FE and the discovery of Neptune.

  • 82 Replies
  • 8379 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2014, 08:17:56 PM »
Tis a pity. I thought you such an initiate to the Orthodoxy and all.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sokarul

  • 16761
  • Discount Chemist
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2014, 08:19:29 PM »
Tis a pity. I thought you such an initiate to the Orthodoxy and all.
I am aware of the moon.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2014, 08:38:31 PM »

No, what was stated by the OP (and you, several times) was that we know it is the correct model of gravitation because Le Verriere did some maths and pointed his telescope and found Neptune. This is decidedly not the case. It is fiction. A fairy tale of the Orthodoxy.

Leaving the nice story behind, which could be totally true, embellished or totally false (I don't care) what we can do is predict the exact location of Uranus with hair splitting accuracy, use our model of gravitation to predict this location including the gravitational effect of Neptune, and predict the exact location of Neptune also.

All of this might have been done with or without errors a century ago, and this is only interesting to historians. We can do it right here, right now, with a precision of just a few arc seconds. On the other hand, with the FE 'models', we cannot predict the location of the ecliptic on the sky, we cannot predict the position of any planets on the ecliptic, we cannot predict a single thing regarding planets. For all we know, based on FE 'models' we could find planets right by Polaris or inside the Southern Cross. We have no reason at all for Mercury to be so close to the Sun all the time, or for Jupiter to sometimes be opposite the Sun. We do not have a reason for Venus to have phases like the Moon, while Mars does not. We do not have a reason for any planet to be about as bright when close to the horizon compared with its brightness when close to the zenith.

And I could keep telling you things that FE does not predict, even though they were predicted by Babylonians and Mayas, for hours on end.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2014, 05:44:43 AM »
You haven't done your homework at all on Dayton Miller.

Your references have been debunked a long time ago.

Your bibliographical research is woefully incomplete.

Let me do it for you, the right way.


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

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

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


Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to
dismiss your arguments, and retain clarity about Miller's work.


You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
neither the Shankland critique, nor your critique, addressed the
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has
already been confirmed by others.

How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.


And there is more...

Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

James DeMeo

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

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm



Here is Shankland's catastrophic analysis of Miller's results.

 Shankland became Chairman of the Physics Department at Case following Miller's retirement and death, building his professional career upon publications misrepresenting the Michelson-Morley experiments as the most solid evidence on the question, and publishing widely-read interviews with Einstein (Shankland 1963, 1964, 1973a, 1973b). Shankland later took up administrative positions within government agencies developing nuclear energy — he rarely discussed Miller's positive ether-drift measurements in any of these papers except in the 1955 paper under discussion here. In this sense, it is legitimate to view Shankland, and other members of his team (all Einstein advocates from Case) as very biased reviewers of Miller's work.

The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations." This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. By redefining all the positive results observed by what may in fact have been the majority of ether-drift researchers, as mere expressions of "observational inaccuracy", Shankland narrowed his task considerably.


These and other sentences in the Shankland paper revealed its bias from the get-go, and gave it the spirit of an autopsy, where Miller was dissected without careful concern, and certainly where no advocate of ether theory appeared to be involved in the process. It is possible, by the 1950s, there was nobody left who could fill Miller's shoes to make an adequate defense. Ether-theory was then being compared to "the search for perpetual-motion machines" (Swenson 1972, p.239), and such ridicule surely must have had a silencing effect upon the entire fields of physics and astronomy. Swenson also suggests that, during his later years, Miller was largely ignored and isolated. This appears to be correct, as according to an interview with Shankland made in 1981, shortly before Miller died he gave all of his interferometer data sheets — hundreds of pages of measurements —to his one-time student Shankland, with the somewhat bitter statement that he should "either analyze the data, or burn it" (Kimball 1981, p.2). In that same interview, Shankland also blamed Miller for having blocked the awarding of a Nobel Prize to Einstein for his relativity theory — clearly, Miller's work was a major obstacle to the Einstein theory of relativity, and for that reason may have given Einstein and his followers sleepless nights.

The title of the Shankland paper, and its overall representation suggests the authors had made a serious review of "the interferometer observations" of Miller, to include some kind of comprehensive and inclusive evaluation — but this was not the case. There were two basic approaches to the Shankland team's analysis: 1) a search for random errors or statistical fluctuations in Miller's data, and 2) a review of selected data sets which they claimed demonstrated significant thermal artifacts in the data. We can review these claims.

Shankland Team's Evaluation for Random-Statistical variations

The Shankland paper did present a statistical analysis of a portion of Miller's published 1925-1926 Mt. Wilson data, concluding that his observations "...cannot be attributed entirely to random effects, but that systematic effects are present to an appreciable degree" and that "the periodic effects observed by Miller cannot be accounted for entirely by random statistical fluctuations in the basic data". (p.170) Also, the Shankland team admitted they "...did not embark on a statistically sound recomputation of the cosmic solution, but rather [looked for]...local disturbances such as may be caused by mechanical effects or by nonuniform temperature distributions in the observational hut." (p.172) In short, they admitted the harmonic patterns in Miller's data could not be due to any systematic measurement error, nor result from any mechanical flaws in the interferometer apparatus itself — while simultaneously admitting a disinterest in computation of any potentially validating ether-drift axis ("cosmic solution") from his data. These were important admissions, as the suggestion is, unless they could find some other fatal flaw in his data, Miller had really got it right, and measured a real Earth-entrained ether drift.

Of interest from the perspective of the politics of science, is the fact that this statistical analysis was not undertaken by any of the four members of the Shankland team listed as authors of the paper! The analysis was in fact undertaken by Case physics student Robert L. Stearns, for his Master's Thesis (Stearns 1952) — Stearns was given only a footnote credit in the Shankland paper.

Stearns, who performed the analysis, informs us about the large amount of data gathered by Miller. He mentions (Stearns 1952, p.15-17) the existence of "316 sets of data...by Miller in 1925-26" for the centrally-important Mt. Wilson experiments. Each data set was composed of 20 turns of the interferometer, with sixteen data points per turn (a total of 320 data points per data set). Miller noted his work at Mt. Wilson was undertaken at four different seasonal "epochs", each of which encompassed a period of around ten days, centered on the following dates: April 1st, August 1st, and September 15th, 1925 and February 8th 1926 (Miller 1926, 1933). It must be kept in mind, that these Mt. Wilson data from 1925 and 1926 provided the most conclusive and foundational observations for Miller's ether-drift calculations and conclusions, as presented most clearly in his 1933 paper. As detailed below, the Shankland team mentions these Mt. Wilson data, but in a manner which confuses them with his earlier and less significant efforts, including various control experiments conducted at Case School. The significance of this confusion of dates will be highlighted momentarily.








