# Discussion on Gravity

• 119 Replies
• 28063 Views

#### Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2009, 04:40:12 AM »
Planar elliptical orbits are incompatible with circular helices orbits on a right cylinder, the orbital inclination would differ greatly.

You keep saying that, but you haven't given any explanation for why it is so.

And the Sun is not stationary, it is moving along towards Vega.

I thought we had just established that there was an inertial frame of reference such that the Sun was stationary.

Now, if we are located within this frame of reference, those orbital inclinations of the other planets would show that the assumption made by the Indian astronomers is false and incorrect.

So you are suggesting that there is some absolute frame of reference, from which all measurements must be made?

Since there is no attractive gravitation, parsifal, how do you account for the movement of the planets/stars?

Gravitation.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

#### bowler

• 871
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2009, 05:45:42 AM »
In the centre of mass from of the sun the the motion of the planets is a helix shape. From the center of mass frame of the galactic centre then it is a helical shape.

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #92 on: September 22, 2009, 05:50:54 AM »
Those videos represent no evidence whatsoever. The angular size is meaningless if we don't know the distance and it does not provide any information about the distance either (unless we know the size of the object).

Here's proof the moon is 10 meter in diameter :

LOL! You're right, the moon is on 10 meters! How could I have thought anything otherwise my whole life?

But could you stop using youtube videos and wikipedia? Seriously, that's all you have? Try linking ACTUAL RESEARCH PAPERS.

You won't really find any in support of FET, though...
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

#### senoctar

• 35
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2009, 06:06:22 AM »
LOL! You're right, the moon is on 10 meters! How could I have thought anything otherwise my whole life?

But could you stop using youtube videos and wikipedia? Seriously, that's all you have? Try linking ACTUAL RESEARCH PAPERS.

You won't really find any in support of FET, though...

But that's the proof I was presented by him.
He sends me videos like this :

and claims they are evidence the moon is 618 Km wide, because we know the size of the ISS.
My picture of the piano was a joke. All I wanted to say is that looking at a video like this other one :

you could very well consider the moon is 500 meters wide.

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2009, 06:53:10 AM »
My comment on youtube and wiki wasn't at you, senoctar. Sorry for the confusion.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

#### senoctar

• 35
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #95 on: September 22, 2009, 07:18:03 AM »
My comment on youtube and wiki wasn't at you, senoctar. Sorry for the confusion.

On this specific issue, I find it hard there would be any scientific evidence because i don't see how it can be true.
I though the comment was addressed to me because I didn't provide any scientific research papers either. I didn't see a need, since simple geometry calculations imply things we just don't observe.

Also, he did provide some references to the some other arguments, and I didn't in my responses. Although I found some papers, the one we mostly talked about was how the atmosphere moves with the earth. It did not make sense to post any papers showing the process that causes that, since we both agree it would be the viscosity of air. So I would need to find a study that actually calculates or simulates the atmosphere would indeed move with the earth, not describe the process, or show it's effects.

Back to the moon being 618 Km wide, it's just silly (and going a bit offtopic). The only way out would be the bendy light thing, however levee does not seem to believe it and I don't think it would work even with that. I spent quite some time calculating if bendy light would work, and it kind of does, if you stand still, but not for a moon so small.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2009, 07:21:29 AM by senoctar »

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2009, 07:34:55 AM »
I've read papers on why the atmosphere moves with the earth, and other documents about the moon and such.

And the only like I clicked that wasn't a youtube video was a post on a forum, claiming to be from a paper written by Tesla.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2009, 10:43:08 AM »

I always provide proofs for my statements, . . .

No you don't.

There is a subtle difference between a load of dubious links to youtube videos and other crap and proof. Just because you believe something doesn't mean others believe it or that it provides proof.

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2009, 11:05:55 AM »
Hurray for people realizing youtube isn't proof!

