sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

  • 250 Replies
  • 53386 Views
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #210 on: October 17, 2013, 08:33:36 AM »
You are trolling around cartesian.

I am not trolling. I am getting you to prove your claim.
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #211 on: October 17, 2013, 08:38:59 AM »


40 to 50 miles from the epicenter.
This is indeed a map of Vanavara. So far I am with you.
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #212 on: October 17, 2013, 08:42:50 AM »
And then how did you jump to "Gostorg, Vanavara" from the below Google translated text? The map above has no relationship to the text below. You're just making stuff up, aren't you. Another deception.

134. Andrey Gordeev, F. , born in 1897, Russian, illiterate farmer, clarity is good memories. Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepal (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village).

"That was before he left the army before the revolution was about 17-18. Summer, at the meadow, before lunch, at 12 o'clock." The angular height of the sun at the time of observation 50 on , azimuth 120 on . "The weather is clear, windless. Was in the yard, mowing or rowing." Seems to have attracted the attention of his blows. Saw the body with sharp edges, form - the ball. Neither fire nor smoky tail was not. On the body can be viewed with the naked eye. Color of different parts of the body is the same. Point observations: azimuth 30 o , 25 height of the point of extinction: the azimuth of 110 o , height 25 on . The trajectory parallel to the horizon. The entire visible region of the trajectory lying to the left of the sun. Thermal sensations of the body was not. The shadows of the things not seen. Did not see the light flash, posts on the horizon - as well. Flight time - 10 seconds. Closer to the speed of the aircraft than a shooting star. Sounds: explosions, as the guns or even stronger, stronger than thunder in a thunderstorm. Had two strikes before the body and three - after the appearance. Recent attacks have been stronger. About moving sound source said: "A small stretch of the motion of the body." Sound effects were quickly 1-2 minutes. The earth trembled, that was in the house - do not know. People and animals do not fall. Smoky cloud in the fall did not notice. Bright nights after flying remembers. People were frightened at first. A year after his fall were asked two engineers with the parties - Kokaulin and Kul who went to the crash site a year after the disaster. About the Tunguska meteorite did not read and did not know.
As the original text is in Russian:

134. Гордеев Андрей Федорович, 1897 года рождения, русский, неграмотный, колхозник, четкость воспоминаний хорошая. Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непа (госторг, 2 км вверх по реке от села).

"Это было до ухода в армию, до революции, было лет 17-18. Летом, в самый покос, до обеда, в 12 часов". Угловая высота солнца в момент наблюдения 50о, азимут 120о. "Погода ясная, безветренная. Находился во дворе, косил или греб". Кажется, привлекли его внимание удары. Видел тело с четкими краями, по форме - шар. Ни огненного, ни дымного хвоста не было. На тело можно было смотреть невооруженным глазом. Цвет различных частей тела одинаков. Точки замечания: азимут 30о, высота 25о, точка исчезновения: азимут 110о, высота 25о. Траектория параллельна горизонту. Весь видимый участок траектории лежал слева от солнца. Тепловых ощущений от тела не было. Тени от предметов не наблюдал. Световую вспышку не видел, столбов на горизонте - тоже. Время полета - 10 сек. Ближе к скорости самолета, чем падающей звезды. Звуки: взрывы, как из орудий или еще сильнее, сильнее, чем гром в грозу. Было два удара до появления тела и три - после появления. Последние удары были сильней. О перемещении источника звуков ответил: "Небольшое протяжение по движению тела". Звуковые явления прошли быстро, 1-2 минуты. Земля дрожала, что было в домах - не знает. Люди и животные не падали. Дымного облака в месте падения не заметил. Светлых ночей после полета не помнит. Люди сначала испугались. Через год после падения его опрашивали два инженера с партиями - Кокаулин и Куляев, которые ходили на место падения через год после катастрофы. О Тунгусском метеорите ничего не читал и не знает.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 11:14:29 PM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

sokarul

  • 18142
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #213 on: October 17, 2013, 04:10:53 PM »
.... 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.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #214 on: October 18, 2013, 10:36:39 AM »
According to my findings so far, the BB experiment actually produces some thrust force. Just like a rocket or a helicopter produces a thrust. There is no violation of Newton laws of motion. If he calls that force as anti gravity then he can say the same for helicopters and rockets. The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric. Normal lifters use the ambient air as fuel therefore they stop working in vacuum. NASA has been working on a similar kind of engine called ion thruster (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html) which uses ion as fuel. This kind of engine doesn't produce enough thrust to lift a spacecraft off the ground but it works well once the spacecraft is in space.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 11:20:01 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #215 on: October 18, 2013, 10:49:13 AM »
.... 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.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it.

This may be a bit ancillary to your argument, but I feel it is worth mentioning.

