha My Dear musical notes/melody:

The intro/verse section is an extremely unusual fourteen and a half measures in length, the first of its four phrases being foreshortened by six beats; the musical equivalent of a receding chin :-) In this case, the effect is motivated by the dog-chasing-its-tail motif with which the tune opens.

Well before the true E-flat home key is established, the section veers off sharply in the direction of a possible modulation to the key of B-flat Major. Though the B-flat chord becomes clearly established by section's end as V, not I; you still might say that the tonal center of gravity is weighted deceptively more in favor of B-flat rather than E-flat.

The ninths and sevenths applied to all of the A-flat-Major chords above fall under the category of "free" dissonance.

The abrupt transition back to the home key of the verse features that root move of a major third that we discussed back in of all places, "Wild Honey Pie". Note how the second bridge embellishes this gesture with a novel "3-4-5" hook in the toppermost voice.


A clear proof that only a musical genius who could absolutely write/read music could transform the classical tune Martha into Martha My Dear.


Therefore, your assertion that Paul I could have written Martha My Dear is false.

There is no way that Paul I, not knowing at all that he would disappear from the public scene after September 1966, could have written Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Road, not to mention the singles, in the timespan of just two months: July-August 1966.

Martha My Dear is a song which is written in the MUSICAL STYLE of the year 1968, it belongs to that year/age (not to 1966/1967): this style in turn in based on the musical direction/influence offerred by the  Sgt. Pepper album, a fact which could not have been known to Paul I. Paul I could not possibly have anticipated the social/cultural changes brought upon by Sgt. Pepper which in turn lead to the musical style of the White Album.

Martha My Dear includes the magical orchestration which was a hallmark of the Beatles songs; whoever wrote Martha My Dear also wrote all the other songs.


No channeling was responsible for the Beatles songs (as you try to assert): it was a very methodical work, based upon careful modifications of classical tunes/songs, performed by Theodor Adorno.

Please feel free to investigate each and every Beatles song to see how incorrect the channeling notion is:

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF ALL THE BEATLES SONGS:

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml



KASHMIR

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

Listen from 0:55 to 1:06


Now listen to this:

1st movement from Korsakov's Scheherazade

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

5:05 to 5:30, especially 5:20 to 5:30

Obviously, one portion of the song is a modified version of the other, notwithstanding your earlier statements..


Each and every other Led Zeppelin song was NOT written by Jimmy Page (his supposed musical writing skills were gone after 1975, and he had none before 1968; granted he was one of the greatest guitarists ever).




Read carefully here:

www.furious.com/perfect/jimmypage.html


Certainly the Adaggio from Spartacus was modified into the RAIN SONG.

Certainly OVER THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY is a modified Afternoon of a Faun by Debussy.


In fact, in 1970, J. Page was accused of plagiarism (Friends, a modified version of Carry On by Crosby, Stills and Nash).


Since J. Page did not write a single Led Zeppelin song, and since both Something (Beatles) and the Rain Song resemble strongly the Adaggio from Spartacus, I say that the same person wrote both songs.




George Martin did not have the genius to produce/create the magic of the Beatles music orchestration/sound.

Paul McCartney II's albums LACK completely the hallmark of what constituted the Beatles songs: that spellbound/miraculous orchestral arrangements unsurpassed to this very day and unprecedented before 1964.

There is only one person who could have done it: Theodor Adorno, his death in August 1969 is what actually put an end to the Beatles.

Paul II, John II, George were given then the remaining Beatles songs (Imagine, Live and Let Die, Admiral Holsy, Give Me Love, My Sweet Lord, Mind Games, My Love and much more) to start up their solo careers...but the magic was gone.


Your facts so far amount to this:

1. Paul dreamed up 200 songs, of which about 80 just in the period September - November 5, 1966, or, even more amazingly,

2. Paul wrote, somehow, someway, all these 200 songs; again, of which maybe 80 in that same period.

If you say that you know something about music (see for example the comments by sunssol), then it should strike you immediately, upon actually seeing how the songs were composed (see below), that a person who could not write or read music could not, even in his dreams, get such a job done, that is, to compose 200 songs with no musicological concepts whatsoever, and with no studies of classical music.

The songs themselves speak loud and clear: Paul could not have even dreamed to write such songs, given the way they are structured and written:

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-alphabet.shtml (alphabetical order)

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml (chronologically)

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (step by step analysis of all the songs)


Let us have a closer look at Yesterday, for example (supposedly dreamed up by Paul):

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/y.shtml

Here is what A. Pollack has to say:

The overall home key is F Major but the music demonstrates a curious tendency to repeatedly veer off toward the relative minor key of d. This device subtly sets a mood for the song in which all attempts at putting on a positive face are betrayed by pervasive melancholy; shades of "beneath this mask I am wearing a frown." Interestingly, Paul had used a similar harmonic trick (actually the same basic idea but in reverse) in his very similar earlier offering of "And I Love Her".

By funny coincidence, we find here the same harmonic cross-relation between G and B-flat chords as we saw last time in "It's Only Love". Granted, the order of the two chords is reversed here, and the semantic meaning of the progression is changed by the difference in home key between the two songs. It's an uncanny parallel, nevertheless.

Let us now look at And I love Her:

Major and minor keys are said to be mutual relatives then they share the same key signature — e.g. C Major/a minor, F Major/d minor etc.

Implicit in the sharing of a key signature is the fact that they share the same chords, although each chord has a different harmonic/grammatical meaning — i.e. crudely put, a different Roman numeral — depending on which mode you're in. For example, in the pair of keys C Major/a minor, the d minor triad is common to both but it's the ii chord of C and the iv chord of A.

The ample selection of common chords in this situation makes it very easy to modulate between the two keys. Such chords are called pivot chords when they're used to effect a smooth modulation from one key to another. In terms of aural perception, one experiences such a chord initially in the old key, but within the following two chords, one retrospectively hears it as part of the new key; a kind of harmonic pun.

This amazing technical know-how of musical arrangement to come from Paul's dreams, or from a guy who could neither write nor read music?

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/ailh.shtml

It's Only Love: www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iol.shtml

Very much like what we saw last time in "I've Just Seen A Face", the verse here is a twelve measure section whose AAB phrasing pattern matches that of the blues even though such a connection is supported by neither the harmony nor the style.

The downward chromatic bassline at the start "forces" a strange root progression of I -» iii -» flat-VII. The effect of this is somewhat softened by the linear logic of the bassline itself and the placement of the iii chord in so-called second inversion; try playing the same progression with the iii chord in root position and see how much more strange it sounds.

