sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

  • 250 Replies
  • 52882 Views
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #120 on: September 27, 2013, 11:11:32 AM »
Sandokahn,  If gravity is not an attractive force, please explain the results of the following experiment, performed by Henry Cavendish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #121 on: October 01, 2013, 01:54:36 AM »
Biography of Professor Francis Nipher:

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

One of the most distinguished physicists of the 20th Century.


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

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


Nipher's experiment was proven to be true by the experiments performed just some decades later by Dr. Paul Biefeld and Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown.


F. Nipher:

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

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

A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.


The Biefeld Brown effect DEFIES attractive gravity:

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.


A clear confirmation of Francis Nipher extraordinary experiment.


FULL VACUUM EXPERIMENT VERYFING THE BIEFELD BROWN EXPERIMENT.

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


THE BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT SHOWS THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY IS AN ELECTRICAL PHENOMENON, IN FACT IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO ELECTRICITY.



The latest findings about cloud physics:

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

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


The Biefeld Brown effect has been proven clearly and absolutely: it defies attractive gravity, it shows the direct relationship between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, clouds float effortlessly using the same antigravitational effect documented by Dr. Brown and witnesses by Nikola Tesla.


LET US CAREFULLY READ DR. TESLA OWN WORDS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF STATIONARY WAVES (SCALAR WAVES, TELLURIC CURRENTS, SUBQUARK STRINGS):

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

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

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

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

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


His recordings showed that energy was transmitted from the clouds via the stationary waves/telluric currents.


The Biefeld Brown effect proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

The Biefeld Brown effect proves that terrestrial gravity is an electrical phenomenon.

Clouds weighing a billion tons float because of the same Biefeld Brown effect.

An increased activity of the stationary waves' energy to and from the clouds (Tesla's experiment) prove that the clouds (including lenticular clouds) are able to use this energy in the form of the Biefeld Brown effect to defy terrestrial gravity.

 

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #122 on: October 01, 2013, 02:30:53 AM »
How can you assume there is every day at every place in the world a semi-diurnal pressure drop ? You are far from it.
Don't dismiss, go further: how the official explanation about lenticular clouds is mistaken ?


You don't have a clue about atmospheric physics, as usual.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm


This happens everywhere at each point on the surface of the Earth.


In fact, let us suppose that a building would be constructed in a region where lenticular clouds are known to form.

Then a soil engineer will need to carefully consider the influence of the atmospheric semidiurnal tide's barometric pressure upon the soil to investigate any possible effects on the building that will be constructed.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


State of Florida Geological Survey:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Lenticular clouds need mountain waves in order to form.

MOUNTAIN WAVES PARADOX

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


By nature, lee waves need a steady wind direction over a mountain range. As lee waves are observed, we can safely conclude that wind direction is ok. Furthermore, gliders flying nearby lenticular clouds experience this fact. Earth's shape and rotation is irrelevant there. Is this an effort to drift the debate ?

NO RE CAN AVOID BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE ROTATING ATMOSPHERE AS RELATED TO THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAIN WAVES.


For starters, a basic fact about the computation of the rotational speed of the supposedly rotating Earth.

RS = COS L  x   S

RS = rotational speed

L = latitude (degrees)

S = 1670 km/hr (1070 mi/hr)

As an example, for the latitude of 51 degrees we obtain: 1051 km/hr (or 656.8 mi/hr)


Thus the lenticular clouds prove to be one of the most striking examples and beautiful proofs that the Earth is not rotating around its own axis: their very formation, requiring wind flow to be perpendicular to the range, DEFIES THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH.

Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway: the vertical updraft would have to fight in the incoming layers of atmospheric tides each rotating at a certain speed (100 miles to 300 miles for a mountain of some 2000 - 3000 ft in height) in the west to east direction.


Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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


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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


More information here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0


The restoring vector field paradox DEFIES the very requirement needed for a lenticular cloud to form: mountain waves with wind flow perpendicular to the range.



My knowledge of cloud microphysics/physics allowed me immediately to apply this body of facts as exemplified in the quotes taken from advanced textbooks, and the debunking of the catastrophic Gunn and Kinzer experiment.

