Advanced Flat Earth Theory

  • 668 Replies


  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #660 on: January 09, 2020, 10:00:19 AM »

~1706 AD

Antarctica is covered by ice
The Giza pyramid is flooded

1769 AD

The island of California is realigned with the continent
The Grand Canyon is formed
Sahara becomes a desert
Siberia is covered by ice
Extinction of the mammoths (island of California, seven consecutive messages)


The New Madrid earthquake is caused by a meteor impact (impossible details relating to Napoleon's biography) (amazing related events in the history of the reigns of Napoleon III/I)


The great flood originated with the largest volcano eruption in Africa ever recorded (May 1861, Dubbi volcano)

This subject is currently being debated on several alternative history forums, but they cannot date these events as precisely as here.



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #661 on: January 10, 2020, 06:34:18 AM »

"The patent application for a “Plasma Compression Fusion Device” was just published on September 26 after being lodged on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy back on March 22, 2019. The inventor is Dr. Salvator Pais, who works at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division and has previously lodged other patents on behalf of the Navy:"

(Craft using an inertial mass reduction device)
(High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator)

At present there are few envisioned fusion reactors/devices that come in a small, compact package (ranging from 0.3 to 2 meters in diameter) and typically they use different versions of plasma magnetic confinement. Three such devices are the Lockheed Martin (LM) Skunk Works Compact Fusion Reactor (LM-CFR), the EMC2 Polywell fusion concept, and the Princeton Field-Reversed Configuration (PFRC) machine. These devices feature short plasma confinement times, possible plasma instabilities with the scaling of size, and it is questionable whether they have the ability of achieving the break-even fusion condition, let alone a self-sustained plasma burn leading to ignition.

The plasma compression fusion device utilizes controlled motion of electrically charged matter via accelerated vibration and/or accelerated spin subjected to smooth yet rapid acceleration-deceleration-acceleration transients, in order to generate extremely high energy/high intensity electromagnetic fields. These fields not only confine the plasma core but also greatly compress it (by inducing a high energy negative potential well) so as to produce a high power density plasma burn, leading to ignition."

Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais
Naval Air War Center Aircraft Division

"It is claimed in the patent application that this plasma compression fusion device is capable of producing power in the gigawatt (1 billion watts) to terawatt (1 trillion watts) range and above with input power only in the kilowatt (1,000 watts) to megawatt (1,000,000 watts) range."



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #662 on: January 12, 2020, 01:52:17 AM »

The gravitational wave solution with the support of observation was claimed by J. H. Taylor Jr., who gets a Nobel Prize for the observation of the binary pulsars.

However, their calculation is incorrect in mathematics. Thus he could not justify his calculation when Professor Emeritus Philip Morrison of MIT went to Princeton to ask for his justification.

The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

Incompleteness of General Relativity, Einstein's Errors, and Related Experiments

On the Nobel Prize in Physics, Controversies and Influences

Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

The Einstein equation cannot have a bounded dynamic solution for a two-body problem or gravitational wave solutions; and the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsars experiments actually support the modified Einstein equation.

Einstein claimed in his 1923 Nobel lecture that his considerations led to the theory of gravity, which yields the Newtonian theory as a first approximation, as well as yielding the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, the deflection of light by the sun.
In so doing, he did not respond to those questions raised by Gullstrand on the perihelion of Mercury. In particular, he failed to show the existence of a bounded dynamic solution, whose existence is crucial for the perturbation approach to calculate the perihelion of Mercury. However, The Nobel Prize Committee, well known for its cautious attitude, would not have changed its opinion based on Einstein’s statements alone; Gullstrand would have to have been proven wrong mathematically.

A search of the literature between 1921 and 1993 reveals a “proof” of the existence of bounded dynamic solutions. Two Princeton professors in mathematics, Christodoulou and Klainerman, published a 500 page book in 1993, claiming that bounded (in amplitude) dynamic solutions of the Einstein equation had been constructed. This book was highly regarded by Princeton University and considered a classic in mathematics. Moreover, Wheeler, an advocate of Einstein then, mentored Christodoulou and claimed him to be a genius. Thus, under the full weight of the reputation of Princeton University, the Nobel Committee understandably changed their mind.