With the verse ending on the vi chord (a-minor), you'd much sooner expect the first chord of this refrain to be either IV (F) or ii (d); try this out and see how well it actually works. The move to B-flat, while not at all unsatisfying does work as a surprise, and furthermore sets up a cross-relation when the next chord after it is V (G). This use of flat-VII as a subdominant is something we saw for the first time way back in "All My Loving", of all places. As a device, you might describe it as similar in structure and effect to the gambit in which V-of-V is followed by IV.


Let us remember what the Beatles could actually do, 1960 - 1962:

Beatle biographer Philip Norman writes: "Their only regular engagement was a strip club. The club owner paid them ten shillings each to strum their guitars while a stripper named Janice grimly shed her clothes before an audience of sailors, guilty businessmen and habitués with raincoat- covered laps."
Now, to go from this to actually write I want to hold your hand defies the imagination, and the fact that neither John nor Paul could write or read music, which is absolutely necessary to express any musical talent.

It is sometimes said that G. Martin orchestrated some of the Beatles songs; nothing he published after 1969 resembles in any way shape or form the actual Beatles orchestrations, for example on Strawberry Fields and Martha my Dear.

If you want to believe in a myth, go right ahead, I will not try to stop you, but the fact of the matter is that none of the Beatles could write music, it is obvious that a powerhouse in music writing was behind their success.

Listen closely to the McCartney and Lennon post Beatles albums; they are a far cry from any Beatles LP.

Please explain to me how these songs could have been written (take a look at the extraordinary skill in manipulating the keys and notes to write the songs) by two persons who could neither write nor read music.

www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml
www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml


Imagine having Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky, together, writing songs for you; you'd instantly become the very best musical artist the world has ever seen, and this is EXACTLY what happened to The Beatles, their songs are modified classical themes, cleverly done by T. Adorno.

The fact that their music was written by Adorno was concealed from public view.

Under the the strict guidance of EMI's recording director George Martin, and Brian Epstein, the Beatles were scrubbed, washed, and their hair styled into the Beatles cut. EMI's Martin created the Beatles in his recording studio.

Martin was a trained classical musician, and had studied the oboe and piano at the London School of Music. The Beatles could neither read music nor play any instrument other than guitar. For Martin, the Beatles musicianship was a bad joke. On their first hit record, "Love Me Do," Martin replaced Ringo on the drums with a studio musician. Martin said Ringo, "couldn't do a [drum] roll to save his life."

The insiders at EMI knew very well that J. Lennon and P. McCartney had no musical talent whatsoever; what they had abundantly was charisma, and that is what won the audience, nobody else since has been able to duplicate The Beatles phenomenon.

Let us read carefully the only correct description of the actual orbit of the Sun that we have at our disposal (the reason the year had only 364 days is explained later in this thread):

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#71

It becomes very clear that the orbit of the Sun cannot just be made up of two arches of a circle; the actual orbit is a bit more complicated than that; in my opinion it consists of several arches which make up a complete daily orbit, something resembling a rhombus with curved sides or even an enneagram.


Here is a description of the phases of the moon:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#77

Thus, the resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon.


GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE PARADOX

The gases in the atmosphere REFUSE to obey the law of universal gravitation.


"The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.


The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon.


If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?"


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.



The ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.

We are talking here about TRIOXYGEN (O3), THAT IS, OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.

BUT IN FACT the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.


Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

Here is the law of attractive, universal gravitation as it is being presented in our textbooks:



Gravity, we are told, is proportional to MASS and DISTANCE.


Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

The earth's atmosphere is a complex mixture of several "gases", either atomic or molecular in nature. Air consists primarily of N2 (78%) and O2 (21%), with small amounts of several other substances, including Ar (0.9%).


Let us take, as an example, the troposphere.


http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect25atmcompo.html

NITROGEN 78%
OXYGEN 21%
ARGON 0.9%


Now, the thermosphere.

http://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-gases-that-separate-by-weight-upper-layers-469654

Thermosphere: 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen

Even in the troposphere, nitrogen is thoroughly mixed with oxygen.


Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?



The gases in the atmosphere totally and absolutely defy Newton's supposed law of universal gravitation.



Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

PAGES 2 - 12

New radical chronology theory


EDIT

Messages from the proboards website continued...

I estimate he wrote at least 800 songs during that time...

How long did it take Adorno to modify the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian to come up with Something? 5 minutes

How long did it take him to modify the same theme to write the Rain Song for Led Zeppelin? Another 5 minutes

Adorno wrote extremely fast, all he had to do was to modify existing music; not only that, but he wrote all partitures backwards, to get more ideas from them, he did that most conspicuously with Because (Moonlight sonata played backwards). He could write the entire Pet Sounds album in one day, or a Rolling Stones album in one week, and time to spare.

Who actually wrote the Beatles music?

The person who actually wrote all the Beatles songs was Theodor Adorno, a music professor from Frankfurt University. And none of the songs were original, Adorno, a genius on the subject of theoretical music cleverly adapted well-known classical partitures, to create the Beatles songs.

Here are some examples...

Yellow Submarine is actually the theme from Verdi's Aida combined the Toreador song from Carmen by Bizet.

Can't buy me love is actually Aine Kleine Nacht Musik by Mozart, ingeniously modified.

Penny Lane is the Elvira Madigan Piano Concerto No. 21 by Mozart, modified.

From me to you is the Peer Gynt suite, Morning Mood, by E. Grieg

I want to hold your hand is a modified From me to you (listen carefully and compare the two songs)

Yesterday is a modified Neapolitan song, called "Piccere' Che Vene a Dicere"

Let us remember that the original J. Lennon/P. McCartney duo could neither write nor read music; in the period 1960-1962 they sang only cover songs, and manifested no music writing talent whatsoever

Got to get into my life is a modified Can't buy me love

I feel fine is actually Fire Dance by M. de Falla

Martha my Dear is a modified classical song, Martha by von Flotow:

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

Something is nothing more than the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian

For Hey Jude, Adorno pulled out all stops, he grouped into one song, masterfully, the Ride of the Walkiries by Wagner, the theme from the Piano Concerto no. 1 by Tchaikovsky, and the theme from Symphony no 9 by Beethoven

Blackbird is actually the second movement from Beethoven's Seventh Symphony, modified

Get Back is Obladi Oblada modified

Sgt. Pepper is clever combination of the Radetzky March and the Romanian rhapsody no 1 by Enescu

And Adorno reworked some of the Beatles songs to create others: She Loves You is a modified From Me to You, as is You're gonna lose that girl

A Hard Day's Night is Rossini's Wilhelm Tell overture, modified

Ballad of John and Yoko is a modified And Your Bird can Sing


Theodor Adorno (seen here: http://www.nndb.com/people/754/000026676/adorno.gif ) also wrote the entire British invasion: that is, the music of the Rolling Stones, Kinks, the Who, See Emily Play by Pink Floyd, and also Moody Blues' Days of Future Past (Nights in white satin is a modified theme from Swan Lake by Tchaikovsky), the songs for Mamas and the Papas, Doors, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby Stills and Nash, Iron Butterfly (Adorno wrote In a gadda da vida), Cream, Queen (We are the Champions, a modified Hey Jude, and Seaside Rendezvous, a modified Martha my Dear).