*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2014, 05:53:58 AM »
It is my hope that you will read this material very carefully: it shows clearly the nature of your superficial research.

Shankland Team's Assertion of Temperature Artifacts

Regarding possible temperature artifacts in Miller's data, this objection was raised early on in the history of ether-drift interferometry, and specifically rebutted by Miller when he was still alive. A letter exchange between Miller and Georg Joos from a 1934 issue of Physical Review records part of this debate, and appears to be one of the few published criticisms on the temperature issue Miller ever received while still alive. Miller had this to say about the problem: "When Morley and Miller designed their interferometer in 1904 they were fully cognizant of this...and it has never since been neglected. Elaborate tests have been made under natural conditions and especially with artificial heating, for the development of methods which would be free from this [thermal] effect". (Joos and Miller, 1934)

The Shankland critique never made any systematic evaluation of possible thermal artifacts using a larger set of Miller's data, as was done with the statistical evaluation. Instead, they appear to have "gone fishing" in Miller's data for something by which they could simply dismiss him. For example, Miller's own 1923 temperature-control experiments were brought into discussion, where radiant parabolic heaters were used to artificially create a general doubling of the size of interference fringes. Miller describes these experiments:

"Several electric heaters were used, of the type having a heated coil near the focus of a concave reflector. Inequalities in the temperature of the room caused a slow but steady drifting of the fringe system to one side, but caused no periodic displacements. Even when two of the heaters, placed at a distance of three feet from the interferometer as it rotated, were adjusted to throw the heat directly on the uncovered steel frame, there was no periodic effect that was measurable. When the heaters were directed to the air in the light-path which had a covering of glass, a periodic effect could be obtained only when the glass was partly covered with opaque material in a very nonsymmetrical manner, as when one arm of the interferometer was completely protected by a covering of corrugated paper-board while the other arms were unprotected. These experiments proved that under the conditions of actual observation, the periodic displacements could not possibly be produced by temperature effects." (Miller 1933, p.220)
Perhaps without intending to do so, after examining Miller's laboratory notes for the Cleveland temperature control experiments, the Shankland team confirmed Miller on this point:

"In the experiments where the air in the optical paths was directly exposed to heat, large second harmonics (0.35 fringe for one heater, and about twice this value for two heaters) were always observed in the fringe displacements, and with the expected phase. Shifting the heaters to a different azimuth produced a corresponding change in the phase of the second harmonics. When the optical paths and mirror supports were thermally insulated, the second harmonics were greatly reduced to about 0.07 fringe." (Shankland 1955, p.174; emphasis added, J.D.)
This statement confirmed the wisdom of Miller's approach. The added insulation reduced the thermal effects from a nearby radiant heater to only 20% of the un-insulated readings. I have an ordinary commercially-available electric radiant parabolic heater at my home, and it gets so hot you cannot stand closer than 12" without burning yourself, or possibly catching your clothing on fire. If Miller had used a parabolic heater even half as strong as this, it would certainly have been a source of heat much stronger than anything present in his Mt. Wilson experiments, particularly at night, during foggy or overcast conditions, and when the entire interferometer house was covered over with a tent, with the apparatus and light-beam path covered with cork, glass and paper insulation. Consider a radiant heater at several hundred degrees C, creating a steep thermal gradient but only a 0.07 fringe shift in the insulated interferometer. How much less of an effect would be produced by a human body, or even from the inside of a solar-heated wall? Assuming an environmental thermal effect only one-tenth that seen with the parabolic heater (a wood composite wall radiating inside the structure at perhaps 50°C?), fringe shifts of only 0.007 would have been produced, well below observational detection. Miller's data sheets, for example, recorded observations "in units of a tenth of a fringe width", though readings down to hundredths of a fringe were possible with care. Overall accuracy of the ether-drift measurements approached a hundredth of a fringe after mathematical averages of many readings were extracted.

The Shankland paper nevertheless used these control experiments as a weapon against Miller, claiming without evidence that heater-type effects might have occurred in his Mt. Wilson experiments, even where no such heater or remotely similar heat source was present. But why would the Shankland team shy from undertaking a more systematic evaluation for temperature artifacts? They could have, for example, evaluated only Miller's daytime interferometer experiments, and looked for a thermal effect from the southerly wall of the structure during the various epochs — if they could have shown an effect present in daytime data which was not present at night, it would have devastated Miller's claim, and proved their case. However, this obvious analytic procedure was not done, or if it was done, not reported.

The Shankland paper also resurrected the temperature criticisms by Joos (1934), but without reference to Miller's rebuttal in the same published exchange. If the periodic effects observed by Miller were the product of temperature variations, as was claimed by Shankland and Joos, then why would that variation systematically point to the same set of azimuth coordinates along the celestial sidereal clock, but not to any single terrestrial coordinate linked to civil time? Miller repeatedly asked this question of his critics, who had no answer for it. The Shankland team likewise evaded the question.

It is clear Miller had been deeply engaged on the problem of temperature effects, and worked hard to know exactly how they might be produced, and how to eliminate them. The Shankland paper, however, seized upon Miller's open acknowledgment fringe-shifts from air heating by powerful radiant heaters during control experiments, and a few other sentences written in his lab book, and tried to claim thermal anomalies were probably the source of whatever periodic effects were subsequently measured by Miller at Mt. Wilson, when no radiant heaters were used, and when the empirically-developed control procedures were put in place. Without some kind of independent experimental evidence to support such a claim of a thermal influence, their dismissal was illogical.

The Shankland paper also went through a series of arguments about the interferometer house, how the wall materials, roof angles, interferometer glass housing, etc., might result in a definable effect upon the air temperature in the light beam path, concluding only they could not rule out such an influence — that it "...is not in quantitative contradiction with the physical conditions of the experiment". (p.175) Given their ignoring the sidereal nature of the periodicities, this statement could hardly be taken seriously, and certainly did not constitute a rebuttal of Miller's data.

The Shankland paper finally attempted to correlate several selected daytime interferometer runs with temperature measurements made at the same time. They acknowledged difficulty in correlating low fringe-shift values with low temperature differentials, but found one set of high fringe-shift values correlated with slightly higher temperatures, even while noting another set where high values correlated with lower temperatures. Finally, they complain that "...no temperature data are available to reveal thermal conditions at the roof, which may be responsible for the large fringe displacements at the times of highest altitudes of the Sun." (p.176) If this sounds confusing, a reading of the full original text provided little clarification.