You, antonio, have proved that you cannot even read a basic graph, and have no idea what your own bibliographic references imply and mean.


The barometric pressure paradox DEFIES the lenticular cloud physics as described in the official textbook: there is no such thing as attractive gravity.

The mountain wave paradox proves that these waves could not possibly form on a rotating Earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #123 on: October 01, 2013, 03:29:50 AM »
GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)



A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks every laughable assertion on the physics of (lenticular) clouds.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2013, 03:40:38 AM by sandokhan »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #124 on: October 01, 2013, 04:31:36 AM »
Sandokahn, so by pasting in the same stuff you posted a dozen times before and not addressing the issue directly or even at all, you are essentially saying that you can't explain Henry Cavendish's results.  The experiment showed that the lead balls do in fact attract each other, causing the arm to rotate, thereby showing and measuring the force of attractive gravity.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #125 on: October 01, 2013, 04:54:30 AM »
I already refuted his whole barometric pressure thing. He just won't admit it.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #126 on: October 01, 2013, 04:56:54 AM »
Quote
Biography of Professor Francis Nipher:
(...) very longrepeated pasted text.
Nipher, Biefeld and Brown are nice guys. They do some cool experiments. Ok

Quote
(...)clouds float effortlessly using the same antigravitational effect documented by Dr. Brown and witnesses by Nikola Tesla.
Give the facts, you have an experiment, you have now to link it to clouds. You failed to give anything about it. Anything else that 'It does" please.
And again, please give evidence for electric fields surrounding every cloud.You have dodged this question twice.


Quote
LET US CAREFULLY READ DR. TESLA OWN WORDS DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF STATIONARY WAVES
This observation is not enough documented and cannot be used as a global explanation of any kind of atmospheric phenomenon.


Quote
His recordings showed that energy was transmitted from the clouds via the stationary waves/telluric currents.
No, this is your own personal conclusion, and it's a bad one.

Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.
The Biefeld Brown effect proves that terrestrial gravity is an electrical phenomenon.
Clouds weighing a billion tons float because of the same Biefeld Brown effect.
This litany is not scientific work, that's just a wish.


Quote
An increased activity of the stationary waves' energy to and from the clouds (Tesla's experiment) prove that the clouds (including lenticular clouds) are able to use this energy in the form of the Biefeld Brown effect to defy terrestrial gravity.
You are constantly mixing some scientists words with yours. You are trying to give some existence to your own theories by this way. This is not enough. Go ahead, explain how the clouds "are able to use this energy".

Quote
You don't have a clue about atmospheric physics, as usual.
(...)
The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.
this happens everywhere at each point on the surface of the Earth.
Falling into rants when you feel cornered ?
Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.


Quote
MOUNTAIN WAVES PARADOX(...)
NO RE CAN AVOID BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE ROTATING ATMOSPHERE AS RELATED TO THE FORMATION OF MOUNTAIN WAVES.
This is a confirmed effort to drift the debate, as it has been discussed in others threads, please stay focused.

Quote
Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway
Nothing "sustains" the weight of the cloud. What part of the simple previous explanation did you miss?

Quote
My knowledge of cloud microphysics/physics allowed me immediately to apply this body of facts as exemplified in the quotes taken from advanced textbooks, and the debunking of the catastrophic Gunn and Kinzer experiment.
Your debunking is inexistent. That's just denial. Show something more scientific please.

Quote
The barometric pressure paradox DEFIES the lenticular cloud physics as described in the official textbook
Again, just a stance. Explain why.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #127 on: October 04, 2013, 02:31:33 AM »
and not addressing the issue directly or even at all, you are essentially saying that you can't explain Henry Cavendish's results.

I anticipated a long time ago (in fact, right here in this thread) your concern for the Cavendish "experiment".

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1545696.html#msg1545696


http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (about the  horrendous and shocking errors in the Cavendish experiment)


If you do believe that gravity is attractive, then here is Newton himself telling you that you are delusional:

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

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

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Read Newton's quotes: he understood that there are TWO gravitational forces at work.

One of them is the terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure exerted by the ether waves.

The other one is of a rotational type.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #128 on: October 04, 2013, 02:53:34 AM »
rottingroom wrote:

I'm done.