"If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. "

All this really means is that the gravitational force is dependent on mass -- it is not constant. In the same way, the electrical force is dependent on charge. Your argument is similar to claiming that the electric force cannot be found, since two objects with different charges will experience a different Coulomb force.

Two objects fall in vacuum with the same acceleration precisely because the force is variable. 

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #216 on: October 18, 2013, 11:05:43 AM »
To sandokhan,

Regarding your last finding, while trying to find out where exactly this eyewitness was and what exactly he said I tried to translate individual sentence one by one. I found out that the Google translation was highly unreliable to use. The English translation changes without any logical reason. For example; Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непa is translated as Point observations and simplified Tokma village, river Nepa, but, Пункт наблюдения и опроса с. Токма, р. Непa (госторг, 2 км вверх по реке от села) is translated as Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepa (Gostorg, 2 km upriver from the village)

So let's compare these two translations:
  • Point observations and simplified Tokma village, river Nepa
  • Point of observation and interviewing with. Tokma, p. Nepa
So was this a report from a person who lived in Tokma village near river Nepa or the name of the person was Tokma who lived in p. Nepa? I found an article about a village called Tokma located by a river called Nepa (click here). So I believe the first translation is better than the second, although the first one says "simplified" rather than "interviewing". Also check this one, as this one is what you use in your claim:

Светлых ночей после полета не помнитBright nights after flying remembers
Светлых ночей после полета, не помнит    Bright nights after the flight, does not remember

You see how a comma change the translation from something you can barely understand to something more logical. But that means you are completely wrong again sandokhan! Poor sandokhan failed again :(. But in order not to speculate over something we both don't know, I have asked my Russian neighbour to help. She agreed to come tomorrow so I will let you know the human translation version this weekend.

OK sandokhan?
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #217 on: October 18, 2013, 11:16:56 AM »
I just found one free one Russian-English translator http://webtranslation.paralink.com/English-Russian-Translation/. It has three different engines. When supplied with Светлых ночей после полета не помнит it shows:
  • Light nights after flight does not remember (Prompt)
  • Bright nights after the flight does not remember (Microsoft)
  • Bright nights after the flight did not recall (Babylon)
I didn't even have to insert a comma anymore. So, sandokhan, it is almost certain that you are wrong. But I'll confirm it again this weekend.

OK, sandokhan?
I think, therefore I am

*

sokarul

  • 18142
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #218 on: October 18, 2013, 02:19:10 PM »
According to my findings so far, the BB experiment actually produces some thrust force. Just like a rocket or a helicopter produces a thrust. There is no violation of Newton laws of motion. If he calls that force as anti gravity then he can say the same for helicopters and rockets. The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric. Normal lifters use the ambient air as fuel therefore they stop working in vacuum. NASA has been working on a similar kind of engine called ion thruster (http://www.space.com/22916-nasa-ion-thruster-world-record-test.html) which uses ion as fuel. This kind of engine doesn't produce enough thrust to lift a spacecraft off the ground but it works well once the spacecraft is in space.
Yeah, it does. Its how the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifier works when air is accelerated. I'm aware of ion engines. Ion engines have been around awhile. The mythical TIE fighter in Star Wars uses them. T.I.E.= Twin ion engines.(Obviously it's a movie)  sandokhan is known for taking an idea and changing it to suit his beliefs. He doesn't do it on purpose, he just doesn't understand the science.

.... 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.)"

...
You are not going to respond to me so I will just comment on this for others. If what sandokhan is saying was true, then gravitation would be a force. One of the many factors contributing to the switch from Newtonian gravity to gravitation was that no force was ever found. If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum.
sandokahn has one experiment which he takes as one experiment to rule them all. It s incorrect to do this. In fact, he took Telsa's experiment and used it to show that electricity doesn't exist. I'm not sure how he can believe in the BB effect when he doesn't believe in the electricity which causes it.

This may be a bit ancillary to your argument, but I feel it is worth mentioning.

"If one force is applied to two different objects with two different masses then two different accelerations will be seen. But as we know, different objects fall with the same acceleration in a vacuum. "

All this really means is that the gravitational force is dependent on mass -- it is not constant. In the same way, the electrical force is dependent on charge. Your argument is similar to claiming that the electric force cannot be found, since two objects with different charges will experience a different Coulomb force.

Two objects fall in vacuum with the same acceleration precisely because the force is variable. 
Or because there is no force, which makes 100% more sense. If you want to call it a force, how does the force know how much mass an object has?
The shift from Newtonian gravity  to Einstein's gravitation makes sense. Doing so also shows just how much sandokhan's idea of gravity fails.

« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 02:22:31 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #219 on: October 18, 2013, 02:26:18 PM »
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #220 on: October 18, 2013, 02:30:25 PM »
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.