Failing to show anything damning from daytime data sets, when temperature gradients inside the interferometer house might be expected to be at a maximum, they turned their focus to nighttime data sets. Once again, only a few of Miller's data sheets were selected out to prove their case. Data from two nights (30 Aug. 1927 and 23 Sept.1925) with stable air temperatures were reviewed — these nights showed very clear and systematic fringe variations (Fig.4, p.176), but because the azimuth of the fringes changed minimally over the approximate 5 hours of observation, the critics complained "it would be extremely unlikely if the fringe shifts were due to any cosmic effect" (p.177). Apparently, the Shankland team was so locked into the older "static ether" assumptions of the original Michelson-Morley experiment, they were unclear about what they should have seen in Miller's data. In 1927, at a Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment held at Mt. Wilson Observatory, where Michelson, Lorentz, Miller and others made presentations and engaged in open debate, Miller addressed this question: "Observations were made for verifying these [static ether] predictions ...but it did not point successively to all points of the compass, that is, it did not point in directions 90° apart at intervals of six hours. Instead of this, the direction merely oscillated back and forth through an angle of about 60°..." (Miller 1928, p.356-357) The reason for this is, Miller's detected axis of ether-drift is oriented reasonably close (within 60°) to both the Earth's axis of rotation and the axis of the plane of the ecliptic.

Another important fact which nearly escapes detection in the Shankland paper is that the 30 August data were made in Cleveland, while the 23 Sept. data were from Mt. Wilson, and neither were a part of the published Mt. Wilson data Miller used for calculations of the ether-drift — both dates are well outside of the 10-day epochal periods identified by Miller. Furthermore, not all of the interferometer data sheets for a given date — which presumably would have had similar weather and temperature conditions — were included by the Shankland team for critical review. They selected only those data sets which appeared to support their argument of a claimed thermal anomaly. For example, they selected "ten sets of observations, Nos. 31 to 40 inclusive, made in the hut on the Case campus between midnight and 5:00 AM on August 30, 1927" and "...runs 75 to 83 inclusive taken from 12:18 AM to 6:00 AM on September 23" (p.176-177). Other than making the claim these selected data gave them the impression of being the result of temperature errors, they had no other stated criterion for bringing them into discussion. This biased data-selection, or rather data-exclusion procedure forces one to ask: What about data sets No.1 to 30, and runs 1 to 74? Similar unexplained data selections or data exclusions occur throughout the Shankland paper, leaving one to wonder if the unselected and excluded data, which constituted the overwhelming majority of it, simply could not provide support for their criticisms. One can imagine the howl of protest which would have occurred if Miller had taken this approach, arbitrarily excluding data from his calculations which superficially suggested something other than a real ether-drift.

A third data set from 30 July 1925 was highlighted by the Shankland team as it contained one extremely large peak where Miller noted "Sun shines on interferometer". This data does appear to have been a part of Miller's published Mt. Wilson analysis. However, the Shankland team extracted only "observations Nos. 21 to 28 inclusive, made between 1:43 AM and 6:04 AM on July 30, 1925." Obviously, at around 6:00 AM the sun rose and caught Miller and his assistant off-guard. What about observations Nos. 1 to 27, or other early-morning data, where the sun didn't shine on the interferometer? These other data were not brought into discussion, except they did note that the runs prior to the sunshine incident demonstrated "...an extremely erratic behavior...we have no ready explanation for this apparent departure..." Here, the Shankland team basically confesses their grab-bag of "ready" explanations was empty, and the idea that those data were expressing a real ether-drift was simply too "impossible" for them to consider. The fact that Miller included the note about the Sunlight on this data sheet speaks to his honesty.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2014, 05:54:34 AM »
(continued)

The Shankland team also identified data sets Nos.56-58 from 8 July 1924, which was part of Miller's control experiments made in a basement location at Case physics laboratory — the temperatures were very stable, and the fringe oscillations were quite small, and they argued these data were a proof for thermal effects on the apparatus. However, it was this very problem of basement and dense surrounding materials which led Miller on the path to use the apparatus in locations not subject to significant ether-shielding or Earth entrainment. After 1921, Miller only used the Case School laboratory to undertake control experiments, and that is why those particular data were never published.

The Shankland paper concluded its temperature criticisms by discussing a few additional data sets: Nos. 113-118 from April 2nd, Nos. 88-93 from August 8th, 1925, and Nos. 84-91 from February 11th, 1926 (p.177). Here, the amplitudes and phases were claimed to have been "nearly alike", but insufficient detail was given to allow a review of the critic's claims, and it did appear they were once again incorrectly misinterpreting Miller's data along the lines of static ether assumptions.

As in almost all the cases given above, none of these data were analyzed systematically, nor were they presented in such a manner that the author's criticisms could be factually reviewed. I got the impression, they simply scanned through a pile of Miller's data sheets, and with a wave of the hand, picking and pointing to only selected parts, dismissed it all as the product of thermal artifacts. Miller's detailed control experiments were basically ignored, as was the fact that, for all these experiments, the interferometer was enclosed in a small house covered over with a tent, while apparatus was shielded with cork insulation, and the light-beam path covered with glass and paper panels — with a full rotation occurring in less than a minute, one is left to wonder how any observable thermal variations could develop within Miller's data, especially variations with a sidereal-cosmic component.

For the casual reader, who had not undertaken a careful review of Miller's original experiments, the Shankland paper might appear to make a reasoned argument. However, the Shankland paper basically obfuscated and concealed from the reader most of the central facts about what Miller actually did, and in any case was so unsystematic and biased in its approach, excluding from discussion perhaps 90% or more of Miller's extensive Mt. Wilson data, as to render its conclusions meaningless.

As a final note, I must regrettably inform the reader, that my own search of available archive materials for both Miller and Shankland at Case University failed to discover even a single one of the hundreds of missing data sheets or laboratory records from Miller's years of hard work. Perhaps, Shankland finally did burn them?


CONCLUSIONS:

The Shankland conclusions against Miller were clearly negative, but the one systematic statistical analysis of his Mt. Wilson data merely confirmed what Miller said all along, that there was a clear and systematic periodic effect in the interferometer data. The Shankland paper also confirmed Miller's contention that this periodic effect was not the product of random errors or mechanical effects. The Shankland team subsequently searched for temperature artifacts in Miller's data, but failed to undertake any systematic analysis of his centrally-important Mt. Wilson data in this regard. Instead, they made a biased selections of a few published and unpublished data sets obtained from different periods in Miller's research, from different experimental locations, including from his control experiments at Case School.

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


Now, with all your catastrophic references having been debunked, let us go back to Dayton Miller's results.

"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)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v), but these were not adequately constructed for detection of a larger cosmological ether-drift, of the Earth and Solar System moving through the background of space. Dayton Miller's work on ether-drift was so constructed, however, and yielded consistently positive results.

While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics. However, towards the end of his life, he was subject to isolation as his ether-measurements were simply ignored by the larger world of physics, then captivated by Einstein's relativity theory.