Thanks guys!
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #99 on: September 23, 2009, 12:50:00 AM »
senactor, do you understand the actual figures used in the textbooks? Here they are for you, again:

Official data (maximum distances, diameter at equator)
Sun - Earth distance, 149000000 km
Mercury - Sun distance, 70000000 km
Mercury - Earth distance, 79000000 km
Moon - Earth distance, 384400 km
ISS - Earth distance, 400 km
ISS - Sun distance, 148999600 km
Mercury diameter, 4880 km
Moon diameter, 3475 km
Sun diameter, 1400000 km

And the official FES numbers:

Sun diameter, 32 miles
Sun - Earth distance, 3000 miles

Do you understand the significance of a distance of 149 million km? Do you understand what a diameter of 1.4 million km consists of?

Here are the actual videos (we also have the pictures available, if that would please you) taken by amateur astronomers, no 149 million km distance between the Earth and the Sun, no 1.4 million km diameter of the Sun; the Sun located RIGHT BEHIND the ISS:

Now, here is the Mercury transit; THE SAME distance from Mercury to the Sun, as in the above videos, the same diameter of Mercury as for the ISS:

Here are the Venus videos:

Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...

Here is the extraordinary photograph taken in Antarctica confirming all of the above:

Here are more photographs taken then of the solar eclipse:

The photographer just a few hundred km (in any case maybe under 1000 km) from Okeanos the place from where the Black Sun rises, we can see clearly that the diameter of this Black Sun is the same as that of the visible Sun, and matches the 1000/phi diameter we saw earlier in those videos...

Those videos are sure enough proof that the official distances of 149 million km (3000 miles), or a diameter of 1.4 million km (32 miles) are just a HOAX. But if you want to believe in such a thing, please do so...

parsifal, I thought we already stated the facts very clearly...do not try to make false statements, I explained clearly using the official galactic orbit diagram, how the orbits of the planets look like, given the motion of the solar system towards the Vega star...that is the situation, if you do not like it, please write to Nasa or to JPL...I am using their data, as it is given in textbooks...

You also wrote: I thought we had just established that there was an inertial frame of reference such that the Sun was stationary.

No, you did not think this up, you dreamed of it; we established that there is no inertial frame of reference actually, if we do not take into account the aether theory; we can use the fixed stars as a frame for calculation purposes, that is a different ballgame. The Sun IS NOT stationary, not even if we use the Milky Way as a frame of reference.

Yes, there is an absolute frame of reference, the aether itself.

No, my friend, there is no attractive gravitation; the motion/orbits of the planets are due, as Newton explained to you, to the rotational force of the aether; it is the aether itself which moves the stars/planets.

superlovah, you must study much more; let me completely destroy your chimerical hopes and dreams. You wrote that the Moon must be of a spherical shape. No, you are mistaken; here is the complete demonstration that the Moon could not have formed from a nebular, gaseous cloud, or could not have been captured from space:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709

A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551 (the complete demonstration that a supernova could not have produced any kind of rotating gaseous nebula)

Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.

You mentioned also the Mercury perihelion matter...here is the real stuff for you:

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury's orbit, he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury's orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber's article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein's Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber's priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber's formula had been published in Mach's Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber's assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber's method made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics. Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber's derivation was wrong through and through.

So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier. So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein
had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, knowing the answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 12:55:09 AM by levee »

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #100 on: September 23, 2009, 01:23:38 AM »
Also, we have a thread here on the GPS matter...the official FES theory for the satellites is completely wrong...here is the correct explanation:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=543

All the satellites orbit at a much lower altitude and use the Cosmic Ray Device invented by N. Tesla as a source of energy...

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #101 on: September 23, 2009, 02:20:46 AM »
Is this what we are getting down to, parsifal?

by claiming that his theories are the "correct" ones and encouraging people to trust his knowledge, as opposed to thinking for themselves.

Remind me again, why exactly is he a moderator?

It so happens that I am able to bring proofs to everything I claim and I write here; I demonstrated to you that I know very well, extremely well what I post. I encourage EVERYBODY to think for themselves, and to weigh carefully what is presented here...

parsifal, what do you actually believe in? There is no big bang, no string theory...you chimerically believe in gravitation, but there are no gravitons, and Newton never mentioned attractive gravitation, which can be disproven very easily...you never studied these facts, if you come across somebody who did, you complain...