Your vow of abstinence did not last very long, did it?


One would think that you took some time off to meditate, to really think things through...no such thing happened.


Now, you are even more delusional then before:

I already refuted his whole barometric pressure thing.


antonio wrote also:

Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.


According to the Bulletin of Applied Physical Sciences it does happen EVERYWHERE:

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt


Your request is of the same caliber as your inability to read a simple graph.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)

HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm


The best official sources tell you that this phenomeon happens every day, every night, absolutely everywhere.


Again, just a stance. Explain why.

No stance at all.

I have already explained why in great detail.

Here we go again, so pay attention.


At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.

Therefore, a different explanation must be offerred to account for the fact that clouds weighing some 1 billion tons float effortlessly in front of everyone's eyes.



Nothing "sustains" the weight of the cloud. What part of the simple previous explanation did you miss?

Your bumbling wikipedia type of research explains nothing.

Until the air will evaporate, the entire weight of a lenticular cloud will be at least 500 tons (see my earlier calculations).

In fact, for the entire process of forming of the visible cloud, no explanation exists which can account for the levitation effect of the cloud.

You clearly have no scientific experience in researching and explaining this things.

No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.


I went to more advanced textbooks, which even throw a shadow of a doubt on the updraft explanation itself.

The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.



This is a confirmed effort to drift the debate, as it has been discussed in others threads, please stay focused.

These cheap tricks do not work with me antonio.

YOU cannot dodge the mountain wave paradox at all.

We are discussing here the RE view of the world, not the FE (where the Earth is absolutely fixed and not rotating).


No drifting of the debate, just a direct challenge to the very physics of mountain wave formation.


Let me remind you of the basic facts.

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.


Lenticular clouds need mountain waves in order to even form/exist.


Since you cannot explain the mountain wave paradox, you are forced to resort to word games and other tricks to dodge the issue.

It won't work with me.

Your inability to explain how it is possible for mountain waves to form, despite the inexistence of a restoring vector field means you have no idea how lenticular clouds actually form ON A ROUND EARTH.

Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

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


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

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

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

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

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


More information here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.100.html#.UkqOTNK8CP0


The restoring vector field paradox DEFIES the very requirement needed for a lenticular cloud to form: mountain waves with wind flow perpendicular to the range.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #129 on: October 04, 2013, 03:18:55 AM »
Nipher, Biefeld and Brown are nice guys. They do some cool experiments. Ok

Give the facts, you have an experiment, you have now to link it to clouds. You failed to give anything about it. Anything else that 'It does" please.
And again, please give evidence for electric fields surrounding every cloud.You have dodged this question twice.

This observation is not enough documented and cannot be used as a global explanation of any kind of atmospheric phenomenon.

This litany is not scientific work, that's just a wish.



The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.


First the conclusions of the experiments carried out by Dr. Brown in full vacuum:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Please read carefully.

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.


You cannot dodge this issue anymore.


Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.



Brown’s first experiments consisted of two lead spheres connected by a nonconductive glass rod, like a dumbell. One sphere was charged positive, the other negative, with a total of 120 kilovolts between them. This formed a large electric dipole. When suspended, the system moved toward the positive pole, arcing upwards and staying there against the force of gravity tugging downward. This showed that electric dipoles generate self-acceleration toward the positive pole. This experiment was repeated in oil, in a grounded tank, proving that ion wind was not responsible.

Improved versions of this setup replaced the lead spheres with metal plates, and glass rod with dielectric plates or blocks. This created a high voltage parallel plate capacitor with one or more layers. Brown’s British patent #300,111 – issued in 1927 – described what he termed a “cellular gravitator” consisting of numerous metal plates interleaved with dielectric plates, the entire block wrapped in insulating material and end plates connected to output electrodes and a spark gap to limit the input voltage. This device produced significant acceleration.

Later, Brown experimented with saucer-shaped disks with positive and negative electrodes on opposite sides. This created an open-air high voltage capacitor that combined the electrogravitational effect with ion wind phenomena for propulsion. They worked well in air, and they worked well in vacuum.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil


The Biefeld Brown effect: complete DEFIANCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Experiment carried out at the Ariel University:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Biefeld-Brown Effect


BIEFELD BROWN EXPERIMENT CARRIED OUT IN FULL VACUUM

"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.  The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights.   The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.

Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008.   Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:

Project Montgolfier:  http://projetmontgolfier.info/]http://projetmontgolfier.info/

The flying disc carousel experiment that the Montgolfier Project conducted in 1955 used 2-1/2 foot diameter discs (75 cm dia.) hung from 4 meter tethers suspended from the ends of a 3 meter arm.  Based on the description given, this seems to have been almost the same flying disc test that Brown gave to the Navy at Pearl Harbor a year or two earlier.




Left: Brown holding a flying disc tested in Project Montgolfier. Right: Close-up of disc showing outboard leading-edge wire. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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



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

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

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"


Let us remember the conclusions stated by Dr. Bruce DePalma:

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.


Double helix theory of magnetism:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551


Let us return to the conclusions:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.

Tesla was able to prove that clouds do emit and receive scalar waves.
Here are his very own words:

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

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

Stationary waves = scalar waves = telluric currents = ether


Here are the absolute proofs (and confirmation of Tesla's experiment) carried by Dr. Dayton Miller: ether does exist.



PERIODICITY OF GLOBAL ETHER-DRIFT, from Dayton Miller's Mount Wilson Ether-Drift Experiments, 1925-26. The Top Graph above plots data from four separate months or epochs, measured at different times of the year and organized by sidereal time, showing a definite periodic curve. The heavy line is the mean of all four epochs. The Bottom Graph (above) plots the same data organized by civil clock time coordinates; here, the plotted data spreads out along the graph, without apparent periodicity. This demonstrates, the detected axis and periodicity of ether drift is the same for different times of year, but can only be seen when the data is viewed within a cosmological, sidereal coordinate system. (From Miller 1928, p.362)

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

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #130 on: October 04, 2013, 04:27:58 AM »
I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

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

This is the second time I caught you deceiving and misleading your readers again sandokhan. Only because I bothered to read your post this time. If you quote something, you need to quote it in its entirety and not just the parts that you can twist into a lie. Why didn't you quote the entire letter sandokhan? Why did you stop quoting just before the sentence in bold below?

If you had quoted the entire letter then the readers could have seen that Newton never said that he didn't believe in gravity. Contrary to your misleading claim, Newton believed in gravity, he just didn't know what caused it.

Quote
It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and effect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me a great absurdity, and I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my reader.

Try not to lie again in the future sandokhan.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 04:40:44 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #131 on: October 04, 2013, 07:40:28 AM »
I said I am done because it is impossible to debate with someone like you. I presented an argument showing that the barometric paradox is not always true and an explanation for why. Your rebuttals included select observations that support your argument, an attack on calibration and an attack on standard deviation. The former is irrelevant because it does not represent all stations and the last two are fallacious because neither affect the times when pressure is shown to go up or down. You simply dropped my refutations and carry on using your original arguments. You are ignorant beyond belief.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2013, 02:30:08 PM by rottingroom »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #132 on: October 05, 2013, 07:43:20 AM »
cartesian, as I said before: you have a crude and brutish approach to science.

You are an embarrassment to the entire RE movement.

I never said that Newton (actually the group of people who wrote his works) did NOT believe in gravity.


Newton clearly specifies that the concept of ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY is pure nonsense.

Let us read his words again.

It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and effect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me a great absurdity, and I believe that no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my reader.


A very certain dismissal of the very concept of attractive gravity, as it is taught to students everywhere.

In fact Leibnitz (again, official history) opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason: Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent, a defiance of space.


Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity


Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.



Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #133 on: October 05, 2013, 07:50:49 AM »
I never said that Newton (actually the group of people who wrote his works) did NOT believe in gravity.

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #134 on: October 05, 2013, 08:20:05 AM »
rottingroom, your arguments, such as they were, amount to nothing at all.

Everybody was able to see that you are no meteorologist, and that you have a junior high school level of understanding of science.

Your explanations were ridiculous, to say the least: you could not understand the difference between sea level pressure measurements and station pressure readings.

For the last time, let me prove to you not only the fallacies in your arguments, but also the correctness of a very basic fact of atmospheric physics: the semidiurnal variations of the barometer pressure.


