Poll

What is the correct distance from the earth to the moon  and the size of the moon ?

Flat Earth Measurements Of (Exact ?) 15 KM Distance /  600 M Diameter of the moon
Round Earth Measurements By  Ham Radio (approximately ? ) 237, 150 Miles Distance / 2,150 Mile Diameter of the moon
Some Other Measurements Such As The FE 3000 Mile  Distance / 30 Mile Diameter of the moon

Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.

  • 549 Replies
  • 103424 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
In the Tesla quote it appears that he is positing a causal relationship with no empirical evidence.  Experimentation shows that spacetime, as described in the General Theory of Relativity is curved; for emphasis: Empirical evidence and observation confirm that spacetime is curved, opinons do not matter.

Riemann may not have meant 4D geometry to include time, but Riemann was not doing relativistic theories.  Einstein used Riemann geometry as a tool to construct his theories. 

Likewise with Minkowski, he was not building the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein was.  Einstein applied this branch of mathematics to the real world and whatever you think about Einstein having no explanation for why, it does not matter.  What matters is that the theory accurately predicts physical phenomena, on almost all scales.  Therefore, conceiving of reality as a spacetime continuum is a useful and accurate description. 

Whether or not General Relativity is absurd has little to do with how successful it is.  Einstein's remarks have little to do with how successful it is.  The fact of the matter is that the theory has made predictions of observable phenomena, and those predictions turned out to be accurate.  General Relativity is about as true as you can call anything.

The material you provided to support the incorrectness of Einstein does not do so.  Theosophy is not physics.  Einstein's work may have philisophical implications, but its primary purpose is to describe reality empirically, which it does an excellent job of.  Your link on the variability of light is probably out of date since FTL neutrinos at the OPERA detector were found not to exist, but rather a technical error with the equipment was the cause of the inaccurate reading.  The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum remains.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
There isn't a single experiment to support or prove the worthless hypothesis called the theory of relativity (special or general).

It is based solely on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, as we have seen, was a disaster.

Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm



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)
« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 10:02:36 PM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 16183
  • Discount Chemist
Recycling the same incorrect assumptions does not make your argument correct.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

especially as there *are* means to directly observe relativity, such as time dilation.

phew, that Amesbury "paper" - someone thinks this is a product of serious research? Focus is on "brainwashing", "Zionist conspiracy", "relativist propaganda" etc instead of any actual data... puh-lease.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 03:50:32 AM by neimoka »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806


Nikola Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor-coated light bulb which was illuminated without wires by an electromagnetic field from the "Tesla Coil" (the energy was transmitted through the telluric currents).

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1891-05-20.htm

There is no subject more captivating, more worthy of study, than nature.  To understand this great mechanism, to discover the forces which are active, and the laws which govern them, is the highest aim of the intellect of man.

Nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy.  The eternal recipient and transmitter of this infinite energy is the ether.  The recognition of the existence of ether, and of the functions it performs, is one of the most important results of modern scientific research.  The mere abandoning of the idea of action at a distance, the assumption of a medium pervading all space and connecting all gross matter, has freed the minds of thinkers of an ever present doubt, and, by opening a new horizon—new and unforeseen possibilities—has given fresh interest to phenomena with which we are familiar of old.





(Tesla holding wireless lightbulbs, more photographs)


“Neon lamps are in the public favor and are being used for store windows and in signs quite extensively,” said Dr. Tesla, “but I had similar filamentless, gas-filled electric lamps in my laboratory at Houston Street over thirty years ago. I even had these lamps standardized to 50 candlepower each, and used them instead of the orthodox illuminating devices. It seems that I was also far ahead of my time in the use of filamentless tubes, bent in the shapes of characters and other forms, as now extensively used. The light from properly filled vacuum tubes is of indescribable beauty, hygienic and more economical, and the lamps last forever."



Tesla upholds the startling theory formulated by him long ago, that the radio transmitters as now used, do not emit Hertz waves, as commonly believed, but waves of sound. He says that a Hertz wave would only be possible in a solid ether, but he has demonstrated already in 1897 that the ether is a gas, which can only transmit waves of sound; that is such as are propagated by alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium in which transverse waves are absolutely impossible. Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art. As soon as the expert become convinced of this fact they will find a natural and simple explanation of all the puzzling phenomena of the so-called radio.


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


Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." — Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


The lightbulb held by Tesla defies any relativity theories, and evidences the discoveries of the ether waves by D. Miller: radio waves and light waves are actually ether waves.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 06:57:47 AM by sandokhan »

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
I'm not even going to try to quote one of these Sandokhan text walls. Sandokhan, it seems you have built your entire argument out of dissenting opinions. Just because they "challenge" (well they try) the status quo doesn't mean they are right.

As for data supporting relativity, it is still being found even today:

http://m.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6483/20130426/strange-binary-star-system-reveals-einsteins-theory-gravity-holds-true.htm
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
You have not prepared your message well at all.