However, upon closer examination, their construction of “dynamic” solutions has problems. Some are as follows:

1. They did not show that their constructed solutions are compatible with Einstein’s radiation formula.

2. Their construction is a set of time-dependent solutions only, since they did not show that such a solution has dynamic sources. This is necessary according to the principle of causality.

3. They have shown only that a static solution belongs to their set. However, they did not prove that it includes time-dependent solutions, or provide even an example.
In other words, these two authors failed to prove the crucial issue that their set of bounded dynamic solutions is non-empty. This problem alone is sufficient to establish that their construction of dynamic solutions is at least incomplete even if one ignores other problems that demonstrate the invalidity.'s_Radiation_Formula_and_Modifications_to_the_Einstein_Equation (general relativity antigravity coupling terms) ((general relativity antigravity coupling terms, part II)

« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 01:53:54 AM by sandokhan »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #663 on: January 15, 2020, 02:47:15 AM »

Principle of Leonardo da Vinci:

All movement tends to maintenance, or rather all moved bodies continue to move as long as the impression of the force of their motors (original impetus) remains in them.

First law attributed to Newton:

Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.

Hipparchus and Vitruvius' inverse square law: (Hooke and Newton copied the inverse square law)

The Forgotten Revolution (Lucio Russo):

Inverse square law: discovered by Vitruvius and Pythagoras
Steam engine: invented by Heron
Centripetal/Centrifugal forces: discovered by Plutarch
Integral calculus: invented by Archimedes

The Forgotten Revolution
Reviewed by Sandro Graffi

Now, if every heavenly body pulls on every other, this leads to the idea of a dynamic theory of planetary motions, seeing planetary motions as composed of rectilinear inertia and gravitational pull. Indeed we read in Vitruvius: "the sun’s powerful force attracts to itself the planets by means of rays projected in the shape of triangles; as if braking their forward movement or holding them back, the sun does not allow them to go forth but [forces them] to return to it" (297). Pliny likewise has it that planets are "prevented by a triangular solar ray from following a straight path" (298). The reference to triangles suggests an underlying mathematical treatment, and indeed there are further traces of this (298-302). Furthermore, "the technical tool of vector addition for displacements is present in Heron and in the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanics, and indeed it is used in this latter work to explain how a uniform circular motion can be regarded as a continuous superposition of a displacement 'according to nature', along the tangent, with one 'contrary to nature', directed toward the center." (301-302)

Plutarch and the theory of gravity

Pythagoras inverse square law and pythagorean triples:

Inverse Square Law and Inverse Pythagorean Theorem (theorems 7 and 8 ):'s_Hidden_Circles (Archimedes' Palimpsest)

A. Fomenko: History: Science or Fiction? vol I

pg 27-28

De Arhitectura by Vitruvius was written during the Renaissance and not two thousand years ago

Origin of Calculus:

Newton, himself, claimed credit only for making the calculus rigorous, not for inventing it (though he did claim credit for the sine series). He thought the calculus could be made rigorous by making time metaphysical. Ironically, that was the precise reason why his physics failed. Changing that understanding of time/calculus improves physics including the theory of gravitation.

The problem of equal intervals of time in Newtonian physics

Calculus, the continuum, and the nature of time

Briefly, what is today taught as the authoritative way to do calculus is hardly the only
way or the best way to do it. Therefore, theories of the calculus ought not to decide the
nature of time in physics, as Newton did.
One can also object to Newton’s procedure on the grounds that it is inappropriate to
allow metaphysical beliefs to dictate something as fundamental to physics as the nature
of time. Time may be like the real line, or it may be discrete or structured. But, whatever
the nature of time, this should be decided by physics, not by mathematics.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 02:49:04 AM by sandokhan »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #664 on: January 16, 2020, 08:59:57 AM »

The formula which features an area and an angular velocity is now derived DIRECTLY using the CORIOLIS force:

The Sagnac Phase Shift
G. Rizzi and M.L. Ruggiero
(two of the best known experts on the SAGNAC EFFECT in the world)

(M.L. Ruggiero is member of the GINGER collaboration)

The CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, 4Aω/c2, has been derived using solely the CORIOLIS FORCE.

But this is not the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which is proportional to the velocity of the light beams.