John Coleman actually discovered that Adorno owned the Beatles catalogue, from 1962 until his death in August 1969, and that he invented the heavy metal/punk styles of music.

The first five Led Zeppelin albums were also written by Adorno (he wrote music extensively, borrowing from Beatles songs and other, from 1964 to 1969); the Rain Song is a modified Something (that is the theme from Spartacus by Khachaturian), see the thieving magpies google search details.

The music for Jethro Tull (the early albums, including Aqualung and Thick as a Brick) were also written years ahead by Adorno, as was the Machine Head album by Deep Purple (Highway Star is a modified Magical Mystery Tour song).

The best B. Sabbath songs, Spiral Architect and She's Gone were also among the songs written for them by Adorno (copies of She's Leaving Home and the Rain Song).

Upon leaving the Featles project (1967-1969), Fohn Lennon was given some songs written also by Adorno to continue a possible solo carrier: Imagine, Bless You, Mind Games (a modified All You Need is Love).

John Lennon: doppelganger: http://doppels.proboards.com/thread/97

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



F. McCartney was given more songs, but not enough to compare disasters like Ram to the Beatles albums: Another Day, Maybe Im Amazed (a modified Long and winding Road), My Love (a modified All my Loving), Live and Let Die (a modified Magical Mystery Tour), Admiral Holsy (the best post Beatles song by McCartney, that is, by Adorno) and some others.

F. Harrison was given Dark Horse (a modified Gallows Pole by Adorno, who was inspired from black soul music), What is Love (a modified Satisfaction), and What is Life, not to mention My Sweet Lord (which Adorno copied from some early sixties music, and got Harrison into plagiarism trouble).

The Rolling Stones music was written by Adorno, as I have mentioned already: Satisfaction is a modified Ticket to Ride, Lady Jane is a modified Norwegian Wood, Jumpin Jack Flash is a modified Satisfaction, and so on...

The Beach Boys were also created musically by Adorno, who wrote the entire Pet Sounds album, God only Knows (a modified Michelle), Sloop John B (a modified Eight Days a Week), and later California Girls...


Adorno was a master at adapting classical music to suit his own purposes, that is, the institute which hired him to social engineer the entire 60s and 70s.

On the complexity of the Beatles songs:

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME01/A_Beatles_Odyssey.shtml
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml

And, all of the ABBA songs are nothing more than modified Beatles songs:

Dum Dum Diddle is a modified Obladi Oblada

Voulez Vous is Hello Goodbye all over again

Rock Me is actually a copied With a Little Help from My Friends

Dancing Queen is a modified Goodnight (from the White Album)

Mamma Mia is a modified Penny Lane

SOS is a modified Here Comes the Sun

Money Money Money is a modified Sgt. Pepper

Move on is a modified Blackbird

Take a chance on me is a modified We can Work it out (which is a modified Help)

Dance while the music still goes on is a modified I Saw Her Standing Her (borrowed by Adorno from one of Mozart's serenades)


Eagle is a modified Maybe Im Amazed

Waterloo is a modified A Hard Days Night

Prior to 1972 both B. Anderson and B. Ulvaeus manifested no musical talent whatsoever (that is, at composing songs), all of a sudden, beginning with 1972, they came up, unexplicably, with a Mozart genius-like talent at writing songs, which expired suddenly in 1979.

CAVENDISH EXPERIMENT DEBUNKED


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

The Cavendish experiment is routinely included in a short list of the greatest or most elegant experiments ever done. Like all of the other existing dogma, it has surrounded itself with a nearly impenetrable slag heap of boasting and idolatry, most if not all of it sloppy and unanalyzed. This was true even before the internet arose, but now it is true to the nth degree. Like everything else, the Cavendish experiment has added to its armor a thousand Wikipedia-like entries and glosses by a thousand mid-level physics professors. Of the many thousand recent reruns of the experiment, not one appears to have begun with any level of skepticism. Not one is actually set up to test or extend the experiment. Not one starts with the assumption that Cavendish might have been wrong. Despite the stated sacred nature of the scientific method, actually having an open mind about any standard model theory now appears to be equivalent to heresy or sacrilege.

For instance, S.J. Barnett was a professor at UCLA, then went to work at Cal Tech and JPL. He was not some crank or marginal character. And he was not an ancient or outdated character: he was still writing for PRL as late as 1953. He specialized in the field of electromagnetism, and wrote a famous book on electrostatics. He said, Due to the nature of the laws of electrostatics, the experiment of Cavendish is not conclusive.

Likewise, if we have now entered the realm of forces of 10^-10N, we must be a bit more rigorous with our analyses. Let us first return to Cavendish;s machine. Although he has a force 1000 times greater, he is still lacking the rigor required at his level of precision. We are told that his wooden bar was six feet long, and that his box was ten feet wide. According to my calculations, that puts the smaller balls only two feet from the walls. Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall
 would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

Here is another one on Cavendish:

In the original experiment of Cavendish there seems to have been an irregularity in the position of rest of one-tenth of the deflection obtained, while the period showed discrepancies of five to fifteen seconds in seven minutes.

Those are two separate margins of error, so they have to multiply. Ten percent times 3 percent. That's a thirty percent error. We don't hear much about that from Wikipedia.

Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn't even bother to include the weight of his walls. He had a 348 lb ball 9 away, and a multi-thousand pound wall 24 away. Sure, only one point on the wall is 24 away; other parts are varying distances, but the wall is not negligible however you look at it. Cavendish assumes an inverse square law but then doesn't apply it to the greatest masses in the vicinity, even though they are quite near. According to the equation and theory he is trying to use, and that he has been used to prove, he should apply the equation to all the walls, determine force differentials, and go from there. Instead, he just ignores all these things. The fact that he is able to get good results despite ignoring all these things does not imply that his assumptions are all correct, or that it was OK to ignore all these masses. It implies that the motion is not caused in the way he assumes. In an experiment about mass, you should not be able to ignore most mass in the vicinity and still get the same answer. If your set-up doesn't matter, your set-up is probably wrong.



Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

 It is even more strange now that we have apples weighing only ounces standing as proof of gravitational theory, the weight and density of the earth, and the accepted value of an important constant. That is to say, we now accept apples as having easily measurable and verifiable gravitational attractions, but we ignore the gravitational attractions of walls weighing thousands of pounds. I can only imagine that we do this because walls are not made of metal, or walls are not spherical, or something. I can’t really fathom it.

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.


This means that the four walls must be taken into account, not only as blockers of wind, but as suppliers of mass and any possible E/M interaction.