Here is what is going on:

Methods
We report on radio-timing observations of the pulsar J0348+0432 and phase-resolved optical spectroscopy of its white-dwarf companion, which is in a 2.46-hour orbit. We used these to derive the component masses and orbital parameters, infer the system’s motion, and constrain its age.


However, these methods of measuring mass/age are completely flawed, as they do not take into account the existence of ether, evidenced in my previous messages.

Moreover, we are back at fudging the data, as did Einstein himself in 1919 and 1922.

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html (white-dwarf spectroscopy, completely flawed)


Thorium/Neodymium Ratio and Age of Universe

Mitchell Waldrop, a reporter for Science, interviewed Harvey Butcher who had discovered an interesting way to determine the age of the universe using essentially the same principles from radiometric dating. He measured the ratios of thorium (Th) and neodymium (Nd) in the sun and 20 nearby stars spectroscopically. Analyzing stars' spectral lines to determine the abundance of parent/daughter ratio is fairly simple. The stars have done the hard work of preparing the sample by vaporizing these isotopes and mixing them in their atmospheres. Each element has its own characteristic absorption lines: three for thorium and one for neodymium. Neodymium is a stable daughter product of thorium. Butcher says:

"What I expected to find was a change in the ratio of thorium to neodymium between the oldest and youngest stars."

"Virtually all the original thorium is still there, even in the oldest of the sampled stars," writes Waldrop.

Butcher expected that the ratio would be as much as two or three times smaller in the older stars, the white dwarfs, because the thorium would have had more time to decay. What he actually did find, however, was almost no variation in the thorium/neodymium ratio. Butcher suggested that, based upon the results of his measurements, the galaxy must be about five billion years younger than previously thought, possibly as young as 8 billion years. If "virtually all the original thorium is still there," the stars can't have aged much.

I looked at the data published in his 1987 report in Nature and compared the estimated age for each of the stars tested, including our sun, with the actual spectral data. The Th/Nd ratios of the sun and the other stars were essentially the same, although the age of some stars was supposed to be 600 million years and others 15-19 billion years.

After Butcher made this information available, Waldrop reports that Schramm was strongly skeptical of it, saying "it was a very uncertain kind of measurement and the results were grossly over-interpreted."

Schramm's assessment of Butcher's results pivoted on whether Butcher's instruments could read the faint spectral lines representing the concentrations of thorium and neodymium. Nuclear fusion reactions in supernova and other violent events produce thorium. To decide how much thorium and neodymium should be present in stars, one has to make assumptions about when and how much thorium was made during the life of the galaxy. Butcher had to keep his assumptions of thorium production consistent with the abundance of thorium in meteorites and moon rocks because they, too, coalesced from the supernovae products along with the sun and the rest of the solar system. He says that once a star is born, its outer atmosphere provides an unchanging sample of the general composition of the Galaxy at that time, modified only by the free decay of radioactive species.


Do your homework before coming here with unverified and false claims...

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
There are many experiments that confirmed both Special and General Relativity. Special relativity has been confirmed trillions of times in particle accelerators. If there was an issue with the theory in that domain it would be painfully obvious. Here is a whole page on tests of general relativity: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

These theories were not solely based on the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

In regards to dissent it is entirely possible that there are phenomena that Relativity does not explain and in fact, quantum gravity was almost immediately recognized as a problem for General Relavitivity. I have never seen a scientist who did not think relativity would not one day be replaced with a more successful theory, I have also never seen a scientist who was not excited by this idea.

It should be telling that Miller could never reproduce his own positive results and when the experiment was reconstructed in 1955 by Robert Shankland, he found that the positive result claimed by Miller was unlikely.

I cannot comment on and am unaware of any scientists with plausible alternatives to Relativity. I would like to hear more.

There is a lot in that paper debunking Einstein. It basically asserts that everything Einstein said about relativity is wrong and then often goes on to show he was plagiarizing other people's work, who had said he was wrong, but yet they were speaking about space-time as a physical property as well?  It's fishy but required more investigation. I have just read about space-time curvature in cosmology and the paper you linked to displays an ignorance on the topic. Einstein predicted space-time would curve in the presence of matter not that all of space-time was definitively curved. It remained a possibility until measurements were taken of the CMB that showed in fact that our universe is a flat, zero-energy (that is gravitational energy=all other energy) universe. So the flat-universe assertion does not contradict Einstein.

Einstein did not provide experimental evidence it's true, but he did make experimental predictions. It is mentioned that the perihelion of mercury could be explained by the gravitaional fields acting upon it and that is true, but classical gravitation could not derive the magnitude of it's perihelion, whereas Einstein's equations did.

That Tesla patent makes estimates and postulations, there are no empirical results to show, in fact, that electricity could propagate that quickly.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
All the tests you bring as bibliographical references are flawed: they assume that the speed of light is a constant, just like Einstein did, just like Pound and Rebka did during their experiment.

Read the reference on Miller, you will discover how Shankland maneuvered very skillfully in order to discredit Miller's work and eliminate his discovery from any textbooks on physics.