#### Parsifal

• Official Member
• 36118
• Bendy Light specialist
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #102 on: September 23, 2009, 03:05:03 AM »
Is this what we are getting down to, parsifal?

by claiming that his theories are the "correct" ones and encouraging people to trust his knowledge, as opposed to thinking for themselves.

Remind me again, why exactly is he a moderator?

It so happens that I am able to bring proofs to everything I claim and I write here; I demonstrated to you that I know very well, extremely well what I post. I encourage EVERYBODY to think for themselves, and to weigh carefully what is presented here...

parsifal, what do you actually believe in? There is no big bang, no string theory...you chimerically believe in gravitation, but there are no gravitons, and Newton never mentioned attractive gravitation, which can be disproven very easily...you never studied these facts, if you come across somebody who did, you complain...

I posted that in the Complete Nonsense board for a reason. I do not wish to discuss it here, because it is irrelevant to Flat Earth debate.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

#### Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #103 on: September 23, 2009, 06:39:47 AM »
Also, we have a thread here on the GPS matter...the official FES theory for the satellites is completely wrong...

Wow. That's damning coming from a moderator.

So change the FAQ to give the "right" theory.

Post back here when you're done.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2009, 09:52:35 AM »

It so happens that I am able to bring proofs to everything I claim and I write here

How come half of what you write is nonsense and the other half impossible to follow, then? Your pictures of eclipses for example - I don't quite get how those prove anything at all about the distance of anything. Yet you display them there as if they do. I can't follow that.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

• 17523
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #105 on: September 23, 2009, 07:37:27 PM »
Also, we have a thread here on the GPS matter...the official FES theory for the satellites is completely wrong...
Wow. That's damning coming from a moderator.
My theory is completely different from the faq.

Also, we have round earth moderators.

I'm not sure its relevant whether he is a moderator or not.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #106 on: September 24, 2009, 12:46:58 AM »
thermalddt, I will answer immediately your question, but first, here is something very interesting...

Somebody else wrote this: The color shift is basically a visual doppler effect. Instead of sound waves being compressed as the source moves closer and expanded as it moves away, it's light waves, or colors. So we've observed stars not giving of a white light, but RED or BLUE/PURPLE, which are the ends of the color spectrum.

Yes, this makes the assumption that stars would give off white light in the first place, but every star in one direction being red and every star in another blue/purple? That's a bit far fetched.

Care to explain how color shift would work in FE?

Certainly; here is the TRUE cause of the redshift, and the correct explanation thereof:

Red Shift Errors

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html

Cosmic Wave Background: the best proof for the aether

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php

The cosmic background microwave radiation as evidence
for cosmological creation of electrons with minimum kinetic energy
and for a minimum of cosmic ambipolar massfree energy

Correa PN, Correa AN
Exp Aetherom, Series 2, Vol. 2B, 17C:1-61 (April 2002)

The authors examine the microwave cosmic background radiation (CBR) - composed exclusively of LFOT photons - with aetherometric tools developed in the preceding reports, and the results demonstrate that, unlike what is held by the accepted neo-relativist interpretations of the CBR, its true mode lies - not at 7.35 cm and a frequency of 4.08GHz, but at 7.76 cm and a frequency of 3.861GHz. Still more disturbing is the fact that the conventionally accepted temperature distribution of the CBR blackbody is off by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the real and aetherometric temperature scale that is demanded by a Planckian quantization of the spectrum. The CBR temperature mode is found to lie between 0.1863 and 0.1853 degrees Kelvin. This fact alone is sufficient to dismantle any pretensions of (neo-)Relativity to actually and adequately understand the physical significance of the CBR and grasp the physical processes of its production - thus putting into serious doubt the validity of the so-called Big-Bang hypothesis.