Stokes' theorem/formula guarantees that there will always be two formulas for each interferometer: the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula and the SAGNAC EFFECT formula. (counterclockwise and clockwise phase differences for the Michelson-Gale interferometer)

It is of interest to note that Rizzi and Ruggiero have derived the SAGNAC EFFECT formula which does not feature an area; yet, they seem unable to understand that the formula which does display the area and the angular velocity is the CORIOLIS EFFECT phase difference:

« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 09:29:13 AM by sandokhan »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #665 on: January 17, 2020, 04:05:50 AM »

(from Relativity in Rotating Frames: Relativistic Physics in Rotating Reference Frames
edited by G. Rizzi, M.L. Ruggiero, pgs. 179-221)

Using the relativistic law of velocity addition, G. Rizzi and M.L. Ruggiero prove that the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula (proportional to the area and to the angular velocity) is valid, if and only if, the condition of ”equal relative velocity in opposite directions” is imposed.

"However, when condition (24) is imposed, the difference ∆τ between these times does depend only on the angular velocity Ω of the disk, and it does not depend on the velocities of propagation of the beams with respect the turnable."

Classical and Relativistic Derivation of the Sagnac Effect
Wolfgang Engelhardt
Max-Planck-Institut fur Plasmaphysik

Using the relativistic law of velocity addition, the author proves that the coherent beams leaving the beam splitter at the same time in opposite directions will return at the same time as they both travel at the same speed c.

In other words, the SRT correctly applied to a rotating Sagnac Interferometer does not predict the Sagnac Effect.

From the Lorentz transformation equations, Einstein derived a relativistic formula for the kinematic addition of two velocities in the same direction, which algebraically never could exceed the velocity c. Einstein claimed that this formula mathematically confirmed his second postulate concerning the constant propagation velocity of light at c in every inertial frame. Later he claimed that the 1851 Experiment of Fizeau empirically confirmed the validity of this formula. But it turns out that neither claim is correct.


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

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

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

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

Herbert Ives, Light Signals Sent Around a Closed Path:



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #666 on: January 19, 2020, 10:24:26 AM »

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

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

Two separate effects: rotation around the interferometer's own axis, and the orbital motion of the same interferometer; one is much greater than the other, by a factor of R/L.

Two separate phase equations: and .

Dr. Daniel Shaddock has derived the formula: (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

For an interferometer, whose center of rotation coincides with the geometrical center, the CORIOLIS EFFECT and the SAGNAC EFFECT formulas are equivalent: (Dr. Ruyong Wang, Triangle Sagnac Experiment)

« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 10:29:53 AM by sandokhan »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #667 on: January 20, 2020, 01:58:28 AM »

Two boats on a lake, boat X and boat Y, are being pulled toward each other using a single rope by the two men on each boat.

Of course forces X and Y will ALWAYS be different.

The NET FORCES on each end of the rope might be the same, but the APPLIED FORCES will ALWAYS be different.

Modern Newtonian mechanics has this story to tell:

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is -B.
The net force on the string is A+B.
As the string isn't moving, the net force on the string is 0, so A+B=0 so B=-A.

The net force on boat x is -A.
The net force on boat y is A.
The net force on the string is A-A=0.

By the very hypothesis, A DOES NOT EQUAL B.

A cannot equal B.

Yet, by using the twisted RE logic, using only a single force acting on boat X (respectively on boat Y), the analysis reaches a point where the absolute value of A equals the absolute value of B. A most direct contradiction of the hypothesis.

The RE analysis leads to a total disaster, where the basic requirement is this |A|=|B|.

Which can NEVER be the case.

Force A can never equal force B.

Let us suppose now, that only one of the rafts/boats does the pulling (that is, side X will have the rope attached to it, no person X would be pulling).

Person Y pulls on the rope from the right.

What are the forces on the left side of the rope (in boat X)?

-B (reaction force on force B).

Now let us bring person X back.

Both persons are pulling now, force A does not equal force B.

What are the forces on the left side of the rope now?

Yes, person X is pulling with force -A (to the left) BUT ALSO person Y is pulling.

Reaction force is the SAME as in the previous situation: -B.

Then, the net force on the left side of the rope is now: -A + -B, or -A -B.

Very simple to understand.

The fact that force B (and force A) are being applied THROUGHOUT the entire rope is something modern mechanics has yet to acknowledge.