Not with Einsteinian gravity.

*

sokarul

  • 18142
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #221 on: October 18, 2013, 02:52:38 PM »
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #222 on: October 18, 2013, 03:41:57 PM »
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #223 on: October 18, 2013, 03:44:15 PM »
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.

I keep saying it isn't.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #224 on: October 18, 2013, 04:10:26 PM »
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.

I keep saying it isn't.

You keep saying it isn't....what? A force? I am Correct? Not to be repetitive, just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #225 on: October 18, 2013, 04:58:01 PM »
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?

Other than GR, scientists have no idea.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sokarul

  • 18142
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #226 on: October 18, 2013, 05:45:22 PM »
Gravity would know how much mass an object has in the same way the EM force knows how much charge an object has. Most likely through the interaction of fields.
How does a force effect light which has no rest mass?

Other than GR, scientists have no idea.
General relativity says it's not a force.
Yes, I believe I am mistaken with my last post. For gravity to be considered a force, they would need to prove the gauge boson for it: the graviton.

Hence my analogy with electricity is invalid, because the gauge boson for the E/M force indeed has been found.

I would like to point out, that scientists DO consider gravity a force, even in quantum field theory descriptions of it.

But perhaps your argument is that they shouldn't. You may have an argument there.
I was mistaken. I'm saying it isn't a force and sandokhan is trying to replace it with a force, which won't work.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #227 on: October 18, 2013, 05:50:20 PM »
GR is also incomplete, so we can't really say for certain that gravity is not a fundamental force.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sokarul

  • 18142
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #228 on: October 18, 2013, 05:51:13 PM »
GR is also incomplete, so we can't really say for certain that gravity is not a fundamental force.
The evidence says it's not a force.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #229 on: October 18, 2013, 06:10:56 PM »
I agree, the evidence says it isn't and GR nicely explains a lot of things like gravitational waves and gravitational lensing which itself is evidence. It also just makes sense and removes the implications of gravity seeming like magic. As I've said it might even explain dark energy.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #230 on: October 18, 2013, 07:46:09 PM »
The problem of course being that almost as soon as GR was complete it was shown to be incomplete.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #231 on: October 18, 2013, 09:39:08 PM »
Hmm. If the theorized graviton were discovered, then gravity would be accepted as a force on the particle scale, i.e., it would have a particle description.  This discovery would not invalidate GR.

Since gravitons are proposed to be massless, they move at speed of light, and they do couple to photons: there is an F^2 term in the action, you only get that if you have E/M coupling. Hence they would explain all phenomena that GR presently does.

So I must admit, I am still confused as to why there is the consensus among you fellas that gravity is not a force.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #232 on: October 19, 2013, 04:45:41 AM »
Because GR explicitly states that gravity is not a force. Discovery of the graviton would completely obliterate GR and until it is discovered I can't assume that it exists. I can't imagine a particle that reaches out from a center of mass that magically pulls things toward it. GR is an elegant theory that makes sense.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #233 on: October 19, 2013, 07:50:20 AM »
sandokhan, I have got it confirmed by my Russian neighbour. Basically that article was about a guy who lived in a village called Tokma (around 350 km from the epicentre). He described the explosion as he saw it. And listen to this carefully. He could not remember seeing bright nights after the blast.

That is a local eyewitness report about the blast but not about the glow.

sandokhan's Tunguska debunked!
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #234 on: October 19, 2013, 09:06:33 AM »
Because GR explicitly states that gravity is not a force. Discovery of the graviton would completely obliterate GR and until it is discovered I can't assume that it exists. I can't imagine a particle that reaches out from a center of mass that magically pulls things toward it. GR is an elegant theory that makes sense.

Yes, GR is a macroscopic, spacetime, explanation for gravity. I am not convinced the discovery of the graviton would make any difference to GR, it is just the explanation at a different scale. Many theories in physics are like this.

And you CAN imagine a particle that "magically pulls things toward it," the Coulomb force is attractive in the case of opposite charge. Gluons do this in the nuclei of atoms, it is called asymptotic freedom (in this case). A gravitational wave propagating at "c" is equivalent to a graviton (or distribution of them, more likely) propagating at "c" ....that is, if you believe their hypotheses about it.   

GR is agreeably elegant, but cannot be the entire story, as it cannot explain the convergence of the running gravitational coupling constant with the electro-weak and strong ones. On a fundamental level, they cannot explain where gravity CAME from using GR, a QFT description is necessary.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #235 on: October 21, 2013, 01:37:04 AM »
The fuel for BB effect is the dielectric.

Needless to say, only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could make a statement like this.

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.”

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.

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.