But the results of the aetherometric analysis of the CBR blackbody cut still deeper into the Princeton Gnosis and its interpretation of the microwave CBR: a discrete set of LFOT photon bands is found to co-inhabit the near-smooth CBR distribution, and a microfunctional model is proposed for their manifestation as being indicative of the successive phase states of aether energy, as if these bands underlay the very changes in, and characteristics of, the known chemical phases of Matter. In accordance to this aetherometric model, the CBR photon mode is an indicator that most of the aether energy of the universe has a fluid lattice structure. Likewise, the limit discrete band of the CBR blackbody would suggest the existence of a limiting solid-state phase for the Aether lattice, below which all photon production would result simply from the harmonic decay of the kinetic energy of cosmological electrons. Moreover, our aetherometric analysis indicates that the near-smooth CBR distribution appears to be bimodal, with the main peak (the ordinary mode) lying at 16eV (at 3.861GHz), and the secondary peak at a higher energy of 26.5eV (at 6.4GHz), corresponding to the critical-state aetherometric microenergy constant c2T/NA.

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page26.htm

Missing Doppler effect...

An extraordinary article about the Doppler effect errors:

lhttps://web.archive.org/web/20040409075027/http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

And here is another superb analysis of the Doppler effect errors:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm

Mistakes of Hubble:

http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

From Hubble:

' redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature '

Nernst's Interpretation

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his 'law' was 'clearly linear', thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good 'first approximation' of a logarithmic curve.

The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.

Now, thermalddt, youtube is just a media outlet through which those amateur astronomers can post their real time videos; it could have been just as well video.aol, or video.google...the videos themselves are real time documentation, not the fake pictures and videos provided by Nasa, which, strangely, you accept wholeheartedly. There are perhaps two dozen more videos made of the Sun ISS transits, I chose for you only four which show clearly that the accepted value of 149 million km distance between the Earth and the Sun is just pure BS. You will never find any kind of nonsense in my messages, exactly the opposite; you will find the very best documentation available at the present time, so far you have not been able to prove otherwise.

Here are some of the videos provided by Nasa itself:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available (Apollo 16, astronauts suspended from cables)

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">! No longer available (photograph pasted to look like the Earth in space; material not for public use)

Each and every one of the JPL/Nasa missions was completely faked and falsified: Voyager, Viking, Apollo, Mariner...

The photographs taken in Antarctica show us the real distance and the real diameter of the heavenly body which does actually cause the solar eclipse. Where is the 384400 km distance between the Moon and the Earth? Where is the 3475 km diameter of the Moon? We can see very clearly, if you will give up the brainwashing incurred by Nasa, a planet or a star, in the shape of a disk, just about 1000 km distance from the photographer, and with a diameter of about 600 meters, just like in those real time videos.

Now, since we are here talking about gravity, here are some more facts for you to ponder...

The ball lightning proves quite clearly that the Earth is stationary; ball lightning is not subject to any kind of gravitational law (attractive or pressure), or to any influence of the weather. Its presence has been observed for over 40 years during commercial flights, and given that it does not obey any gravitational laws, and the 29 km/s orbital speed of the Earth, it would have disappeared instantly, but its presence was recorded for several minutes at a time.

For example, during the famous 1963 Eastern Airlines from NY to Wash., for a period of two minutes a ball lightning was seen inside the plane, defying any kind of attractive gravitational law; 29 km/s x 120 seconds =~ 3600 km (the distance covered by the round earth on its orbit around the Sun), so the ball lightning should have disappeared immediately out of sight, had the Earth not been completely stationary.

Ball lighting in a plane

Another account of strange goings-on aboard an airliner was issued by the TASS news agency. It described how a ball of fire, four inches across, appeared on the fuselage in front of the cockpit of an Ilyushin-18 aircraft as it flew close to a thunderstorm over the Black Sea on Jan. 15, 1984. According to the report:

It disappeared with a deafening noise, but re-emerged several seconds later in the passengers' lounge, after piercing in an uncanny way through the air-tight metal wall. The fireball slowly flew over the heads of the stunned passengers. In the tail section of the airliner it divided into two flowing crescents which then joined together again and left the plane almost noiselessly.