Miller's observations were also consistent through the long period of his measurements. He noted, when his data were plotted on sidereal time, they produced "...a very striking consistency of their principal characteristics...for azimuth and magnitude... as though they were related to a common cause... The observed effect is dependent upon sidereal time and is independent of diurnal and seasonal changes of temperature and other terrestrial causes, and...is a cosmical phenomenon." (Miller 1933, p.231)

"The trouble with Prof. Einstein is that he knows
nothing about my results." Dr. Miller said. "He has
been saying for thirty years that the interferometer
experiments in Cleveland showed negative results. We
never said they gave negative results, and they did
not in fact give negative results. He ought to give
me credit for knowing that temperature differences
would affect the results. He wrote to me in November
suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no
allowance for temperature."
(Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, 27 Jan. 1926)



Figure 2: 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) These data curves are organized along azimuthal means which were later recomputed for Miller's 1933 publication, as given in Figure 1.


Dayton Miller's results show that there is no such thing as the theory of relativity: his classic experiments do reveal the existence of telluric waves, ether.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2014, 06:06:42 AM »
Now, it is on to the barometer pressure paradox.

Here, also, I have to do your homework for you.


Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

http://cree.rdg.ac.uk/~dynamic/index_files/papers/Woolnough_et_al_2004.pdf

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory
and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric
ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the
influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the
troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought
for driving the semidiurnal tide.


And if we are going to get into a troposphere physics discussion, you are out of luck.

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”

 This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

Oxygen-Ozone cycle

The atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere.

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.


Therefore, we are right back to the barometer pressure paradox, which you have been utterly unable to explain.

If the Sun had any effect on the semidiurnal atmospheric tide, it would be observable as follows:

Maximum barometer pressure : 2:00 - 4:00 am

Minimum barometer pressure: 12:00 - 2:00 pm


However, the barometer pressure paradox contradicts this data.

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.

Therefore,

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.


To show how little you studied this problem, here is another reference.

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/93558

Harmonic analysis of Doppler radar wind profiler data west of the Rocky Mountains has identified a coherent semidiurnal wind system above the wintertime boundary layer at multiple sites in the region. The unusual characteristics of this mountain wind system (its semidiurnal frequency, amplitude, phase, and direction of rotation) suggest that is is a semidiurnal solar tide. Such tides have not been previously documented in the mountain atmosphere or in the troposphere generally but, because semidiurnal signatures are well known in surface barometric traces, and large amplitude semidiurnal tides are known in the upper atmosphere, they are not unexpected.


THEREFORE, WE ARE RIGHT BACK TO THE SAME ARGUMENT USED IN THE LENTICULAR CLOUD PARADOX.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2014, 06:14:49 AM »
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.

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.

CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOXES


From Galileo was wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

More details here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143
(boundary layer, angular momentum)


RESTORING FORCES PARADOX

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580


CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOX, TIME LAPSE VIDEOS:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1541977#msg1541977

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2014, 06:31:03 AM »
TO FULLY PROVE THAT THE EARTH DOES NOT ROTATE AROUND ITS OWN AXIS, HERE IS THE RE'S WORST NIGHTMARE:

TUNGUSKA, 1908



The initial path approached Kezhma from the south - this constituted, most probably, the spherical earth measurement thought initially to be correct - but Tesla realized that something is definitely wrong in relation to the actual readings given by the true location of lake Baikal (telluric currents/ether influence on the trajectory of the ball lightning).

Therefore 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 information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

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.

The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.

Tesla's ball lightning DEFIED any kind of attractive gravity: therefore, should the Earth have been in an orbit around the Sun, at some 107,000 km/hr, his ball lightning would have disappeared in space, and no explosion would have taken place.


We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.



The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.
It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.






In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER FOR A DISTANCE OF 5,195 KM.


Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2014, 06:34:29 AM »
T. Roberts is a relativity theory fundamentalist, he says for instance: Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

This is a real gem. Somebody is a fundamentalist because he says a theory is well established in its domain of applicability.

Do you know what is well established in its domain of applicability? Everything! The very definition of domain of applicability is where the theory works!

I am pretty sure Roberts said something a lot more interesting to say than that, but you quoted him so much out of context that you left no content at all.

Voodoo, 2+2=4, cheating, the evolutionary theory of death ... have one thing in common. They are all well established in its domain of applicability. Am I a fundamentalist believer in 2+2=4?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2014, 06:40:34 AM »
T. Roberts' work has been debunked completely: I included the entire pertinent material - his "analysis" is grossly in error, to say least.

Please read the first two messages posted by me today.


Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

No, it is not.

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.




http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.


G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.


In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.


In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.


Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.


Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].


Tesla Patent/original paper:

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


With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html


« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 06:45:17 AM by sandokhan »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2014, 09:20:48 AM »
T. Roberts' work has been debunked completely: I included the entire pertinent material - his "analysis" is grossly in error, to say least.

Please read the first two messages posted by me today.


Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

No, it is not.

I don't even care whether Roberts exists or existed or not. What I am saying is that you do not understand the concept of scientific theory.

There is no point in discussing a single thing with somebody like you, who claims to know more than our best scientists but does not even know what science is. In fact, I take great pride in not having done any of the same bibliographic study you have. Giving your wall of text more than 30 seconds of my attention is just a sign of my desperate lack of better things to do.

For those who might want to know what I am trying to explain, here it goes:

A scientific theory is a model that we can use to make predictions on results of experiments and observations we have not yet done. You, as a scientist, apply the model (the theory) to your specific intended experiment or observation and make a prediction, hopefully before doing the experiment. Then, if the experimental result was predicted by the theory, the theory applies to your particular setting. If results are unacceptably different from your prediction, maybe your experiment is outside the domain of applicability of the theory.

In general, a theory is never "wrong". It is just not applicable to many, or any, experiments and observations. "FET", for example, is not, strictly speaking, wrong. It is just applicable to a non-existent set of experiments and observations.

One example (a totally oversimplified one): My theory is that all swans are white. As I make more and more observations, my theory stands. The domain of applicability of my theory now extends through every place in America that I have found. Then, acting on information from a friend, I go to Thailand and find a few black swans. My theory still stands for all of America, but I have to change it if I want to change its domain of applicability to include Thailand. But even when considering the possibility that other planets might have swans my theory that non-Thai swans are white still stands.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #42 on: May 28, 2014, 05:29:30 AM »
Maxwell's original set of equations explains immediately the experiments performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma, Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, Dr. Nikola Tesla, and Dr. T. Towsend Brown.


Maxwell did understand the very concept of scientific theory.

However, O. Heaviside and H. Lorentz did not.