The National Weather Service webpages included a very obvious error: the person who wrote the computer code for the graphics and tables used the data from the sea pressure level measurements to directly compute the station pressure measurements.

We can see how this was done very clearly.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0

Take a look at the sea pressure numbers: they are DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE STATION PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.


Now, the corrrect station pressure data would indicate immediately the two maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and the two minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am in the semidiurnal barometric pressure readings.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.


But, each value is directly related to the station pressure numbers: as I said, the person who wrote the computer code make a mistake, not having the knowledge required to understand the difference between sea level pressure and station pressure measurements.


For each increment in the numbers in the sea level pressure column, there is a corresponding change in the station pressure numbers, a clear mistake which should be corrected by the National Weather Service website.


For each set of measurements in the sea level pressure column, there will be a corresponding change in the station pressure column (using the same numbers).


For example, the sea level pressure increses from 1011.1 to 1011.9: the station pressure column will reflect this change linearly: 29.844 to 29.874.

The sea level pressure increases from 1013.4 to 1013.9: the station pressure column will read 29.914 to 29.924.


You, rottingroom, based your entire faulty analysis on this kind of mistakes, even though I pointed them out to you at each and every step.


Each and every weather station in the world does record the correct values as exemplified in the best bibliographical references that could be found.


These values show a daily SEMIDIURNAL VARIATION IN THE READINGS OF THE BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.


Your denying means that you have no knowledge of atmospheric physics.


First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm


Do you understand English, rottingroom?

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


Do you understand English rottingroom?

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

Do you understand English rottingroom?

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



Have you then lost your mind to come here and say that you "proved" anything relating to the barometer pressure paradox?

YOU ARE TRULY DELUSIONAL.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.


Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.

Therefore, a different explanation must be offerred to account for the fact that clouds weighing some 1 billion tons float effortlessly in front of everyone's eyes.


End of discussion.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #135 on: October 05, 2013, 08:51:51 AM »
Now, let me bring another extraordinary proof to our discussion.

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT


In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


Let us now return to the conclusions of the DePalma spinning ball experiment.

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.


Conclusions of the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments:

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.



According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation.


The Biefeld Brown experiment effect conclusions:

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.”


Clear and absolute proofs that there is no such thing as attractive gravity.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551

Magnetism = electricity = double flow/torsion of subquark helices/monopoles


The dextrorotatory string/helix is called electrogravity or terrestrial gravity.

The laevorotatory string/helix is responsible for the antigravitational effects in the Gyro Drop, Kozyrev, DePalma and Brown experiments.



THESE SUBQUARK STRINGS (ETHER) WERE ALSO DISCOVERED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT BY DR. DAYTON MILLER.

Dayton Miller ether drift results


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


"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)

"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.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)

www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930


"Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated the ether waves by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell's original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference "return" from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a "standing columnar wave," and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West."


Conclusions drawn from the Biefeld Brown effect experiments:

-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.

-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.


Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.



Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #136 on: October 05, 2013, 09:14:06 AM »
Maybe your post is interesting. Maybe it is not. If you hadn't lied so much, I probably would have read your post. You lost your credibility sandokhan.
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #137 on: October 05, 2013, 09:49:03 AM »
You tried this kind of approach before. It doesn't work with me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129

Since you have no valid or credible arguments at all at your disposal, by default there's only one option left for you: to baffle your opponents with bs.


Here is how you tried before this kind of crap:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543


My response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

It takes less than 30 seconds to totally demolish any message you might come up with.

Your junior high school level of understanding of science belongs to the complete nonsense section, not here.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #138 on: October 05, 2013, 09:58:07 AM »
Your understanding of how standard deviation is applied is incorrect. It is always the same for any given station no matter what. It is a number that comes from elevation which is obviously the same for every observation from that station seeing as how stations don't magically change elevation. For instance on my ship our station was 70 ft above sea level and a standard deviation of .09 (if I remember correctly) was applied for every observation. This number never changed.

I don't feel the need to hunt down more observations to show you examples of semi diurnal observations not taking place. I've already done it and you simply deny it. Calibration and standard deviation have no affect on the moments when changes are shown to occur in observations from any station. I conceded that semi diurnal observations do usually occur and explained why this is expected. It has to do with microscale events that depend on the location. In places where microscale events are of no consequence it doesn't happen. End of story.