This is clear, I think, with Cavendish, and it is equally clear with Walker and all modern machines and environs. Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.


“As Cavendish proved…[there were] enormous effects of air currents set up by temperature differences inside the box.” We don’t hear much of that anymore. We are supposed to assume that Cavendish solved his wind problems by building the box.

Next he says this:

With such small beams as I am now using it is much more convenient to replace the long thin box generally employed to protect the beam from disturbance by a vertical tube of circular section, in which the beam with its mirror can revolve freely. This has the further advantage that if the beam is hung centrally, the attraction of the tube produces no effect, and the troublesome and approximate calculations which have been necessary to find the effect of the box are no longer required.

See that he admits that he has not done any “troublesome calculations” on his box, just assuming it produces no effect.


Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn’t even bother to include the weight of his walls.

The same applies to Walker and the new experiments. They are incredibly sloppy about mass in an experiment that concerns mass, and yet they always seem to get reliable results. Does no one else find this the least bit strange? All they have to do is block the wind and the experiment provides all the right motions. They can switch it from clockwise to counterclockwise without concern: they still get attraction. They don’t have to worry if one wall is bigger than the other, or if there are magnetic fields in the area, or if they have cameras or ladders in the way, or if they are not square to the wall, or if they are nearer the floor or the ceiling. All these things that you would think might matter in an experiment concerning mass don’t seem to matter. Very curious.

You should find it very mystifying that all these scientists not only ignore huge masses only two feet away, masses that may or not be balanced, they also ignore the need to say why they can ignore these masses. In other words, they ignore these facts, then ignore their own ignorance of these facts, and none of it seems to matter. We are such blessed creatures, apparently, that we can stumble on the correct answer every time, without even being fully conscious.


THEN THE AUTHOR PROCEEDS TO CALCULATE THE INFLUENCE OF THE E/M FIELDS SURROUNING THE EXPERIMENT AND FINDS OUT THAT THEY GREATLY AFFECT THE FINAL RESULT.


But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.


This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.


This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.

STATIONARY ATMOSPHERE

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph.

From Galileo Was Wrong:

"If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.)

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens."


No scientist has been able to explain, so far, how friction would work even for the first hundred meters of the supposed rotating atmosphere.

Remember, that the strength of friction lessens as the altitude increases, that is, FRICTION IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE.

For the atmosphere to rotate along with the Earth, at the same speed, we need A NEW FORCE, a lateral gravitational force, which must be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE, in order for the upper layers to rotate along also.

In the RE model, from the very start, the Earth would be turning in a free roaming gaseous envelope (the atmosphere).

Friction would work only very near the surface, where the "pull" would be strongest; further away from the Earth this force would logically become weaker and weaker, as would the movement of the gaseous envelope surrounding the Earth.

Inversely proportional: the higher the altitude, the weaker the friction.


Now, the proof that friction cannot possibly be responsible for moving the rotating layers of the atmosphere, at the same speed as that of a rotating Earth.

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/bndy.rxml (University of Illinois, Physics of the Atmosphere)

Friction's effects on air motion decrease as the altitude increases -- to a point (usually 1-2 km) where it has no effect at all. The depth of the atmosphere that friction does play a role in atmospheric motion is referred to as the boundary layer.


Complete and absolute proof that what I have been saying is true: friction is inversely proportional to altitude, and that moreover, it will have no effect at all (starting from say an altitude of 1 km).



Some quotes about the Earth's supposed rotation...

"Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest..."

- Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion on Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.


"A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth's movement. The results were always negative (...) We do not have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation..."

- Henri Poincaré , From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St.Louis, Sept 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.


"There was just one alternative; the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil."

- Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8


"The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth's motion on physical phenomena allows us to...[Pauli gives up looking for experimental evidence and moves on to the abstract 'escape hatch' theories of Einstein]"

- Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.


"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.


"This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation... which presupposes that the Earth moves."

- Albert Michelson (Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125)


And now, to turn the table against the heliocentrists.


http://www.oupcanada.com/higher_education/companion/geography/9780195425451/student_resources/study_guide/unit_09.html

Friction decreases with an increase in altitude, and friction reduces the velocity of wind.

HERE IS A REFERENCE WHICH SAYS THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BOUNDARY LAYER IS ACTUALLY JUST A FEW HUNDREDS OF METERS THICK.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_dyn.html

Air is not very viscous ("sticky"), so "real" friction (the one that comes from molecular motion) is only important in a very thin layer of atmosphere next to the surface. However, air is very turbulent. This turbulence generates small-scale up and down motion, which mixes slow air from the friction layer with fast air from above, thereby spreading the effect of molecular friction over a layer a few hundred meters thick (turbulence is the reason for wind gusts). This interaction with the surface slows down atmospheric motion.



"The law of conservation of angular momentum applies to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the spin of the World."

The supposed frictional force, inversely proportional to altitude, would have dampened the very rotation of the Earth, from the very start.

The Earth-Atmosphere-Sun system is NOT a closed system, therefore it has not has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum.

"The World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

Hence, the interaction of a rotating World with an atmosphere is always going to be a case of losing angular momentum (i.e., angular velocity, since the mass of the World does not change) to the atmosphere, because of friction. Friction generates heat. Heat gets dissipated.
Some of this dissipated heat will leave the World/atmosphere system in the form of radiated energy. The World will slow down and stop."

Let us go to the textbook on atmospheric science.

Conservation of momentum in the atmosphere is a complex process, but basically the earth/ocean/atmosphere system must conserve angular momentum. Angular momentum is transferred from the earth to the atmosphere by the tropical easterlies, where air is rotating faster than the earth and transferred from the atmosphere back to the earth by the westerlies in the mid-latitudes, where the wind is rotating slower than the earth.

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection currents within the atmosphere which have a great effect on the air molecules. These convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these are perhaps the greatest reason why the so-called 'closed system' is invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different  components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE SYSTEM.

Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies. That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases, nor, in general, to fluids."


No scientist has been able to explain, so far, how friction would work even for the first hundred meters of the supposed rotating atmosphere.

Remember, that the strength of friction lessens as the altitude increases, that is, FRICTION IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE.

For the atmosphere to rotate along with the Earth, at the same speed, we need A NEW FORCE, a lateral gravitational force, which must be DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO ALTITUDE, in order for the upper layers to rotate along also.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140903074446/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

"This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.

Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.

 

Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.

Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.

Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)^2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).

 

Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis."

In my opinion the biggest and most extraordinary conspiracy of all (which actually runs in parallel with the flat earth debate as Joseph Scaliger was a best friend of Johannes Kepler) is the modification and alteration of world history, that is, of the actual chronology of the events that took place in the past.