"In the 1880s, after Maxwell was deceased, Oliver Heaviside — a brilliant but self-taught scientist who never attended university — played a major role in converting (reducing) Maxwell's equations to what today is vector algebra. Heaviside detested potentials, and stated that they should be "murdered from the theory."

The reduction work by Heaviside, Gibbs, and Hertz resulted in the modern four vector equations in some four unknowns. These are taught — along with a further truncation by Lorentz — in every university as "Maxwell's equations." They are in fact Heaviside's equations, further truncated by Lorentz symmetrical regauging.




(the catastrophic set of TRUNCATED MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS)

In 1881 Heaviside replaced the electromagnetic potential field by force fields as the centerpiece of electromagnetic theory. According to him, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be "assassinated" (sic).


Today, the tremendously crippled Maxwell-Heaviside equations --- symmetrized by Lorentz --- are taught in all our universities in the electrical engineering (EE) department. Note that the EE professors still dutifully symmetrize the equations, following Lorentz, and thus they continue to arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems.



Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”


THEREFORE, EINSTEIN NEVER BOTHERED TO DO SOME BASIC RESEARCH REGARDING MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS; HE HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL SET OF MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS, WHICH STATE VERY CLEARLY:

THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE, AND NOT CONSTANT.




HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SET OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS: THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER, AETHER AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT:




The most important scientific paper ever published: ON PHYSICAL LINES OF FORCE, by JAMES CLERK MAXWELL - the original set of ether equations, which are almost unknown to modern physics.

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


JAMES CLERK MAXWELL EXPLAINS:

In Part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell proposed the existence of a sea of
molecular vortices which are composed of a fluid-like aether, whereas in
Part III, he deals with the elastic solid that these molecular vortices
collectively form. Maxwell’s third equation is derived hydrodynamically,
and it appeared as equation (9) in Part I,
 
curl H = J (Electric Current) (C)
 
Once we realize that the vector A and the vector J are in fact one and the
same thing, it becomes clear that the two curl equations, (B) and (C), are
jointly pointing us to an aethereal sea in which closed solenoidal circuits
of magnetic lines of force are interlocked with closed solenoidal circuits
of electric current ‡. Part III of Maxwell’s 1861 paper deals with the
elasticity of the medium for the propagation of light and the physical
nature of the electric displacement that is involved in the electromagnetic
wave propagation mechanism within this medium. At the beginning of
Part III, Maxwell says “In the first part of this paper I have shown how
the forces acting between magnets, electric currents, and matter
capable of magnetic induction may be accounted for on the hypothesis
of the magnetic field being occupied with innumerable vortices of
revolving matter, their axes coinciding with the direction of the
magnetic force at every point of the field. The centrifugal force of these
vortices produces pressures distributed in such a way that the final
effect is a force identical in direction and magnitude with that which we
observe.
” The magnetic intensity H therefore represents an angular
momentum or a vorticity.

Neither Lorentz nor Einstein seemed to have been aware of
the contents of Maxwell‟s original papers, while both of them seemed to be under the
impression that they were fixing something that wasn‟t broken in the first place. In
doing so, Einstein managed to drop the luminiferous aether out of physics altogether,
claiming that he was basing his investigation on what he had read in the so-called
„Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space‟! But whatever these Maxwell-Hertz
equations might have been, they certainly can‟t have been Maxwell‟s original
equations.
This is a tragic story of confusion heaped upon more confusion. The aether
was a crucial aspect in the development of Maxwell‟s equations, yet in 1905, Albert
Einstein managed to impose Galileo‟s „Principle of Equivalence‟ upon Maxwell‟s
equations while ignoring the aether altogether. The result was the abominable
product which is hailed by modern physicists and known as „The Special Theory of
Relativity‟. Einstein himself knowing that something wasn‟t right with his special
theory of relativity, attempted to make amends in 1915 with his „General Theory of
Relativity‟. But he only made things worse by virtue of spiking Newton‟s law of
gravity with his toxic special theory of relativity. In later years, judging from his
Leyden speech in 1920, Einstein realized that the aether was indeed needed after all,
but by this time it was too late, because he already had a following.



http://www.nanotechinnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Maxwell-Original-Equations.pdf


Maxwell’s original works are pioneering works of
enormous value which pointed us in the right direction, and any
shortcomings within these works pale into insignificance when compared
with the errors that followed in Maxwell’s wake. A series of derailments
culminated with Einstein taking us into a mad world of relativity where
two clocks can both go slower than each other, and where
electromagnetic waves can propagate in a pure vacuum without the need
for any physical displacement mechanism.


The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations

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

Equations [A], [ B ], [D], [E], [F], and [H], would not normally appear in a modern
day set of Maxwell’s equations. A modern textbook would combine equation [A] with
equation [C] as per equation (112) in part III of the 1861 paper, and the combination
would be referred to as the Maxwell’s displacement current equation. In a modern day
textbook, the addition of Maxwell’s displacement current to equation [C] would not
be explained in terms of total electric current as per Maxwell’s 1861 derivation, but
rather in terms of adding on an extra term to Ampère’s circuital law, in order to retain
the solenoidal nature of electric current in a capacitor circuit. Modern day
displacement current is divorced from its dielectric origins, and it is explained as a
time varying quantity that possesses some of the characteristics of electric current, but
that is not actually a real current.

Modern day sets of Maxwell’s equations therefore only contain three of the original
set, with two of these having been amalgamated into one. Added to these two
originals in modern textbooks, are Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction, and
the equation stating that the divergence of B is always zero. These two extra modern
day Maxwell’s equations are equations (54) and (57) respectively in part II of
Maxwell’s 1861 paper.

Also includes the appendix called Maxwell's Minor Errors discussing the wrong minus sign in equation D.


The Distortion of Maxwell's Equations

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/distortion.pdf


Maxwell was most certainly not a stepping stone for Einstein as is often
suggested, even by some anti-relativists. Maxwell’s most important work has
been swept under the carpet and a set of equations with a partial connection to
Maxwell have been promoted in his name and used in a manner which is far
removed from Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism.


The Aether and the Electric Sea

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe12.pdf

The Speed of Light

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5373


How Maxwell's original equations have been removed from the textbooks on physics:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486130#msg1486130

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1486131#msg1486131


SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

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


« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 05:32:50 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2014, 05:47:29 AM »
PROJECT MONTGOLFIER: THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT PROVEN

When the poles of a freely suspended charged capacitor (even in vacuum) were  placed on a horizontal axis, a forward thrust would be produced which would move the capacitor  in  the  direction  of  the  positive pole.  The direction of thrust would reverse  in  conjunction  with  a polarity change.  This is the phenomenon known as the Biefield-Brown Effect.

http://projetmontgolfier.info

 I was the U.S Technical Representative for a French aeronautic company, Sociéte National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud-Ouest, (S.N.C.A.S.O). Dr. Brown came to France twice in the period from 1955 to 1956. Many tests were made. It was decided that the next step was to make tests in a big vacuum chamber. Dr. Brown again sent us designs for the construction of a large vacuum chamber and test apparatus.