Sandokhan, the master of red herrings.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2013, 10:51:05 AM by rottingroom »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #139 on: October 06, 2013, 03:36:25 AM »
You tried this kind of approach before. It doesn't work with me.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537129.html#msg1537129

Since you have no valid or credible arguments at all at your disposal, by default there's only one option left for you: to baffle your opponents with bs.


Here is how you tried before this kind of crap:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1536543.html#msg1536543


My response:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

It takes less than 30 seconds to totally demolish any message you might come up with.

Your junior high school level of understanding of science belongs to the complete nonsense section, not here.

Are you trying to use Tunguska event to prove that the earth is flat again? Look ... there is a thread about it in this section dedicated for you made by one of your colleagues. Prove yourself worthy there. Oh would you find some evidence that there was light above Tunguska on the days/nights following the blast before posting anything there, because without that evidence your words are worth nothing.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2013, 04:26:39 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #140 on: October 08, 2013, 12:27:46 AM »
Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf


Tenth reference.



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am


Let us now go back to the previous list of references.

First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



To deny this body of very clear evidence means to leave the realm of science and enter the field of psychiatry.


I have already explained why the wrong station pressure figures were used (most probably by the programmer who had no experience in meteorology) at the National Weather Service website:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1550022.html#msg1550022


The facts from atmospheric physics (atmospheric tides) needed to understand how to correctly read/use surface barometer pressure data:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #141 on: October 08, 2013, 12:56:09 AM »


Tesla Wardenclyffe Tower, Scalar Wave Amplifier



Dr. Nikola Tesla, 1915:

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732
  • recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war."



The path of the ball lightning created by Tesla, Siberia (Tunguska), 1908, ten minutes PRIOR to the explosion (7:15 am):



The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:

'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' ’Certainly not’, I replied, ’these are radiations.’... "I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression.
 
The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only truly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly express his confidence in its success." N. Tesla



"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.
 
   "... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "



Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.
 
Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.
 
The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.
 
In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.


Thus, Tesla's formidable experiments prove the absolute existence of ether waves (scalar/stationary waves, telluric currents, subquark/monopole strings).


Ether waves = inexistence of attractive gravity = existence of electrogravity (see the proofs from the Biefeld Brown experiments/effect) = terrestrial gravity as pressure gravity


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #142 on: October 08, 2013, 01:57:37 AM »
Eleventh reference.



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #143 on: October 08, 2013, 08:29:41 AM »
sandokhan, each reference you post describes these as variations. None of them imply that it always happens at the same time nor do they imply that they always happen SEMI diurnally.

I showed you real observations that contradict your claims and you continue to just ignore it. Furthermore, you attempted to derail my points by bringing up calibration and standard deviation issues, fallaciously as they don't affect WHEN these changes begin.

*

sokarul

  • 18042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #144 on: October 08, 2013, 04:20:20 PM »
Quote from: sandokhan
Thus, Tesla's formidable experiments prove the absolute existence of ether waves (scalar/stationary waves, telluric currents, subquark/monopole strings).
Not even close.  His research sure does make a good electric toothbrush charging system though.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #145 on: October 09, 2013, 01:54:08 AM »
rottingroom, your incursion into delusion seems to have no end.

Your observations have already been debunked very carefully, they are an indication of your ignorance on the subject.

Let us go through the routine once more.


The National Weather Service webpages included a very obvious error: the person who wrote the computer code for the graphics and tables used the data from the sea pressure level measurements to directly compute the station pressure measurements.

We can see how this was done very clearly.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0



Take a look at the sea pressure numbers: they are DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO THE STATION PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS.


Now, the corrrect station pressure data would indicate immediately the two maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and the two minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am in the semidiurnal barometric pressure readings.


OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.


But, each value is directly related to the station pressure numbers: as I said, the person who wrote the computer code make a mistake, not having the knowledge required to understand the difference between sea level pressure and station pressure measurements.


For each increment in the numbers in the sea level pressure column, there is a corresponding change in the station pressure numbers, a clear mistake which should be corrected by the National Weather Service website.