Although many exceptional books have been published in the last 200 years pertaining to this subject, the modern development of the study starts with the intriguing paper by R. Newton (1970, 'Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Accelerations of the Earth and Moon', Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press), in which the author shows that, based on the ancient records of eclipses, the values of the parameter D" (lunar elongation, second derivative) calculated for the  period 1200 BC - 1200 AD, cannot be explained in view of current geophysical theories (especially the law of gravity). This paper created quite a stir in the scientific community, and several leading astrophysicists started to actually research how the law of gravity could be modified to account for such incredible figures.



In 1980, the well known russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko realized that a different, and correct, approach, would be to realize that the data for the eclipses during that period were falsified and written down much later, he says in the 15-16th centuries AD. As such, the correct graph would look like this:



The original paper by A. Fomenko: http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm

Encouraged by these results, Fomenko demonstrated that the eclipse described by Thucydides (History of the Peloponesian Wars), allegedly having occured in 431 BC, actually happened in the XIth century AD; and he gave other examples, the eclipse in Titus Livy' History which must have taken place at least 1000 years later ( http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fomenko&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false pg. 100 - 110).

Fomenko believes, and certainly does prove, that our history is at most 1000 years old; he started to be criticized by some new chronologists (Gunnar Heinsohn and Christoph Pfister) that he did not go far enough.

The use of tin metallurgy (very complex)  in antiquity is another example of current historical chronology mistakes; bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, but the large scale production of tin actually began in the XV-XVIth centuries AD; therefore, the Bronze Age must be dated much closer to our era.

The destruction of Pompeii by the eruption of Vesuvius actually happened in the 18th century, and not in the year 79 AD.



The Pompeian fresco, the Three Graces resemble perfectly Raphael's Three Graces, and later paintings (del Cossa, Rubens). Raphael did not have a time machine available to take him to the year 78 AD, therefore the logical conclusion is that the actual eruption took place either in the XVI century (the conventional chronology) or even in the late 18th century (radical revised new chronology).

"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.

I fully believe that the actual duration of our world history is not more than 500 years old (100 years for the antediluvian period, and 400 years for our history); the followers of Akhenaten and the cult of Osiris (that is, Misraim), the later Jesuits and Templars, wrote the Torah and New Testament, introducing the completely false chronologies of Genesis chapters 10 and 11, and much more.

Another extraordinary reference is Ghost empires of the past: did the Sumerians really ever exist? by Gunnar Heinsohn.

Iesous Christos (the Messiah) was born in Thrace, around 1680 AD (80 years after the Flood), and was the grandson of Pelasg (the actual first-born of Noah); the historical figure of Abraham is actually Iesous. The conspirators changed the location of his birth (Abraham's) from Thrace to Sumer and invented the chapters 12-25 in Genesis. Iesous was crucified in Constantinopole (the actual Troy) in 1710-1715 AD; the whole story having been moved by the Jesuit priests to Jerusalem. The actual Solomon temple is the Hagia Sophia, built by Nimrod around 1700 AD; in Jerusalem (Ur-Shulim) there was no such temple, with the exception of the temple of Shulim (Salem) dedicated to the lunar gods.

As we can see from the book of Jubilees (chapter 8: http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/8.htm, verse 19 has been introduced later as a forgery), the center of the world is not Jerusalem (I have been led to believe in this thing, by the misleading world map of the Templars, which of course, would place their object of pagan worship in the center), but the western portion of Anatolia (ancient Bithynia/Mysia); that is there is a territory of about 40 km in diameter next to the sea of Marmara (sea of Miot/Me'at in the book of Jubilees, river Tina is the Megistus/Simav river which runs next to lake Artynia, and mount Rafa/Rafu is actually the Olympus and Temnus mountains of western Anatolia; Riphath lived in Paphlagonia and Bithynia, that is where the name Rafa/Rafu comes from) which is the actual Garden of Eden and is blocked aetherically, veiled from our view. In the book of Enoch, the actual term sea of Atil (Black Sea; in Enoch's time, the Black Sea covered the sea of Marmara and the sea of Azov too, being called the sea of Thetys) was modified to read Erythraean sea, which is wrong.

A. Fomenko (see www.scribd.com and www.books.google.com for History: Science or Fiction? vol. 1 and 2) was the first serious researcher to find out that Christ was crucified in Constantinopole; he dates this event in the period 1153-1186 AD.

In my opinion, given the new revised chronology, these events took place in the late 17th century (1680-1710/1715) to early 18th century; the temple of Solomon was actually the Hagia Sophia, built by Nimrod in Troy, that is, Constantinopole. Nimrod had at his disposal the full details of the book of Enoch which did include geometry, advanced mathematics, and many other subjects, readily available. The first crusade occurred around 1720 against Troy (Constantinopole); this war become the subject of the Iliad and the Odyssey, invented some years later by the Jesuits.

The Great Wall of China was built in the second half of the 20th century, see http://www.ihaal.com/articles/A%20chronological%20revolution%20made%20by%20historical%20analytics.pdf for an introduction to this subject.

Tenochtitlan (city of Tenoch, son of Cain) was built some 50 years after Cain was banished to present day Mexico; Tiahuanaco, the Pyramid of Gizeh (and the Sphinx) were built also before the Flood, in the period 1550-1600 AD.

Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, India, Sumer, Babylon, were all invented in the 18th century by Joseph Scaliger and the Jesuit priests, see Fomenko's books for details. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, Cezar, Archimedes were invented also, as were the ancient wars and historical events. Galilei and Koppernigk also never existed; J. Kepler and T. Brahe lived in the period 1770-1820, as did I. Newton; they were contemporaries with Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael (see my previous message).

Akhenaten was the son of Nimrod, and tried to introduce in Egypt the cult of the planet Mars, to replace the worship of the Sun which was performed by the sons of Misraim; he was forced to go into exile in Canaan around 1720 AD, this story having been transformed into the Exodus of Moses.

Hampton Palace, the Escorial, the Hermitage, St. Peter dome in Rome were built in the period 1780-1820.

See also: http://www.revisedhistory.org/ and http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

Here is the Triumph of Venus by F. del Cossa, allegedly painted in 1470:

http://www2.moneymuseum.com/frontend/images/images/hires/41312_4_en.jpg

Exactly the same images as in the frescoes unearthed at Pompeii:

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien2.jpg

Or, the painting with the same name, Three Graces, by Raphael (allegedly 1504):

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/images/pom-grazien1.jpg

Here is an article which takes a very close look at the correct historical dating of the Vesuvius eruption which destroyed the city of Pompeii (translation from German):

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en


The sites at Pompeii were excavated during the 19th century; and Raphael lived during the early 16th century (conventional chronology), and during the late 18th century (revised new chronology).