You do not understand do you? There is no such thing as space-time curvature: all the physics involved in inventing this mindless concept was the movement of the right arm of H. Minkowsky erasing on the blackboard the x4 variable in Riemann's n-dimensional approach to logarithm branch analysis with a sponge and then replacing it with t (time).


Tesla NEVER made any postulates: he always experimented carefully before stating his conclusions (Einstein makes his postulates BEFORE any physical experiments, and no experiments were done to prove that the speed of light is constant).


Let us get back to Tesla, so that we can discover how the wireless bulb functions.


"Expressed briefly, (cit. patent 645576) my present invention, based upon these discoveries, consists then in producing at one point an electrical pressure of such character and magnitude as to cause thereby a current to traverse elevated strata of the air between the point of generation and a distant point at which the energy is to be received and utilized".

This is energy transmitted through ether waves - here is the proof:



A wireless bulb held by Tesla, receiving energy through ether waves from his coil transmitter.


Tesla spent about eight months in Colorado Springs. Something of his work and results from this period can be gleaned from articles in "American Inventor" and "Western Electrican". For instance, it is stated that Tesla intended to carry out wireless transmission of signals to Paris in 1900. An article of November 1899 reports that he was making rapid progress with his system for wireless transmission of signals and that there was no way of interfering with messages sent by it. Tesla returned to New York on the 11th of January 1900.


Tesla's disruptive discharges produced longitudinal waves in the aether. Unlike transverse waves that vary in amplitude up and down, longitudinal waves only move in the direction of propagation. They could be described as a series of compressions and rarefactions in the atmosphere of aether. (from the Tesla Unleashes the Aether article: http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/ )

Of course to broadcast power it had to be received. He designed a variety of receivers. Some of these receivers were composed of metallic plates. When the longitudinal waves impacted them a current would be induced that could power lights or motors. Tesla actually discovered that he could focus the output of his device into a narrow beam utilizing a special tube. This allowed him to specifically direct the longitudinal waves in the aether at target plates. Interestingly, after such a beam had been active for an extended period of time, he could turn off his apparatus, but the flow of aether would remain. He could place another receiver in the path of the beam and power light bulbs without the device being turned on!

Apparently, the aether has a property that allows for a sort of momentum to accumulate. Once the aether is flowing or pulsing it starts to build up an inertia or a self sustaining effect. In many tests, his systems would continue transmitting power after his apparatus was cut off from input power. Additionally, sometimes an illuminating glow around his setups would continually grow and expand. This happened around his giant transmitter towers in Colorado and New York.


The longitudinal waves then flow out to the thicker copper windings, and then into loads connected across them. They could then power light bulbs, motors, or other devices.

He was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.


No estimates, no postulations, just pure real-world physics, the physics of ether waves.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
It is mentioned that the perihelion of mercury could be explained by the gravitaional fields acting upon it and that is true, but classical gravitation could not derive the magnitude of it's perihelion, whereas Einstein's equations did.

You haven't done your homework, unfortunately.

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...)

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.”

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
A few things:  This gentleman who had an impression of Einstein's process, perhaps you should not take it as gospel?  Perhaps he does not know what he is talking about? 

Einstein made the prediction of Mercury's perihelion before completing the theory. Revamping his theory to incorporate observation seems entirely appropriate. That the theory made accurate predictions after this modification would be a positive result, not a strike against it.

You make a couple of assertions, one is that Einstein is a fraud, the other is that both theories are entirely inaccurate. The first Assertion, although relevant to history, is unimportant scientifically. The second assertion, that not a single feature of relativity withstands experimentation seems unlikely in the extreme. You are claiming that an unknown scientist came forth and proposed a bold theory, and that it was accepted in to the orthodoxy with no valid experimental confirmation, to the contrary of the entire scientific practice. I don't buy it.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
The fame of Einstein is due solely to the publicity machine of the press: there are no experiments which prove that the speed of light is constant.


Here is an experiment which does prove the existence of ether waves.

BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

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. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm

Throwing Experiments

DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

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 [enlightened] 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.


Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.


Let us now get back to Tesla's wireless bulb, a clear defiance of the theory of relativity: the existence of ether waves.

A single photograph is enough to shatter the theory of relativity to pieces:

http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg

In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Every recording of a neutrino at the OPERA detector has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. That is one of thousands of experiments that do so.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sokarul

  • 16183
  • Discount Chemist
Where to start?
1. Tesla coils produce electricity similar to static electricity. No magic there. Spark plugs in your car do the same thing. High voltage low current.

2. If Tesla showed the speed of light to be 1.5 times what we say it is, then we would say it is what he found. But look at your own quote

Quote
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].
He isn't talking about an experiment he did. Sounds more like a thought experiment. You can't estimate time in an experiment and experiments don't have requirements of the data.