There will be action-reaction pairs diagrams at each end of the rope, involving BOTH PULLING FORCES A and B.

On solid ground (or someone who is in a truck), there will always be FRICTION to deal with (FA, the frictional force on player A exerted by the ground, and FB, the frictional force on player B exerted by the ground).

When the forces are unbalanced, the system accelerates in the direction of the net force.

The acceleration is caused by the imbalance of frictional forces at different parts of the system.

The tug-of-war is won by the person who applies a larger force on the ground (which is equal to the frictional force by Newton's third law), and not by the person who pulls the rope harder.

There is also the matter of the static friction force between the rope and the person's hands.

The standard analysis for the two boats connected by a rope on a lake fails miserably.

By contrast, the FE analysis is very well defined.

Two boats pulled toward each other on a lake.

Man from boat X is pulling with force A, directed to the left.

Man from boat Y is pulling with force B, directed to the right.

Forces A and B are, of course, of different magnitude.

What are the forces acting on boat X?

To the left we will have a negative direction.

Boat X will be acted upon by TWO FORCES: A (the reaction force on the action force -A) and B.

What are the forces acting on the left end side of the rope?

-A and -B.

What are the forces acting boat Y?

To the right we will have the positive direction.

Boat Y will be acted upon by two forces: -B (the reaction force on the action force B) and

What are the forces acting on the right end side of the rope?

A and B.

Net force on boat X: A + B

Net force on boat Y: -A - B

Net force on the string: [-A - B] + [A + B]

The string/rope will not move: [-A - B] + [A + B] = 0

All forces balance out perfectly.

But they include TWICE THE FORCES NEEDED in the Newtonian system.

The man in boat X is pulling on the rope, while at the same time boat Y is pulling on that same rope with force B. The correct analysis must take these facts into account.

A perfect demonstration that there are indeed two forces acting on boat X, respectively on boat Y: the equations work out in total balance.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 02:01:40 AM by sandokhan »



  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #668 on: January 20, 2020, 06:48:17 AM »

Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?
— Joseph LeConte, November 1888

I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.
— Lord Kelvin, 1895

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of. So you will understand that I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society.
— Lord Kelvin, 1896

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which men shall fly along distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration to be.
— Simon Newcomb, 1900

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
— Simon Newcomb, 1902

Simon Newcomb, directed the American Nautical Almanac Office, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, founder and first president of the American Astronomical Society, vice-president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The Outlook for the Flying Machine

It turns out that Simon Newcomb was correct in his assertions.

Scientific American, February 2020

No one can completely explain why planes stay in the air

By Ed Regis

Addendum January 18, 2020: Scientific American just published an article admitting that “no one can explain why planes stay in the air”. They should say “no one promoted by the mainstream” can explain it, since I just did above. But despite that obvious omission, it is incredible they would be admitting this in 2020, confirming many of the points I make above, as if they had read this paper and were doing their best to respond to it without mentioning it. Because I think that is precisely what is going on. But although I think that is true, I still find it incredible they would admit to their own ignorance this late in the game. They don't completely admit it, and the author Ed Regis makes some weak stabs at promoting old theories, as well as promoting Doug McLean. But it is all sort of half-hearted and desperate, and Regis doesn't even try very hard to disguise that. He starts by admitting that John Anderson, curator of aerodynamics at the Air and Space Museum, can't explain lift, and has said so in print. Anderson hedged in his 2003 interview in the New York Times, confessing there was no agreement on the subject. Bernoulli's Theorem from 1738 is still the go-to explanation for a majority in academia, but it is admitted that fails to answer all questions. Regis includes the least of these questions in his “But...” insert, admitting that the curved upper surface theory has been disproved. He does not admit that Bernoulli's “lift” vector is unsupported by even the least shred of mechanics, being nothing more than a word. A naming standing for an explanation.

The scathing and devastating analysis by M. Mathis reveals that the explanations put forth by modern science regarding the flight of airplanes, are completely false.

But not even M. Mathis can deliver the correct explanation.

There is only one physicist who was ever able to explain why airplanes stay in flight. He even invented the jet engine: Viktor Schauberger. (V. Schauberger effect, jet engine levitation, part I)

« Last Edit: January 20, 2020, 11:49:00 PM by sandokhan »