Some researchers have even suggested that the construction of the Versailles by Louis "XVI" (and not by "XIV", and these numbers were invented later on) was the cause of the so-called French Revolution (whose events were later greatly exaggerated; see the book Myth of the French Revolution by A. Cobban); there were even early observers (19th century) who made a strong case for the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte did not actually exist (but was a mythological composite of earlier and later French kings/heroes): http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte.

I am interested to know, to the best of your reckoning, when Monteverdi composed the opera Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, given that the sacking of Troy occured in the early 18th Century.

Since the main events of the Odyssey's last books (the subject of Il ritorno) occured two decades after the sacking of Troy, and you place the sacking of Troy somewhere in the immediate aftermath of the year 1720, conventional chronology places the composition of Monteverdi's masterpiece exactly one century prior to the events it claims to imitate.

Do you believe that Monteverdi successfully prophesised the events of exactly one century in the future, or do you believe that he existed in a later century?

If the latter, which century? If the former, I should like to further question you with regard to his alleged career as a Roman Catholic Priest, given that the Crucifixion of Christ occured shortly before the sacking of Troy, approximately 80 years after Monteverdi's death.

In short, what is the status of this opera? Is it prophetic, or is it Georgian?

As we have seen, the Pompeii frescoes do certainly prove that a period of at least 1450 years has been fraudulently included in the official chronology. Now more proofs.

Here is the Pompeii mosaic, Battle of Alexander and Darius:



Now, the Raphael painting, Battle of Constantine and Maxentius:



See History Fiction or Science, volume 1, for the comparison between the two works of art, and many more details about ancient (allegedly) art and its relation to the XVII century.

The details about Monteverdi's career need to be moved forward in time about two centuries; as a Jesuit priest he certainly knew very well about the real chronology, he simply copied the Odyssey written in the period 1715-1730 (along with all the other ancient documents). Here is a site with all the major contributors to the new chronology subject: http://www.ilya.it/chrono/enpages/weristwer.html

I see, that does make sense, but I must still ask you, did Monteverdi's life, in your opinion, pro- or precede that of Amadeus Mozart? By your reckoning (moved two centuries forward), Il ritorno was composed in roughly 1840, almost a half-century after the death of Mozart. Is this correct, or did Mozart also live two centuries later (i.e. 1956-1991)?

P. S., if so, why was his death not more widely publicised?

James, you did not read more carefully what I wrote; I appreciate very much your historical insights, and I think that you will research this subject to convince yourself that at least 5000 years of history have been fraudulently included in the official chronology. It is my opinion that Bach, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven lived in the period 1760-1840, most probably Monteverdi having lived in the earlier phase of that interval of time (we move Monteverdi about two centuries ahead in time, to the period 1760 -, we leave Mozart in the period listed officially (although we could move a few decades within that chronology, perhaps 1780 - 1815). I also believe that their approximate years of birth and death (Bach - Haydn) were made up to suit the chronology invented by J. Scaliger (who actually lived at the end of the 18th century).

I also believe that the great architect Andrea Palladio lived in the middle of the 18th century; his treatise on architecture belongs to that period (the mathematics and the drawings) and not at all to a 16th century era. Also, it becomes very clear that Rembrandt and Rubens lived in the latter period of the 18th century and not earlier.

I urge you to read History: Fiction or Science?, vol. 1 and 2, I think you will find them fascinating:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here is the exceptional analysis by Garri Kasparov concerning the invention of ancient Greece and Rome by J. Scaliger:

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

You will find in this last link, the Book of Civilization, another proof that the Iliad could not possibly have been written in the period 1200-1100 BC, pg. 398, an analysis of the term Theo Hwana used by "Homer".

And James, the second derivative of the moon elongation, the D" parameter, shows clearly that our history is at most 1000 years old, see the first volume of History: Science or Fiction? by Fomenko, and my first message here. I believe that Fomenko stopped much too early during his research, and did not see that even the period 1200-1750 has been invented by later historians.

The best researcher in the field of the radical new chronology (and this will answer your question further) is, in my opinion, Christoph Pfister; he investigated all major "medieval" monuments/buildings and all ancient/medieval documents in Switzerland, and found out that they were built/written well after 1720; in fact he discovered that before 1700 AD nothing whatsoever is known about the history of Switzerland. Here is his best work, Matrix of Ancient History:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gk5T6bt1fA4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=pfister+die+matrix&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

And here, his site, one of the very best available today:

http://www.dillum.ch/html/inhalt.html (also includes fantastic information about the Nasa missions, in one of the links)

He discovered also that the gothic style of architecture was developed after 1750, and lasted only 20 years, and not 300 years. What Pfister was not able to determine, is what happened before 1700 AD, and this is just what we have been doing here.

Bach, Monteverdi, Vivaldi, were born in the period 1740-1745, and their style of classical music (1760-1780) was followed immediately by a short transition, to be replaced by the music composed by Mozart (I believe he lived in the period 1780 - 1816). There was no 80 year pause or period between Bach and Mozart.

Pfister came across the fact that the Vesuvius eruption which destroyed Pompeii (many proofs gathered over the years) occurred after 1750, thus Raphael must have lived in the period 1770-1790, when the Three Graces was painted (I believe the eruption took place around 1800).

The knowledge to extract metals (gold, silver, iron, copper, tin) was passed to Noah's sons (especially Khem) from the information that was available before the Flood (see the book of Enoch; the first six chapters, the Apocalypse of the Animals, the Ten Week Apocalypse were added later on however); much more technical information was also transmitted about masonry and how to build large structures, Khem's descendants inherited this knowledge, which led to the organization of the first freemasonry lodges in Troy (they built the Hagia Sophia, the Chartres cathedral, and much more).

Japhet's sons and descendants were the Slavs, and formed further (by mixing with Pelasg's heirs) the tribes of the Goths and Aryans.

I think I know what books will be going on my Christmas list this year. This could be the start of an illuminating voyage into the annals of history, fake and real.

Thanks for your clarification on the lives of the composers. Perhaps I shall never again listen to Il ritorno with quite the same ear! I assume of course that I will discover the answers to many of my questions when I examine these materials in greater depth, however, in the mean time, I do have some further queries of you if you wouldn't mind.

In the last part of the 15th Century, and for most of the 16th Century according to the old-school version of history, the Spanish Conquistadors sailed to the New World, dismantling the Incan Empire as they went, and introducing Spanish, Smallpox and Christianity to the South American continent. Once again, I am having difficulty reconciling the 18th Century crucifixion of Christ with the zealous evangelism of 15th Century Christians, so I would like to know when the events of the Spanish Conquest actually occurred (presumably it was after events at Troy/Constantinople).

I notice also that you have mentioned a strong case for the non-existence of Napoleon Bonaparte. This is a fascinating assessment, but neccesitates some substantial revisions. I am interested as to whether you (1) explicitly accept this thesis, (2) if so, do you still consider the Battle of Waterloo to have occured? (3) If not, do you believe in the Duke of Wellington, and (4) how about George IV?