As this phase of the project was undertaken my company was merged into another company. During this turbulent period of the merger we were able, with difficulty, to continue and complete the construction of the large vacuum chamber, though moved to a less hospitable location. The president of my company, now the president of the new merged company, Sud-Aviation, decided not to continue the experiments but to pass them along to another company S.N.E.C.M.A. (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) that was more specialized in this type of research.



The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.







These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.


ORIGINAL PAPER SUBMITTED BY DR. TOWNSEND BROWN, IN 1955, VACUUM CHAMBER EXPERIMENTS:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html




More details here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59837.msg1552735#msg1552735


PROJECT MONTGOLFIER, FINAL RESULTS:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/TTB_Proposal_Blueprints_1-3.pdf

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).

The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.



VIDEO: BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT IN VACUUM

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv (VIDEO)


These tests have been performed in the NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville (Alabama).
The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground. For information, flying at an altitude of 100 km is equal to a space flight...
In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.
A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.
At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).



Albert Einstein,Relativity, The special and the general theory, 11th ed., 1936, p.64:

“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.”


Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown proved the fallacy of Einstein's statetment; also the Biefeld-Brown effect shows that terrestrial gravity and antigravity are electrical forces of opposite spin.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 05:49:23 AM by sandokhan »

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2014, 06:22:54 AM »
Maxwell's original set of equations explains immediately the experiments performed by Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, Dr. Bruce DePalma, Dr. Thomas Henry Moray, Dr. Nikola Tesla, and Dr. T. Towsend Brown.


Maxwell did understand the very concept of scientific theory.

However, O. Heaviside and H. Lorentz did not.


We are not putting into question the credentials of Maxwell, Tesla, Lorentz or any other scientist who did actual scientific work. We are, however, questioning your credentials and intellectual capacity to even talk about scientists.

Having somebody like you comparing, for example, Lorentz with de Palma, is like entering Alice's Looking Glass. Lorentz earned a Nobel Prize, and he earned it by being an actual scientist and mathematician of astounding insight. De Palma is just some nobody who cannot do an actual scientific experiment.

The only person in the world who agrees with you and would classify the scientists you mention in the way you have is you. And you expect others to accept your opinion even though you are not enough of a scientist to even understand what a scientific model is.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2014, 06:36:05 AM »
Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.

One of the first experiments that DePalma did in this area was to test to see if there is a difference in the gravitational behavior of a spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. After an extensive literature search prompted by a question from one of his students at MIT, they could not find any evidence that this experiment had ever been done and so it became an educational exercise to see if in fact this variation on Galileo's "big rock vs. small rock" experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.

At that time Bruce was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Corporation and lecturing part time at MIT on photographic science, physics, and electrical engineering over a period of several years in the late 1960's. He set up this experiment using two one-inch diameter pinball machine ball bearings where one was not spinning and one was made to spin at 18,000 rpm by a hand held router motor with cups to hold the balls, one on the spinning shaft and one affixed to the casing of the motor. He then he gave the assembly a thrust at an appropriate angle and in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light and open camera lens he photographed the parallel trajectories of the two ball bearings. Repeating this numerous times and analyzing the photographs, this experiment showed that there is indeed a variation in the gravitational behavior of the spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. The spinning ball, given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster and hit the bottom of the trajectory before the non-spinning ball.


H. Lorentz, by comparison, was a real clown.

Lorentz’s Symmetrization of the Heaviside Equations

H. A. Lorentz was the man who was elicited to do the necessary “symmetrization” with ease, thereby accomplishing exactly what Morgan decreed to his own advisors that must be done: Get rid of those Tesla systems capable of taking and freely using EM energy from the active medium. H. A. Lorentz (with the “t”) simply lifted and used what L. V. Lorenz (without the “t”) had already done.

For the deliberate “fixing” of the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations, see H. A. Lorentz, “La Théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants,” [The Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell and its application to moving bodies], Arch. Néerl. Sci., Vol. 25, 1892, p. 363-552. [Also in H. A. Lorentz, Collected Papers, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, vol. 2, pp. 168-238, esp. p. 168.] This is the work that Lorentz cites later (in 1895) for his proof of the symmetrical regauging theorems (the two equations of symmetrical regauging).

This is the “symmetrization” (at the direction of J. P. Morgan) of the Heaviside equations that arbitrarily discarded all remaining asymmetrical Maxwellian systems – thus discarding all systems that receive excess EM energy freely from the “active medium” (active vacuum) and could use this free energy to power loads and themselves. With this “fix”, Morgan was assured that Tesla’s discovery of the active medium – and that EM energy could be extracted from it – would never be taught.

For an excellent paper adroitly pointing out Lorentz’s propensity for using other people’s work but taking or receiving credit for it himself, see J. D. Jackson and L. B. Okun, “Historical roots of gauge invariance,” Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 73, July 2001, p. 663-680. For the Lorentz symmetrical regauging as used by our present electrical engineers and classical electrodynamicists, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Wiley, 1999. For the vacuum, Maxwell’s (Heaviside’s) equations reduce to two coupled equations, shown as equations 6.10 and 6/11 on p. 246. The Lorentz regauging condition is applied by Jackson on p. 240, resulting in two inhomogeneous wave equations given as equations 6.15 and 6.16. The Lorentz condition is given in equation 6.14 on p. 240.

Lorentz also was apparently impressed a second time, in 1900, to further reduce the already seriously reduced symmetrized Heaviside equations, in order to specifically eliminate the newly discovered giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow that – unknown to our present electrical engineers – accompanies every Poynting energy flow component (which is diverged into the circuit to power it), but is itself (the curled component) not diverged and thus is just wasted because it normally does not interact. The giant Heaviside curled EM energy flow component is more than a trillion times greater in magnitude than the accounted Poynting diverged EM energy flow component. Thus the Poynting energy flow theory in our present electrical engineering textbooks and curricula is only a pale shadow of the actual energy flowing in conjunction with an electrical system or circuit.

In Morgan’s view, it would simply not do to have all the future electrical engineers taught (and understand) that every generator already pours out more than a trillion times as much EM energy output as the mechanical shaft energy input we crank into the generator shaft! If they were to all know this, then inevitably some very sharp young doctoral candidates or post docs would figure out how to freely tap some of that available giant Heaviside curled energy flow component. And they would extract some of that giant energy flow and freely use it, thereby ushering in Tesla’s “free EM energy from the active medium” after all.