3.Saying ether is real does not somehow null the rest of science. Here is a video about the stars you were talking about. See how many people were involved? Your opinion does not disprove their findings.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> 

4. Scientists are out there, this second, trying to either confirm Einstein or disprove him. It's nothing new. Theories can be found to be wrong.

5. Give up on the spinning ball crap. Gyroscopes do not disprove anything.
The same video I posted many times. Nothing wrong with it.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as ‘an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick’.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.


A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.


Your assertion is misleading. The Opera experiment dealt with the light-speed LIMIT, not its constancy.

To break the speed of light and send a signal through ether waves (neutrinos/bosons) a new concept of physics, discovered by Tesla, comes into play: ball lightning.

Here is an exceptionally documented work (hundreds of cases) on the existence of ball lightning, Ball Lightning: Paradox of Physics -

http://books.google.ro/books?id=OLbvX5UnxXoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ball+lightning+mystery+of+physics&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-qKGUZyTCs3CswamlIGACw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=ball%20lightning%20mystery%20of%20physics&f=false


sokarul, you must first graduate from the lower forums, to even dream of debating here.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

To compare wireless bulb technology to spark plugs says it all.

Tesla's patent/research paper on how the experiment was conducted:

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


Eric Laithwaite's gyroscopes experiments in no way are related to the DePalma spinning ball experiment or the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments.

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.

A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity, no other comments are needed.


*

sokarul

  • 16183
  • Discount Chemist
Try harder sandokhan.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Static electricity can light lightbulbs.
You are incapable of thinking critically at all.

Second, Tesla's wireless technology does not break physics. It's used today. Here is how. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/wireless-power1.htm
No magic, no ether waves. Just normal science.

Why don't you explain in your own words(if you are even capable of that) how Tesla's wireless technology sends "energy waves through ether"?

You can't see how spinning the ball changes it. Why does the non spinning ball follow gravitation? Why is it when the ball stops spinning it follows gravitation? How much energy was put into spinning the ball?

Explain in your own words how the spin ball " violation of the law of attractive gravity"? Explain how you came to your conclusions to the spin ball experiment when the author doesn't make the same consultations? 

Quote
Eric Laithwaite's gyroscopes experiments in no way are related to the DePalma spinning ball experiment or the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments.
You say the spinning ball is lighter and the experiment I posted shows the gyroscope appearing lighter. How is that not the same?

You don't grasp anything you talk about. That is why you just fill your posts with the same links over and over.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
You dummy, this is explained in junior high school physics.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/human-powered-light-bulb.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_light_a_light_bulb_with_static_electricity
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/human-conductor

Your level of understanding physics is not only laughable, it is catastrophic.

Tesla was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.



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


When Nikola Tesla invented the AC (alternating current) induction motor, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for $1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.


This is no spark plug, sokarul. Tesla transmitted 100 million volts WIRELESSLY over a distance of 26 miles which lit up 200 light bulbs.


Tesla's wireless technology can only be explained in the context of ether waves.

Tesla NEVER used Hertz waves.

Nikola Tesla advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance. Tesla foretold of a brilliant new future for humankind, using his non-Hertian "wireless system," including the ability to generate power and transmit it anywhere.


I already posted the article Tesla Unleashes the Aether on how energy can be transmitted through ether waves.

http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/



You can't really be that ignorant, or can you?

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

Here is the "law" of universal gravitation:



The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


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.

FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE SPINNING BALL WEIGHS LESS.


In E. Laithwaite's case, accusations of using counter weights or non-visible wires have been brought; in DePalma's experiment all we have is a spinning ball which defies attractive gravity by weighing less than its non-spinning counterpart.


Somebody wrote: time multiplied by the the speed of radio waves equals distance.

That's right, but what are radio waves? This is the intelligent question you must ask yourself.

Tesla clearly demonstrated that radio waves ARE NOT Hertzian waves, on the contrary, they are ether waves. The speed of light is a variable as it travels through ether waves, which in turn propagate through aether.

Please wake up!

   sandokhan, why is half your face a Tiger?

Does the rock band Survivor have any influence?
Also, I love your posts and your poetry.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Samdokhan-I am surprised to hear you do not believe in neutrinos since it is one of the proofs you used for super luminal speeds. What the heck is a subquark anyway?  What is a string if bosons and antibosons?  Neutrinos are technically leptons, like electrons, not bosons.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5063
  • What's supposed to go here?
Here is an analysis of your much loved Miller experiment that doesn't get the light of day that "proves an aether exists"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