A final query, your characterisation of Nimrod is an interesting one. I notice that you've dismissed Genesis 11 as invented, does this mean that Nimrod did not in fact construct the legendary Tower of Babel? Is the tower entirely made-up, or was it in fact built at Constantinople.

By the way, I was very impressed with your analysis of Akenhaten and his followers as the originators of the the Exodus myth of Moses. I have read Freud's Moses and Monothesism, which also argues that the so-called Israelites were in fact Atenist heretics on the run. On this point I am utterly convinced. Elements of Freud's assessment closely match your own (in this one highly specific regard), to such an extent that I think you must have read it already, although if you have not I would thoroughly recommend it. An excellent stocking filler!!



Merry Christmas Levee, and keep up the good work. I will look forward to hearing your answers.

The discovery of the Americas occurred first in the period 1690-1700, by Nimrod, who was called Xelhua (the giant with beard and horns); the descendants of Noah, especially Khem/Kush, had detailed maps of the continents, and on that ark they also had with them boats to take them directly and precisely to their territories (the ones they had inherited).

A few incas did escape the Flood, by hiding in a cave (the Flood lasted for only 7 days and nights), having been warned of what was to follow. Nimrod brought to the Americas the Olmecs, a tribe of kushites, which mixed with the descendants of the incas (some of them travelled to present day Guatemala/Mexico, becoming the mayas and the aztecs).

There was no journey by Columbus, who never existed; slavery went on from about 1750 to the latter part of the 19th century. There was no Jamestown, no Pilgrims; I believe the American "Revolution" took place some decades later than what we have been told; 1776 is a magical number with connections to 666, 1110, and much more. The architectural styles of Monticello, the Capitol, and White House, belong to early 19th century.

The Americas were first colonized, officially, well after the fall of Troy; maybe in the 1740s. We know now that Akhenaten (Freud does make a point in his book for the case that Moses was actually Akhenaten) and his descendants left for France after Nebuchadnezzar (a worshipper of the Sun, follower of Horus, the enemies of Akhenaten and Kush) attacked Canaan, after the death of Nimrod, then his descendants left for the New World, to establish the US. I believe the spaniards and the portuguese arrived in Central/South America after 1750, as the architectural style of the buildings in Santo Domingo (the ones we are told were built in Columbus' time) belongs clearly to the late 18th century.

Let us now put a more precise date on the eruption of Vezuvius which destroyed Pompeii.

http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejidt.htm
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en



Steel alloys for tools/instruments used in surgery dates, according to the official chronology, to 1666 (Fabritius); bronze instruments were used much later.



(from the Naples national archaeological museum)


(faucet from Pompeii)



Translation from German to English:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gie?tischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely evenly! As if it had come from the table, rolls of Saint-Gobain.


At Pompeii, we know now, there existed a large Colosseum; since the destruction of Pompeii must have taken place well after 1688 (official chronology), or after 1780 (radical revised new chronology), the technology for building the Rome Colosseum does belong to the same interval of time. Then, the official chronology which tells of Vespasian, Titus, the siege of Jerusalem, never took place, as the Colosseum was built in the 17th century (official chronology), and as we see here, actually in the end of the 18th century.

Nimrod tried to built (using the plans/drawings saved by Khem on the ark) an UFO; the term SHEM should be used instead of NAME, in the account of the tower of Babel; this tower was a launching pad for the UFO; how could a tribe of some few thousands of people (Nimrod's followers, and we can substract from that number, down to a few hundred) build a tower to reach the Heavenly Dome (at least 15 km in height)? That tower meant a ziggurat, the top of which would be used to launch the UFO (the ziggurat was used as a battery or an antenna to start the process of the mercury gyro which powered the UFO).

 

You wrote also about Napoleon/Wellington/George IV.

http://everything2.com/title/Proof+that+Napoleon+Bonaparte+never+existed and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte will show that the historical figure of Napoleon, as described in our books, is a far cry from what actually happened at the end of the 18th century. Yes, there was a Wellington, I believe, and a battle of Waterloo, but the actual dating of these events could be modified, maybe they took place some years later perhaps. And the identity of Napoleon must be brought into question, was he actually Louis XVIII?

The French king in 1819, King Louis XVIII, is a Bourbon king and claims to have been king of France for 23 years. During this time France and England have fought many battles. This makes it quite probable that the figure "Napoleon" is actually a mythological composite of many different French heroes from many different contemporary battles between England and France.

Let us take a closer look at the alleged reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV. We are taught that Louis XIV reigned for no less than 72 years (!), 1643-1715, and Louis XV reigned for almost 60 years, 59 to be precise, 1715-1774. It is obvious that these dates were added much later, perhaps at the end of the 18th century, to account for the fact that all official documents were falsified after 1750 (see Pfister's site, www.dillum.ch, presented here earlier).

Very strange is also the reign of George III, 1760-1820; sixty years is a bit too much to be king of England, in my opinion this chronology was made up sometime after the 1840s.

(Il ritorno by Monteverdi, one of the most accomplished composers, now we know, of the 18th century)

I think this was written sometimes after 1760 (but before 1780), and that this musical style was replaced by that of Haydn, and later by Mozart (after 1790). As Pfister discovered in Switzerland, the baroque style of architecture lasted for only about 20 years (instead of the 300 years taken into consideration by the official chronology).

As we have seen, the destruction of Pompeii did take place at least after 1688, and that Raphael must have lived, in this official chronology, in that period; the inhabitants of Pompeii would not have painted frescoes of the works of someone who lived some 170 years earlier (the Three Graces, 1504), as we can see from the artefacts, they liked everything to be modern...

Other works by Monteverdi which are very nice:

FAKE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY EXPERIMENTS

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964PhRv..133.1221J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973PhRvD...8.3321T
http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.105011
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.060402
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0305117.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhRvL..95d0404S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvD..74h1101S

In the first paper, Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers, the authors of the paper committed a grave omission, failing to take into account the stability of lasers inside the magnetic field of the Earth:

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

In the second paper, signed Trimmer and Baierlein, the authors made a horrendous error, subsequently having to withdraw their article.



The third paper included another huge error: the omission of the Cahill criterion.

"So as better and better vacuum interferometers were developed over the last 70 years the rotation-induced fringe shift signature of absolute motion became smaller and smaller. But what went unnoticed until 2002 was that the gas in the interferometer was a key component of this instrument when used as an “absolute motion detector”, and over time the experimental physicists were using instruments with less and less sensitivity; and in recent years they had finally perfected a totally dud instrument. [Conclusions] from such experiments claim that absolute motion is not observable."

Here is more technical proof that an ether drift experiment performed in vacuum will nullify the final results: an effect altspace had no knowledge of.