The radar and some other instruments aboard the Ilyushin were damaged and two holes were later found in the fuselage. The "deafening crash" and damage to the aircraft could have been caused by ordinary lightning but this certainly wouldn't account for the appearance of the glowing sphere inside.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/ball_lightning.html

The existence of "ball lightening" has now been accepted but as yet eluded explanation, except that attempts have been made without the usual mathematical substantiation. The peculiar anti-gravitational effect, the inductive effects and the fantastic energy of ball lightning are well known properties.

What is ball lightning?

In order to better understand its principle it is necessary to grasp first what are the ether vortical object and ball lightning. Basically, they are the same. The only difference is that the ball lightning is a visible ether object. Visibility of ball lightning is provided by fluorescence of charged air particles.

Ball lightning floats near the ground, sometimes bounces off the ground or other objects, and does not obey the whims of wind or the laws of gravity.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060531-ball-lightning_2.html
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 12:52:09 AM by sandokhan »

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #107 on: September 24, 2009, 12:59:38 AM »
Here are the famous Francis Nipher and Charles Brush experiments which prove that electricity CAN MODIFY the weight of an object:

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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. 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.

Professor Francis Nipher's biography:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?ArticleID=0000301&file=Data&report=SingleArticle

Of course, F. Nipher ASSUMED the attractive gravitation scenario, which is, as we all saw here, completely false; it is the pressure of the aether which causes the effects ascribed to "gravitation".

Charles Brush experiments:

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

Here is also the just as famous Bruce De Palma spinning ball experiment:

A perfect example of harnessing torsion waves by rotation was discovered completely independently by Dr. Bruce DePalma, frequently cited by R.C. Hoagland et al. on the Enterprise Mission website. Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air 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.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 01:02:18 AM by levee »

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #108 on: September 24, 2009, 09:10:04 AM »
Using videos of the ISS, which FET states couldn't even work, is a poor example for the arguement of FET.

Also, do you understand how perspective works?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

#### Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #109 on: September 24, 2009, 11:44:09 AM »
My theory is completely different from the faq.

Then I suggest you change the FAQ to incorporate your theory.

I'm not sure its relevant whether he is a moderator or not.

It is. Even if a moderator is RE he'll make sure not to contradict that FAQ so blatantly.  Just amazes me that's all.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #110 on: September 24, 2009, 03:18:17 PM »
Levee: post shorter things if you want me to read them.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #111 on: September 25, 2009, 12:47:27 AM »
crustinator, the FAQ exposed here is full of mistakes, let us enumerate the most important:

1. There is no UA acceleration; here is my analysis of the original quote of Anaximenes which has been used by modern FES members (not by Rowbotham) to justify this concept:

According to Anaximenes, earth was formed from air by a felting process. It began as a flat disk. From evaporations from the earth, fiery bodies arose which came to be the heavenly bodies. The earth floats on a cushion of air. The heavenly bodies, or at least the sun and the moon, seem also be flat bodies that float on streams of air. On one account, the heavens are like a felt cap that turns around the head. The stars may be fixed to this surface like nails. In another account, the stars are like fiery leaves floating on air (DK13A14). The sun does not travel under the earth but circles around it, and is hidden by the higher parts of the earth at night.

The word Floats means a confirmation of the old cosmogony, where the Earth is placed in the center of the Universe, with the Sun/Moon/Stars rotating above a dome, the whole thing resting/floating on aether (or apeiron).

Apeiron is not any of the existing elements; Anaximenes CHOSE air as the first substance derived from the Aether (air = gas).

All the physical observations confirm that the Earth is completely stationary; from the trajectories of the clouds to the graviational anomalies at the surface.

2. The Sun - Earth distance is about 12-14 km; the diameter of the Sun measurea about 1000/Phi (618 meters), the stars/planets are in the form of a disk. The real time videos prove very clearly this facts, therefore, the quotes from the FAQ listing the Sun - Earth distance as 3000 miles (4800 km) and the diameter of the Sun as 32 miles (50 km) are completely wrong.

3. The satellites do exist and do orbit above the Earth; but at a much lower altitude, the energy source for these satellites (the same used for the ISS) is the Cosmic Ray Device invented by Nikola Tesla almost 100 hundred years ago.

superlovah, we caught you offguard already: you had no idea of the true history behind the Mercury perihelion, and no knowledge of the original E. Hubble quotes; therefore, until you are able to come up with something else, you are going to have to trust me, and my messages.