"V. Conclusion
Dayton Miller was a prisoner of his time. In the 1920s and 30s digital signal processing was unknown, and the
serious flaws of the data reduction algorithm used by all such experiments went unnoticed. Also, the use of errorbars
and quantitative error analyses were in their infancy. These aspects of the state of scientific knowledge combined to
permit him to be fooled into thinking his interferometer measurements did indeed determine the “absolute motion of
the earth”. Even in 1955, Shankland et al did not have knowledge of these aspects of Miller's analysis.
Today, of course, digital signal processing is well known, digital computers are ubiquitous, and quantitative error
analyses are presented in essentially all scientific publications. The above discussions of Miller's analysis and data
are simply applications of now-standard techniques to his rather ancient data. This paper does not break any new
ground, it merely explains a longstanding puzzle: how could someone as competent as Dayton Miller obtain results
so inconsistent with other experiments? – As discussed above, he was a victim of every experimenter’s nightmare,
and was unknowingly looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift that mimicked the
appearance of a real signal. So it's not surprising that his results were anomalous.
This paper has not only explained how Miller was fooled, it has also presented a re-analysis of his data. This new
analysis obtains a value of zero, and puts an upper bound on the “absolute motion of the earth” of 6 km/s (90%
confidence level). This is fully consistent with similar measurements, and with the null result predicted by Special
Relativity.
We are all prisoners of our time. While this paper gives solid and credible reasons to reject Miller’s result, it is
unfair to attempt to judge him by the standards of today. Indeed, recognizing that he could not possibly have known
about these flaws in his results permits us to admire him all the more for his dedication and perseverance in pursuing
these measurements. His instinct that more data is better was correct, and permitted the quantitative modeling of his
systematic drift."
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

sokarul

  • 16183
  • Discount Chemist
You dummy, this is explained in junior high school physics.

…links…
Your links say exactly what I said. Pay attention.

Quote
Your level of understanding physics is not only laughable, it is catastrophic.

Tesla was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.
Ok.
Quote


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

Quote
When Nikola Tesla invented the AC (alternating current) induction motor, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for $1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.
I am aware of the Tesla versus Edison story.  Tesla coils are still around today. Nothing strange.


Quote
This is no spark plug, sokarul. Tesla transmitted 100 million volts WIRELESSLY over a distance of 26 miles which lit up 200 light bulbs.
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didn’t know.


Quote
Tesla's wireless technology can only be explained in the context of ether waves.
So electronics can make and use ether waves but no one can detect them. How convenient. As you said he invented AC. He worked with electricity, not “ether waves”.

Quote
Tesla NEVER used Hertz waves.
He used longitudinal waves. Sound waves are a type of longitudinal wave. He also dealt with telluric current. But he used the correct definition.
 
Quote from: Wikipedia
A telluric current or Earth current,[1] is an electric current which moves underground or through the sea.
Quote
Nikola Tesla advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance. Tesla foretold of a brilliant new future for humankind, using his non-Hertian "wireless system," including the ability to generate power and transmit it anywhere.
Why do you never mention he used the ground as a conductor for his waves? He sent wave through the ground. Ether wave work better in the ground? These ether wave sure are picky. Seismic waves are also in the ground and are longitudinal waves. I guess earth quakes must make ether waves too. 
Quote
I already posted the article Tesla Unleashes the Aether on how energy can be transmitted through ether waves.
They were simply waves we already understand.

Quote
You can't really be that ignorant, or can you?
You are using your ignorance about what he did to make up what you think he did.

Quote
…………………….
Just more copy paste of things which you do not understand.


Quote
In E. Laithwaite's case, accusations of using counter weights or non-visible wires have been brought; in DePalma's experiment all we have is a spinning ball which defies attractive gravity by weighing less than its non-spinning counterpart.
You just don’t understand gyroscopes. They act differently. And to get the gyroscope effect you have to add energy. I don’t know why you keep ignoring this.


Quote
Somebody wrote: time multiplied by the the speed of radio waves equals distance.

That's right, but what are radio waves? This is the intelligent question you must ask yourself.

Tesla clearly demonstrated that radio waves ARE NOT Hertzian waves, on the contrary, they are ether waves. The speed of light is a variable as it travels through ether waves, which in turn propagate through aether.

Please wake up!
Once again, we know what he used and we know what radio waves are. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves.  You need to wake up to 2013.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Here is the correct quantum model of the atom (from baryons to bosons):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613 (subquark quantum ether physics)


Yes, T. Roberts' work on Miller's results is well known, however...T. Roberts is a relativity theory fundamentalist, he says for instance: Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

James DeMeo did have a chance to respond to his statistical analysis, here it is:

http://sci.physics.relativity.narkive.com/PudLfhbR/dayton-miller-s-data-have-no-real-signal#post1 (scroll down to DeMeo's responses, I included only some brief passages)


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.


And there is more...

Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland, when the most serious data which requires
attention is from his Mt. Wilson experiments. I'm sure one could find
unpublished data from Michelson as well, or from Einstein's work -- it
may have historical significance, but is not the point of discussion if
you wish to refute what provides a foundation for much of new interest
in ether and ether-drift. I have no idea why Glen Deen gave you this
data set, instead of something from the Mt. Wilson experiments. Maybe
he can clarify this.