For each set of measurements in the sea level pressure column, there will be a corresponding change in the station pressure column (using the same numbers).


For example, the sea level pressure increses from 1011.1 to 1011.9: the station pressure column will reflect this change linearly: 29.844 to 29.874.

The sea level pressure increases from 1013.4 to 1013.9: the station pressure column will read 29.914 to 29.924.

Same thing happened here:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=vef&sid=KNXP&num=72&raw=0

The very same direct correlation between the sea pressure level measurements and the station pressure data.


You, rottingroom, based your entire faulty analysis on this kind of mistakes, even though I pointed them out to you at each and every step.




Now, here is the correct station pressure data as it is measured all around the world.

First reference.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Second reference.

GRAPHS SHOWING THE DAILY SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETRIC PRESSURE CHANGES AT 10:00 AM/10:00 PM (MAXIMUMS) AND 4:00 PM/4:00 AM (MINIMUMS):

http://www.geografia.fflch.usp.br/graduacao/apoio/Apoio/Apoio_Elisa/flg0355/textos/Ahrens_cap9.pdf (PG. 211)


Third reference.

A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes.

ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

EVER.


Fourth reference.

It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.


Lord Rayleigh himself did not deny the phenomenon at all: he simply was not able to find an explanation.


Fifth reference.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).


The best reference from Soil Engineering.

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.


Sixth reference.

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


Seventh reference.


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


Eighth reference.


http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

THIS IS REAL SCIENCE: DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE READING.

Maximums at 10:00 am and 10:00 pm, and minimums at 4:00 am and 4:00 pm.



To deny this body of very clear evidence means to leave the realm of science and enter the field of psychiatry.


Ninth reference.

Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf


Tenth reference.



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am


Eleventh reference.



Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm


Your amateurish incursion into meteorology has been thoroughly debunked, and now you have at your disposal the real station pressure data needed to understand your atrocious mistakes and errors.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. (Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


ALL LATITUDES, no exception recorded.

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.


The facts from atmospheric physics (atmospheric tides) needed to understand how to correctly read/use surface barometer pressure data:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L


One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.



?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #146 on: October 09, 2013, 03:32:02 AM »
Why did you write all that same shit again? Its still just as irrelevant as ever. Notice in your examples of when mslp goes up, station pressure also goes up. It is not as if they go in opposite directions. I'm starting to think you're just a lunatic.

By your logic every pressure reading recorded everywhere is irrelevant. Everyone is just using irrelevant numbers. So then what is there to argue on either side then? If the numbers are wrong (which they aren't) then this whole conversation is irrelevant. The point is that I have used a barometer and despite the alterations done to the numbers before they hit the ob sheet, one thing that doesn't change is when pressure begins to change
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 04:10:29 AM by rottingroom »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #147 on: October 09, 2013, 03:51:26 AM »

Your enthusiasm is compelling but please refrain yourself from posting obviously faked pictures as a reference for your "work"

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #148 on: October 09, 2013, 03:54:11 AM »
First reference...
Second reference...
Third reference...
Fourth reference...
Fifth reference...
Sixth reference...
Seventh reference...
Eighth reference...
Ninth reference...
Tenth reference...
Eleventh reference...

So, what exactly are you trying to prove/disprove sandokhan? That the gravity changes with time? Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time? I don't want your air pressure stuffs. I want you to show that the weight of a solid object varies with time. If you cannot show this kind of more direct evidence, then you are also talking nonsense like in your Tunguska BS.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 04:06:02 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #149 on: October 09, 2013, 10:20:36 AM »
Sorry, Sandokhan.  Your posted links do nothing to cast doubt on Henry Cavendish's experiment and do everything to cast doubt on their authors' understanding of science.  The Cavendish experiment stands as proof that attractive gravity exists in very much the same way that the Michelson-Morley experiment stands as proof that the aether doesn't exist.  The experiments have been repeated and verified.  End of story.

Also, Isaac Newton quotes aren't generally good for much other than showing what Isaac Newton thought at that particular time.  He spent a lot of his life obsessed with alchemy, but that doesn't prove that chemical reactions can be used to turn lead or other metals to gold, it only proves that Newton thought it was possible.