The accumulation of the laevorotatory subquark strings (magnet monopoles) or ether provides the thrust or antigravitational effect.


Same effect noticed in the spinning ball experiment of Dr. Bruce DePalma.

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

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

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

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


I have already explained in great detail that the dextrorotatory subquarks are actually the sought after gravitons (but they are NOT electrically neutral, as has been supposed so far in the official science).

Subquarks are made up of strings of bosons and antibosons, please see the article posted here earlier:

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

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540721.html#msg1540721



And listen to this carefully. He could not remember seeing bright nights after the blast.

You haven't done your homework, as usual.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/11/

ANGARA RIVER BASE TESTIMONIES


225) Kuropatkina Varvara Ivanovna, 1889 birth. Vantage point - FANACHET village, 40 km away. Taseevo from the east. "In that year she married, 19 years old. Before haying before lunch. Was in the street of the village. Flew fiery broom. Could distinguish elongated body and tail. At the tail sparks in all directions. Along the length of the tail of the density varies. According bright as the sun, you can see with the naked eye. Terrain lit. The body was much brighter than the tail. speed as the aircraft. " Remember the buzz, shake glass in the window. Tremor and buildings. Air wave was not felt. At the crash site of a smoky cloud was not. The next night the unusual optical phenomena remembers. "They said it was some kind of split the planet." Interviewed in the village Razdolinsk.

Now, TWO of the translation services will validate this google translation.
Two other will translate as: does not remember.

Therefore, these translation services do not agree always.


However, there are further accounts which do prove that glowing clouds were seen for days after the explosion.

These accounts WILL RECEIVE THE SAME TRANSLATION NO MATTER WHICH TRANSLATION SERVICE YOU WILL USE.


226) Mosin Stepan Ye, born in 1900. Vantage point - KANDYKI village, 60 km away. from Motygino, p. Taseevo.

"It has been 8 years. Before haying in the morning. Clear bevetrenno. Played in the street. Saw a burning star with a tail over his head. Circular body, a star with a tail. One body. Tail is like a flame, the density varies along the length. Trail of smoke behind the body remained. Compare the brightness of the body to the sun can be. Thermal sensation was not. " Aircraft flew faster times at 3. Sound effects do not remember. There were light dawns. About the Tunguska meteorite had not. No one questioned. Interrogated with. May Day, the river Taseevo.


No matter which translation service was used we get: there were light dawns.



Let us go to Vanavara.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/8/

38) Downey, Vasily , Evenk, born in 1910. has education, earlier worked as the chairman of the collective farm. He told me that his father said, and local residents.

At the time of the fall of the meteorite his father standing in the lower HUSHMY. The explosion was very strong, ripped deer, took down the plague, people were unconscious. Lots of deer and dogs died. And the forest fires started strong. The sky was red a few days. Those that come under the disaster, then sick.


No matter what translation service is used we get: The sky was red a few days.


Evenki tribe account.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/lyuchetkana_a.htm

A bright summer night fell, the fire began to diminish. In place of the heat, it grew cold. We decided to move toward the Katanga [river]. By the time we got to the Chambe river, we were already totally weak, all around we saw marvels, terrible marvels. It wasn’t our forest [any more]. I never saw a forest like that. It was strange somehow. Where we lived there had been dense forest, an old forest. But now in many places there was no forest at all. On the mountains all the trees lay flat, and it was bright, and everything was visible for a far distance.

(translation by Bill DeSmedt)


Let us also remember the account from the Altay tribe:

In the moonless in our mountain valleys are usually dark nights, but almost till the autumn nights were bright.

http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/1/0/20/


Please do your homework...and stop posting nonsense. Here, you do not stand a chance with me.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #236 on: October 21, 2013, 07:31:30 AM »
Sandokahn, You claim the spinning ball experiment works "just as well in a vacuum." You are always so good about providing links to justify your claims. Could you please provide a link for this one?

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #237 on: October 21, 2013, 11:01:27 AM »
Needless to say, only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape could make a statement like this.

Ah name calling again hein sandokhan? I will have to report you to a mod if you keep doing this (and if any mod cares at all).
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #238 on: October 21, 2013, 11:09:11 AM »
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.”
There you go. If you use the right dielectric then you get a thrust. That's exactly what I meant as fuel. Do you know the best dielectric available? It's vacuum. But unfortunately BB effect doesn't work with vacuum as dielectric since no particle can be ionised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_permittivity
http://www.instructables.com/id/Asymmetrical-Capacitor-Thrusters-the-Biefeld-Brow/
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 11:11:24 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #239 on: October 21, 2013, 11:13:09 AM »
I'll reply to your Tunguska stuffs later. I need to read it thoroughly. I hope this is not another attempt of deception again.
I think, therefore I am