2) The tests in Cleveland would very likely have produced a signal far
below that of the Mt. Wilson experiments, given the effect of altitude
-- higher altitudes produce higher ether-drift velocities, as
documented by Galaev. Therefore, whatever your critique of the
Cleveland 1927 experiments were, they would not apply, or apply only
less-so to the Mt. Wilson experiments of 1925-26. You cannot presume
to assert the "signal to noise" levels were the same for both sets of
experiments. That's an unproven assumption.

3) Even if we assume, the variance within the measurements for any one
of the four seasonal epochs at Mt. Wilson was large, to rest upon that
observation and go no farther is to miss the forest for the trees.
Larger patterns in data sets often are not apparent or ammenable to
analysis via statistical methodology, but rather require dynamical
methods of analysis, or sometimes graphical or
geographical-astrocartographical methods. For example:

4) I did not mean to imply that low-altitude ether-drift experiments
would yield "no signal" at all. They do, but apparently of a reduced
intensity. Consequently, we might ask if the August 1927 data which
you analyzed yielded a variation over sidereal-clock coordinates? And
if so, is this variation along the same sidereal hour axis as what
Miller noted for the Mt. Wilson experiments, even if the velocity
determination would be at a lower level? If so, that would be in
keeping with his overall theory and findings. Miller's pre-Mt.Wilson
tests in Cleveland DID occasionally show similar vectors, as did the
Morley-Miller and even the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yes, he did a
lot of testing and control experiments, as Einstein was at the time
proclaiming (without evidence) that Miller's work was the consequence
of "thermal artifacts". So he did a lot of work to show, exactly, how
the interferometer would react to both small and large external heating
effects, and precautions were undertaken, such as shielding the
interferometer arms with insulation, and so on. NONE of those
experiments -- Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, or Miller in Cleveland
ever produced a fully "null" or "zero" result, which by itself is
significant. But the data was best at Mt. Wilson, and likewise
Michelson-Pease-Pearson also got their best result at Mt. Wilson.
Miller addressed this consideration in the 1933 paper, and
Michelson-Morley were also aware of their own slight positive result,
stating in the 1887 paper the need to perform the experiment over other
seasonal periods -- which they never did. Only Miller did so. The
fact that all four seasonal epochs of the Mt. Wilson experiments
yielded similar sidereal-hour vectors for the axis of drift, and that
this also was the same (though reduced) axis which could be extracted
from the original Michelson-Morley experiment, is THE significant
consideration, even if the velocity determinations were slightly
variable. This is what we call a highly-structured pattern in the
data. The fact that Galaev later found a similar axis of drift in his
work, and the seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" also show a
similar pattern, is "icing on the cake" so to speak.

5) High "signal to noise" ratios plague other data sets from natural
phenomena, such as climate patterns. Daily precipitation is a function
of solar heating and shifting of wind and pressure patterns. But if we
look for variations in precipitation as an indicator of solar heating,
it requires a lot of years of data before we get a climatic curve which
approximates the smooth latitudinal shifting of the sun's location, and
hence, solar heating of the lower atmosphere. Over shorter periods,
rainfall quantities may be extremely variable with large quantities one
day or week, nothing the next day or week, and so on over the years,
with some years very wet, others in drought. If we presume ignorance
of how solar heating works to stimulate rains, we would be hard pressed
to find this pattern in all the "noise" of daily precipitation
variation. We would in fact only find the pattern by recording
precipitation over the year, and then averaging the data by week or
month. Only then, you get a pattern which is valuable, and allows some
degree of confidence and prediction of when a "rainy season" or "dry
season" will occur. Likewise also, I would imagine, with the
determinations of anisotropy in 3-deg.K. in open space -- a lot of
variation, no way to make "statistical analysis" but when it is plotted
on a map -- or along a simple graphical ordination representing
sidereal hour -- it makes a pattern which is important to consider.

Unfortunately, I have no computer-readable data files for Miller. My
role was mostly historical, basically finished after the data sets were
finally obtained, and others set out on that task. I cannot speak to
what Glen Deen and others are doing with the data. My larger interest
today is in the work of Galaev, who developed an elegant and very
simple interferometer using parallel light beams, and seems
potentially easier to use, less afflicted by vibrations, and possibly
could be rendered far more sensitive given current technology. My push
has been, for more experiments to be undertaken, rather than merely to
analyze Miller over and over. I must disagree that your DSP method
will ever critically undermine Miller's findings, if only because my
points above cannot be overcome by purely statistical arguments. If
Miller's four different seasonal epochs had yielded four different
points in the heavens, four different axes of ether-drift, then surely
a rejection of his work would be fully in order and legitimate. But I
encourage you to look again at Figure 2 in my Miller paper.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
This shows Miller's data organized firstly by sidereal hour, and
secondly by civil clock time. By sidereal hour, there is a distinct
pattern in the data, one which appears to be robust enough even to
survive your argument about the need for error-bars. However, when the
same data is organized by civil clock time, the pattern vanishes. This
is the issue which you need to address, and it will not be defeated
with DSP methods.