The ISS does orbit above the Earth, as those videos clearly show, the only trick is its actual source of energy, there is nobody onboard there; it uses the Cosmic Ray Device invented by Nikola Tesla in the 1930s.

You might be surprised to find out that I actually studied projective geometry; perspective has its place in many discussions/arguments, but not here, when you have to account for 149 million km, and to account for a diameter of 1.4 million km. Please use your common sense, watch those videos again, and you will see the truth.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2009, 12:49:14 AM by levee »

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #112 on: September 25, 2009, 02:42:51 AM »
As for the Dark Energy concept, it was created by cosmologists to fit Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, especially the expansion of the Universe scenario. But, as we have seen in the last messages I posted, there is no cosmic expansion, as the redshift phenomenon has been interpreted very wrongly.

What is unknown to the general public and to the majority of the mainstream scientific faculties is that there exist a non thermal energy field. Nikola Tesla called this field "ether" or "Aether" as did many others before him. Tesla was one of the first inventors to build devices which could tap this field as an energy source.

According to Descartes, large cosmic ether vortices existed throughout the universe. One such vortex carried the planets around the sun, and countless smaller vortices aggregated into different sizes of universal matter, filling the whole of space. He explained gravity by the pressure and impact of ether on bodies; and framed the principles of the inertial tendencies of matter for straight line motion based on the property of the fluidity of a space-substratum filled with ether vortices.

The dark energy envisioned by scientists today is actually the aether field, discovered through elaborate experiments, more than 100 years ago, see for example the classical experiment by G.B. Airy (1871).

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #113 on: September 25, 2009, 03:49:12 AM »
Also, we have a thread here on the GPS matter...the official FES theory for the satellites is completely wrong...

Wow. That's damning coming from a moderator.

So change the FAQ to give the "right" theory.

Post back here when you're done.

levee has clearly put a great deal of effort into building a consistent FET, although it is quite a radical departure from the theories proposed so far on this site (the most popular of which tend to end up in the FAQ).  I look forward to learning more about it once I have more spare time.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #114 on: September 25, 2009, 12:17:41 PM »
crustinator, the FAQ exposed here is full of mistakes, let us enumerate the most important:

I look forward to debating the matter further once you have updated the FAQ with these corrections.

?

• 17523
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #115 on: September 25, 2009, 01:34:56 PM »
The faq represents the theory of the website, not its individual members.  I have no right to change it to my theory.

?

#### Dr Matrix

• 4312
• In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #116 on: September 25, 2009, 02:21:50 PM »
JD is correct - the FAQ is a collection of the most commonly given answers to the most commonly asked questions - in that sense, it is a demonstration of why pure democracy is a completely impractical form of government.  On the other hand, it does help to prevent needless repetition in the fora and allows discussion to move on to the various alternatives faster than would otherwise happen.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

?

#### Crustinator

• 7813
• Bamhammer horror!
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2009, 02:45:18 PM »
The faq represents the theory of the website, not its individual members.  I have no right to change it to my theory.

Which would mean you can't present a reasonable argument as to why your theory is better than the one in the FAQ.

Hmmm.

?

• 17523
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #118 on: September 25, 2009, 06:07:27 PM »
The faq represents the theory of the website, not its individual members.  I have no right to change it to my theory.

Which would mean you can't present a reasonable argument as to why your theory is better than the one in the FAQ.

Hmmm.
It means no such thing.  Where did you get that from what I said?

by the way, I'm still curious about whats wrong with my math, if you'd care to show me;  but obviously in the thread in question.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6888
##### Re: Discussion on Gravity
« Reply #119 on: September 26, 2009, 06:49:26 AM »
Another mistake that is mentioned in the official FAQ is this: that the Sun's orbit/movement is concentric with the North Pole, that is the North Pole is taken as the center.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=33520#p34143

There are actually northern circumpolar constellations, regular orbiting constellations, and southern circumpolar constellations, all these things must be taken into account by the FES.