In vacuum ONE HAS TO use either torsion, pressure, sound or electricity to detect ether.





Not even if they go to 10^-30, nothing will be detected for the reasons explained above.

Fake Hafele-Keating experiment:


http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

Dr. A.G. Kelly requested the actual test results that "gave figures that were radically altered from the published results. These altered results gave the impression that they were consistent with the theory. The original test results are reproduced for the first time in this paper; these do not confirm the theory. The corrections made by H & K to the raw data, are shown to be totally unjustified."


Kennedy[14]   Pasadena/Mt. Wilson   1926   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.002   35   ∼ 5 km/s   0.002   yes
Illingworth[15]   Pasadena   1927   2.0   0.07   ≤ 0.0004   175   ∼ 2 km/s   0.0004   yes
Piccard & Stahel[19]   with a Balloon   1926   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.006   20   ∼ 7 km/s   0.006   yes
Piccard & Stahel[20]   Brussels   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0002   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Piccard & Stahel[21]   Rigi   1927   2.8   0.13   ≤ 0.0003   185   ∼ 2.5 km/s   0.0007   yes
Michelson et al.[22]   Mt. Wilson   1929   25.9   0.9   ≤ 0.01   90   ∼ 3 km/s   0.01   yes
Joos[16]   Jena   1930   21.0   0.75   ≤ 0.002   375   ∼ 1.5 km/s   0.002   yes

But these were VERY POORLY PERFORMED experiments which used metallic chambers to detect ether drift, which led to the discovery of the Atsukovsky effect.

Dr. Dayton Miller specified quite clearly:


"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesirable
while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".

Performing ether drift experiments within a metallic chamber will produce the ATSUKOVSKY EFFECT (discovered for the first time by the Russian scientist V. Atsukovsky): the electrons in the metal covering create a Fermi surface and thus partially shield the apparatus from the ether’s movement.

“It is the same as making the attempt to measure the wind, which blows outdoors, looking at the anemometer in a closed room” V. Atsukovsky (Yuri Galaev, “Ethereal Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowave Propagation,” The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine, Aug. 26, 2001, p. 212


https://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3992

But the team of Kopeikin and Fomalont committed a huge error in a similar study.

And that study also used VLBA.

A scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) says the announcement by two scientists, widely reported this past January, about the speed of gravity was wrong.

Stuart Samuel, a participating scientist with the Theory Group of Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, has demonstrated that an “ill-advised” assumption made in the earlier claim led to an unwarranted conclusion.

“In effect, the experiment was measuring effects associated with the propagation of light, not the speed of gravity.”

According to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, light and gravity travel at the same speed, about 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. Most scientists believe this is true, but the assumption was that it could only be proven through the detection of gravity waves. Sergei Kopeikin, a University of Missouri physicist, and Edward Fomalont, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), believed there was an alternative.

On September 8, 2002, the planet Jupiter passed almost directly in front of the radio waves coming from a quasar, a star-like object in the center of a galaxy billions of light-years away. When this happened, Jupiter's gravity bent the quasar’s radio waves, causing a slight delay in their arrival on Earth. Kopeikin believed the length of time that the radio waves would be delayed would depend upon the speed at which gravity propagates from Jupiter.

To measure the delay, Fomalont set up an interferometry system using the NRAO’s Very Long Baseline Array, a group of ten 25-meter radio telescopes distributed across the continental United States, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands, plus the 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Kopeikin then took the data and calculated velocity-dependent effects. His calculations appeared to show that the speed at which gravity was being propagated from Jupiter matched the speed of light to within 20 percent. The scientists announced their findings in January at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

Samuel argues that Kopeikin erred when he based his calculations on Jupiter’s position at the time the quasar’s radio waves reached Earth rather than the position of Jupiter when the radio waves passed by that planet.

Samuel was able to simplify the calculations of the velocity-dependent effects by shifting from a reference frame in which Jupiter is moving, as was used by Kopeikin, to a reference frame in which Jupiter is stationary and Earth is moving. When he did this, Samuel found a formula that differed from the one used by Kopeikin to analyze the data. Under this new formula, the velocity-dependent effects were considerably smaller. Even though Fomalont was able to measure a time delay of about 5 trillionths of a second, this was not nearly sensitive enough to measure the actual gravitational influence of Jupiter.

“With the correct formula, the effects of the motion of Jupiter on the quasar-signal time-delay are at least 100 times and perhaps even a thousand times smaller than could have been measured by the array of radio telescopes that Fomalont used,” Samuel says. “There’s a reasonable chance that such measurements might one day be used to define the speed of gravity, but they just aren’t doable with our current technology.”


GALAEV ETHER DRIFT EXPERIMENTS: TOTAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER

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

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

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

Dr. Galaev remarks:

Orbital component of the ether drift velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected [during the Dayton Miller experiments].

Dr. Galaev also concludes:

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

The most precise experiments ever undertaken in ether-drift detection thus prove that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at a speed of 30km/s.



http://www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/civilevents.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/dante.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/classical.htm
http://www.revisedhistory.org/Book%20of%20Civilization.pdf

Easier access for History: Science or Fiction (1&2):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9647635/History-Fiction-or-Science-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9647726/History-Fiction-or-Science-2

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html (one of the best works by G. Heinsohn)

Fomenko quotes:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28896#28896
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1081&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=180
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27617#27617
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27879#27879 (not so ancient egypt)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27888#27888 (not so ancient india)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27892#27892 (not so ancient china 1)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27945#27945 (not so ancient china 2)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27981#27981 (not so ancient china 3)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1081&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120&sid=0a81b9a31c348e3a7a7375fd89e97a78

Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries:

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30145#30145

A Mysterious Metal

One of the best-kept secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been the discovery of metals in the black ink. That finding was buried in unpublished results, and wasn't unearthed until 1996. The presence of metals further points to the scrolls being of medieval origin.
Scientific testing of the scrolls in the early 1950s found silver, manganese, iron and other metals in the black ink used on the scrolls. Scholars tried to downplay the discovery of these metals by saying that some of them, like copper and lead, were byproducts of leaching from a bronze inkwell. Yet silver, manganese and iron are not components in the making of bronze. The 1990s tests also detected the presence of strontium and titanium but could not tell if they were pure. (In its purest form, neither element was isolated until the 1800s.)

Edwin Johnson, who proved that the pauline epistles were written at least after 1533 BC:

http://www.radikalkritik.de/antiqua_mater.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/pauline_epistles.htm
http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

C. Pfister: ancient/medieval documents written after 1730, Trajan's column built in the same era as the columns of the Charles Cathedral in Viena, the Bern Cathedral built after 1730:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dillum.ch%2Fhtml%2Finhalt.html&sl=de&tl=en

(follow the links in the main page for the St. Charles Cathedral, Bern Cathedral, Abbey Library)