As noted, I do have copies of all of Miller's data sheets, being the
guy who stimilated their re-discovery from dusty storage rooms. You
mention only the one data sheet of Figure 8 from his 1933 paper, which
showed the results of 19 turns of the interferometer over about a
15-minute period. This is like, extracting rainfall records for one
month of one year, exclaiming there is "no solar-related pattern" and
ignoring all the rainfall data from many other months and years. Sure,
look at only one data sheet, and clear determinations may be
insufficient. But really, your DSP analysis was not of that data
sheet, nor of the hundreds of other data sheets from Mt. Wilson.

I have no interests to second-guess Miller's methods, and your claims
really don't suggest any serious reason why one should be concerned.
Nobody including Michelson had any problem with Miller's methods or
findings at the time when he was doing his work, other than Einstein,
who was no expert in the ether-drift methods. In fact Miller was the
student of Morley, and learned the methods as handed down from
Michelson and Michelson-Morley. You presume to have us believe you
know more about it than they did, even though you haven't undertaken an
analysis of the very same published data from which Miller's
conclusions were derived. And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.

Regards,

James DeMeo

And here are Yuri Galaev's ether drift results, which cannot be ignored either:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 09:26:05 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.

However, our present-day Maxwell equations are not the original Maxwell equations:

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

On the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.


A true electromagnetic wave does not fall off as the distance from the source increases, that is, it is immune to the inverse square law of the usual Hertz waves.


Light exerts a force on a physical target. Maxwell calculated the force associated with radiation pressure to be,

F = dp/dt = (1/c)dE/dt

where E is energy, c is the speed of light, and p is momentum. By substituting p
= mc into the equation, where m equals aethereal mass, we obtain the
relationship,

c²dm = dE

which implies that electromagnetic radiation is a net flow of aethereal mass which is related to energy by the equation,

E = mc²

But just because the last equation relates numerical values, it certainly doesn‟t mean that
mass and energy are equivalent. The „speed of light‟ is the „Mach number‟ for the electric sea by analogy to the speed of sound in air, and it is only in connection with electromagnetic radiation in the electric sea that this famous equation possesses any physical significance. Gilbert Lewis published this approach to E = mc² in 1908.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf



http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf

Abstract. Maxwell’s 1864 paper ‘A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field’ abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his
1861 paper ‘On Physical Lines of Force’. Even after writing part I of his 1861
paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to
electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles
and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach.
This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of
Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is
centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components
that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and
the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis
force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows
that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance
within Maxwell’s vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious
error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical
explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.


Oliver Heaviside, described by Scientific American (Sept. 1950) as "self-taught and ... never connected with any university ... had [however] a remarkable and inexplicable ability (which was possessed also by Newton and Laplace ...) to arrive at mathematical results of considerable complexity without going through any conscious process of proof ..." According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death, excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html


Now, ether wave theory does not need to resort to the original Maxwell equations, but these equations provide a different framework, a new approach for a new kind of electromagnetic theory, one which incorporates the discoveries of T. Henry Moray, Bruce DePalma and much more.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didn’t know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didn’t know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.

Quite true, they are almost always powered by an ignition coil (similar to a Tesla coil), which draws its power from either the battery, or the alternator (at about 12 volts). Alternatively, the plugs can be powered by a magneto, which is essentially a generator and coil in one package. So, now you know! ;)
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didn’t know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.

Quite true, they are almost always powered by an ignition coil (similar to a Tesla coil), which draws its power from either the battery, or the alternator (at about 12 volts). Alternatively, the plugs can be powered by a magneto, which is essentially a generator and coil in one package. So, now you know! ;)

The inductive properties of a coil are simply amazing.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
It is now time to see what an actual unit of electromagnetic radiation looks like.


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















Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm


Therefore, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet has four vortices (actually two, but each one is composed of a receptive and an emissive part), and a center, out of which these vortices emerge. This magnetic field consists of magnetic monopoles which travel in both senses (north-south AND south-north), in contradiction to what we have been taught so far (only north-south direction).


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

The correct atomic weights predicted for each element decades ahead of the discovery some of them, and the start of the modern quantum physics.

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science.


Now we will see that the magnetic monopoles discovered recently, and which do form a magnetic field, are actually subquarks.

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.

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif

Seven possible shapes for the atoms:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif

A baryon, or the fourth state of ether (groups of nine subquarks):

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif

Mesons, third state of ether, groups of six subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif

Quarks, second state of ether, groups of three subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif


MAGNETIC MONOPOLES, SUBQUARKS, TACHYONS, PREONS, OMEGANS:



First state of ether


A magnetic monopole or subquark consists of strings of bosons and antibosons (boson = photon = neutrino, please see my earlier description of neutrinos).

To achieve a faster than light speed means to somehow increase the vibration of an ordinary atom (groups of 18 subquarks) to a higher level which approaches that of the fourth state of ether made up of 9 groups of subquarks.