Here again, Morgan would simply have ordered the problem “fixed”. And again, Lorentz “fixed it” for him very easily, by introducing the standard little surface integral trick that retains the diverged small component (the Poynting component) but discards the huge nondiverged curled component. In other words, Lorentz altered the actually-used energy flow vector by throwing away that giant Heaviside component quite arbitrarily. Thus the Heaviside giant curled EM energy flow component is no longer accounted or even recognized in electrical engineering, but it still physically accompanies every accounted Poynting energy flow component in every EM system or circuit. [To see the dirty work, see H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, “Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld,” p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small diverged component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the “entire” energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the extra huge Heaviside curled energy transport component which is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.]


A clear proof of Lorentz' treachery.


What? Mathematics of astounding insight?

HERE ARE THE CATASTROPHIC, HORRENDOUS, ATROCIOUS ERRORS COMMITTED BY LORENTZ:

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michelson.html


New logarithm formula, signed sandokhan:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1577473#msg1577473

Euler, the Bernoulli brothers and others could not find it.

But I did.

ln v = 2n x ( v1/2n+1 - 1/v1/2n+1 )

This is the correct formula for the natural logarithm function, linking algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions, providing the fastest way to calculate the value for any logarithm, and at the same time help to evaluate any integral containing lnx terms.


For a first approximation:

ln v = 2n x ( v1/2n - 1 )


The Zeta Function roots are really angles obeying a very special mathematical relationship:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1584725#msg1584725

Again, signed sandokhan.



?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2014, 09:11:36 AM »
Slow clap, sandokhan, slow clap. Now that you've proven your clear mathematical and physics genius once again to everyone at The Flat Earth Society Forums, why don't you post something relevant to the fucking discussion for a change?

This thread is about the discovery of Neptune based on Newtonian gravitational theory. Why in the ever loving fuck are you spouting off about relativity for two fucking pages?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2014, 10:09:33 AM »
You know how in films about lawyers, one group might try to "bury the other in paperwork"? I think this is like that.

Sando, I enjoy hearing what you have to say, I really do. I enjoy following the jumps from one not quite substantiated claim to the next (although I've not yet seen anything that would suggest the earth is flat) but you can't seriously expect anyone to read all of that before replying, can you? Look at it.

Just look at it!

We've got everything in there, ESP, anti-gravity, proof that everyone was wrong about relativity the whole time, treachery, the future of particle physics that those buffoons at CERN can only dream of discovering... I'll admit I didn't read every word of every reference, but I'll assume that there were a few juicy murders in there along with a love interest.

The question at hand is:
"Was the discovery of the as-yet unobserved Neptune an example of the predictive power of Newtonian gravitation?"
Yes. Although (naturally, here) there is some scepticism about whether it was sheer blind luck or not.

A corollary to that question, is:
"Does Newtonian gravitation have predictive power?"
Again - yes; and even here there is (or seems to be) no dispute about that.

So you'll forgive me if I don't address every 'point' you 'raised' in all of that copypasta.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 10:13:00 AM by Goddamnit, Clown »
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2014, 10:19:27 AM »
One of the first experiments that DePalma did in this area was to test to see if there is a difference in the gravitational behavior of a spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. After an extensive literature search prompted by a question from one of his students at MIT, they could not find any evidence that this experiment had ever been done and so it became an educational exercise to see if in fact this variation on Galileo's "big rock vs. small rock" experiment would show any variation in the rate of fall.

That experiment was totally demolished by both mainstream scientists and posters of this forum. His experimental results (or one of his minions') were shown to be just cherry picking of favorable results in a mind-blowingly imprecise experiment. You have wasted the time of the readers of this thread trying to show that you, indeed, know what a scientific theory is, and failed.

But back to topic, Newtonian Physics and careful measurement of the planets' orbits did, in effect, show a perturbation in Uranus' orbit that could be explained by a then-unknown planet number eight. Whether the astronomers who searched for this planet were lucky and found it in a day, or less lucky and found it in a year, is totally irrelevant.

We have the measurements that give an approximate place in the Ecliptic where this new planet should be. More important, we have a model that explains the reason to only search on the Ecliptic. With these predictions, given by a clear theory, the search for a planet is viable.


?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #49 on: May 28, 2014, 10:30:55 AM »
The fact that they could look at the orbit of Uranus and say with certainty that there even was another planet beyond it is a clear example of the predictive power of the theory. Like Goddamnit, Clown and RealScientist have said, whether the exact location was predicted or not is really irrelevant. The fact that we can now model the entire solar system with such accuracy using the same theory shows without a doubt that the theory works.

Now, where is the FE theory that both predicts and explains more?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

sokarul

  • 16761
  • Discount Chemist
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2014, 06:23:16 PM »
Maybe Sandokhan learned something. He mentioned DePalma without mentioning ether. Maybe it is because DePalma never once mentioned ether. Sandokhan of course made the claim countless times though.

As for the Biefeld-Brown experiment wiki says it best:

Quote
At one time, Brown believed his devices produced mysterious fields that interacted with the Earth's gravitational pull, a phenomenon he labeled electrogravitics. Certain fringe researchers claim that conventional physics cannot adequately explain the phenomenon.[5] The effect has become something of a cause célèbre in the UFO community, where it is seen as an example of something much more exotic than electrokinetics. Charles Berlitz devoted an entire chapter of his book The Philadelphia Experiment to a retelling of Brown's early work with the effect, implying he had discovered a new electrogravity effect and that it was being used by UFOs. Today, the Internet is filled with sites devoted to this interpretation of the effect.

There has been followups on the claims that this propulsive force can be produced in a full vacuum, meaning its an unknown anti-gravity force, not just more well known ion wind, with several researchers (R. L. Talley in a 1990 US Air Force study, NASA scientist Jonathan Campbell in a 2003 experiment,[6] and Martin Tajmar in a 2004 paper[7]) finding that no thrust could be observed in a vacuum, consistent with the phenomenon of ion wind. Campbell pointed out to a Wired magazine reporter that creating a true vacuum similar to space for the test requires tens of thousands of dollars in equipment.
Notice how it is also never the same "flying saucer" shape thing as in the pictures, that is tested in the vacuum. But that is of course because it won't even come close to working.
But the people at sharper Image sure do like it for there Ionic Breeze air purifier.



Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #51 on: May 29, 2014, 10:36:53 PM »
To summarize what Sandokhan was saying:


"NEPTUNE DOESN'T EXIST!"

Sincerely, Flat Earth Society.
Burden of Proof.