BASIC LAW OF ETHER WAVES (which consist, as we have seen, of two strings which travel in double torsion, one laevorotatory, one dextrorotatory) specified by Nikola Tesla:

ETHER IS MADE RIGID BY APPLYING HIGH VOLTAGE, HIGH FREQUENCY ELECTRICITY

This rigidness can become, eventually, ball lightning: ether waves which no longer travel through aether, but which are "trapped" in a torsion torus.



« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 07:38:19 AM by sandokhan »

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Sandokhan, you denigrate others' ability to debate, but I have yet to see you make a cogent argument. It could well be because I am extremely simple minded though. Perhaps you can clarify your argument a bit, because it seems to me we have gone off topic here. Can you do this without resorting to huge walls of copypasta and endless links to conspiracy and/or fringe science websites? I mean GIF animations are all well and good but can you boil it down for us and simply state in a few sentences why we A) Can't trust radio wave measurements of Earth-Moon distance, B) How to correctly measure the distance?

So far all I am getting is Einstein dumb, Tesla smart, the Standard Model is wrong because ESP, and everything that contradicts your argument is wrong because hoaxes?

Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
It could be.

It is called bibliographical references, for your information; any well-presented paper will include other works which do support the view expressed by the author.

Perhaps you have been reading up on someone else's messages: I only present the very best of the most profound views on quantum physics, as you should know by now.


It is very simple. You cannot trust radio wave measurements, because radio waves are ether waves as I have been proving all along for the past 3 pages or so.


Light, in ether wave theory, is A VARIABLE, and is not constant.

Therefore, to calculate a distance properly, you need to know the exact influence of the aether density upon the ether wave which travels through the aether, then and only then one might make a reasonable calculation.

You can correctly measure the distance Earth-Moon (the Black Sun to be more exact) by using the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes, and which have been abundantly presented in my messages.


But more basically you shouldn't trust what you have been taught about radio waves for a more profound reason: Einstein based his entire theory of relativity on the truncated (mutilated) Maxwell equations, in fact he expressly says that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations.

I will now bring to your atttention another bibliographical reference:


 If Einstein had had electromagnetic theory in quaternions, the scalar "vacuum pressure" parts would have been there for him to ponder.  It is highly probable that he would have captured the "electromagnetics-to-gravity conversion remainder" in the quaternion interactions.
       If so, he would have written the full theory of general relativity, involving local violation of conservation of energy, a unified field theory, and the direct engineering of gravitational and antigravity effects on the laboratory bench by electromagnetic means.

 In other words, the quaternion approach captures the ability to utilize electromagnetics and produce local curvature of spacetime, in an engineering fashion.  Heaviside wrote a subset of Maxwell's theory where this capability is excluded.

     This means that one has now produced a scalar wave that represents the local variation of spacetime curvature in an oscillating manner .
     Rigorously this is a gravitational wave.  It has been produced locally.  It has been produced by Maxwell's original unified theory.
     Again, I have called this area scalar electromagnetics.  The Soviets call it energetics.
     Where local spacetime curvature is varied, conservation laws (energy, conversation, etc.) need not hold.  Curved one way, the local spacetime acts as a source (of energy, charge, etc.)  Curved the other way, the local spacetime acts as a sink (of energy, charge, etc.)
     The Soviets often do not utilize the same restricted kind of general relativity that Western scientists adhere to.
     Soviet papers in general relativity regularly point out the complete and unrestricted theory, where local spacetime curvature is allowed.  They also point out that all conservation laws may be violated by such local curvature.  Thus the Soviets have no unduly dogmatic respect for conservation laws.
     Further, by assuming the possibility of local spacetime curvature, Soviet scientists have assumed the possibility of direct experimentation with general relativity on the laboratory bench.
     In the West, we have assumed that such cannot possibly be done, because of Einstein's limiting assumption of no local spacetime curvature.  Thus Western physicists are strongly conditioned away from electrogravitation.

 Let me stress this fact most strongly.  After Maxwell's death a single man - Oliver Heaviside - directly altered Maxwell's equations, eliminating localized electrogravitation and producing the form of the theory taught throughout the West today as "Maxwell's theory."
     Maxwell's theory has never been taught in Western universities!  Only Heaviside's crippled subset of the theory has been taught!

Then, shortly before the turn of the century , a short, sharp "debate" erupted in a few journals - mostly in the journal Nature.  Only about 30 scientists took part in the "debate."

    It wasn't really much of a debate!  The vectorists simply steam- rolled right over the remaining quaternionists, sweeping all opposi tion before them.
    They simply threw out the remaining vestiges of Maxwell's quaternion theory, and completely adopted Heaviside's interpretation.
    Thus, a little over a decade later when Einstein wrote his general relativity theory , he did not know that the original work of Maxwell already indicated the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics, and indicated the ease with which local spacetime could be electrogravitationally curved locally and engineered.
    Accordingly, he placed the scientists of the West on a road which rigorously assumed that a unified field theory was yet to be discovered.  It also strongly discouraged any experimentation aimed at curving local spacetime, for it assumed that such could not be done.