1. The obligation to prove one's assertion.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #52 on: May 30, 2014, 12:36:47 AM »

I'm afraid, as a round earther, that I just don't have the time—or more importantly the inclination—to read through literally dozens of screensful of cut 'n' pasted reports/theories/notions/pseudoscience and links posted by sandokhan that date from 100 or 200 years ago.  So... TL;DR  (Apologies sandokhan.)

There's only two types of science that I take any notice of:  Theories that've stood the test of time over centuries (courtesy Aristotle, Archimedes, Pythagorus, Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Ernest Rutherford, Neils Bohr, Max Planck, Edwin Hubble, Carl Sagan, Murray Gell-Mann et al)  and/or theories that were developed yesterday.  Anything in between—such as Rowbotham's ENaG—I must dismiss as being irrelevant to contemporary geophysics and/or astrophysics.

It's unfortunate (for them) that flat earthers rely solely on the 150-year-old writings of Samuel Rowbotham for their "science" that "proves" the earth is flat.  Thus far—and despite repeated requests—no flat earther has been able to name even half a dozen contemporary scientists who accept the flat earth model as legitimate.  I've named twice that number of "round earth scientists"—straight off the top of my head, in 20 seconds.  Why can't flat earthers match this?
 

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #53 on: May 30, 2014, 02:26:34 AM »
ausgeoff, for a person who had no idea what the center of gravity of a body is, you should be more considerate when expressing an opinion here...my bibliographical references are second to none.


A graviton is NOT electrically neutral.

The recent discovery of magnet monopoles and relationship with subquarks means the following:

The dextrorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the actual graviton.

The laevorotatory magnet monopole/subquark is the antigraviton.

More on antigravitons:

http://dougvanvenrooij.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/anti-gravitons-may-explain-dark-matter-dark-energy-and-the-universe-we-observe-today-2/


This thread is over: I already explained what is going on.

Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.

Newtom himself dismissed the law of attractive gravity.

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.”


Therefore, all of you here (with the exception of ski) are incompetent buffoons, believing in a scientific absurdity.


Dr. Bruce DePalma experiment was never demolished, especially here, not a chance.


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."

From the biography of Dr. Edward Purcell:

After serving two years as instructor in physics at Harvard, he joined the Radiation Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was organized in 1940 for military research and development of microwave radar. He became Head of the Fundamental Developments Group in the Radiation Laboratory, which was concerned with the exploration of new frequency bands and the development of new microwave techniques.

He shared the 1952 Nobel Prize for Physics for his independent discovery (published 1946) of nuclear magnetic resonance in liquids and in solids.

Purcell was the recipient of many awards for his scientific, educational, and civic work. He served as science advisor to Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson. He was president of the American Physical Society, and a member of the American Philosophical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1979, and the Jansky Lectureship before the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.


His experiment was extremely precise.

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.

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

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

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


FULL VACUUM GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT:


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.







?

QuQu

  • 231
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2014, 03:29:25 AM »
Oh, sandokhan is a member of DePalma cult, that is so sweet. I think i'm the only one person in the world who knows how his free energy generator works - it needs dragon excrements and griffin semen.

Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2014, 06:54:55 AM »
Oh, sandokhan is a member of DePalma cult, that is so sweet. I think i'm the only one person in the world who knows how his free energy generator works - it needs dragon excrements and griffin semen.
Not forgetting the Unobtainium you need to fuel.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2014, 02:24:40 AM »
Oh, sandokhan is a member of DePalma cult, that is so sweet.

Poor old sandokhan responds to my tl;dr comment with yet another tsunami of pseudo-scientific drivel LOL.

He also has the unmitigated arrogance to comment "ausgeoff, for a person who had no idea what the center of gravity of a body is, you should be more considerate when expressing an opinion here...my bibliographical references are second to none".

Not only has he dismissed my past comments with totally inappropriate and ignorant disparagement, but he he also has the hubris to claim that his references are "second to none".

The irony is of course that for someone who claims the high ethical ground, and absolutely irrefutable scientific logic, sandokhan still believes that our planet is flat.  LOL.

Thanks for the laughs sandokhan;  you shoot yourself in the foot every time you post here.  Sorry.
 

*

Goddamnit, Clown

  • 824
  • How else would light work?
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2014, 07:43:15 AM »
Quote
Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.
That is just not something any experimental scientist would ever say.

A complete vacuum? - What pressure?
Equal amount of force? - No description of this device? Was it equal speed, equal momentum, or equal force? They've all been claimed here in various re-tellings as though they are interchangeable (which they aren't) and then the same conclusion drawn each time, that rotation grants mystical free energy that only one discredited crank has ever measured.

If it was equal speed, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal momentum, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal force, then the "catapult" itself would have needed to be designed extremely carefully with good foreknowledge of the balls' mass, yet no mention of the design or weighing of rotating balls has come up.

Quote
In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity.
For some reason they only made a tiny number of measurements here, and for an absolutely unguessable reason, they stopped the crucial, rotating, experiment after a couple of slightly anomalously low results.

So, 15,000 rpm in a vacuum gives results with a statistical significance of nothing. The implication -of course- is that if one were to run the experiment more thoroughly then of course you'd see the gyros imbued with Ætheriç spirit. Sadly, he didn't and for some reason nobody else has either.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 07:45:39 AM by Goddamnit, Clown »
Big Pendulum have their tentacles everywhere.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2014, 07:43:53 PM »
Quote
Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.
That is just not something any experimental scientist would ever say.

A complete vacuum? - What pressure?
Equal amount of force? - No description of this device? Was it equal speed, equal momentum, or equal force? They've all been claimed here in various re-tellings as though they are interchangeable (which they aren't) and then the same conclusion drawn each time, that rotation grants mystical free energy that only one discredited crank has ever measured.

If it was equal speed, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal momentum, the two balls would behave identically in a vacuum.
If it was equal force, then the "catapult" itself would have needed to be designed extremely carefully with good foreknowledge of the balls' mass, yet no mention of the design or weighing of rotating balls has come up.

Quote
In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity.
For some reason they only made a tiny number of measurements here, and for an absolutely unguessable reason, they stopped the crucial, rotating, experiment after a couple of slightly anomalously low results.

So, 15,000 rpm in a vacuum gives results with a statistical significance of nothing. The implication -of course- is that if one were to run the experiment more thoroughly then of course you'd see the gyros imbued with Ætheriç spirit. Sadly, he didn't and for some reason nobody else has either.
You are just scratching the surface of this de Palma pseudoscience. Yes, the most important conclusion from the results they show is that the statistical significance of everything they did is zero. But additionally the quality of the statistical analysis of the insignificant results is bad enough to flunk a first year pre-graduate student. Even if something worth investigating had showed in the experiment, the peer review of this report would have been devastating. Even Andrew Wakefield's statistical analysis (the one that showed a link between vaccination and autism) is dramatically better than this blabber.

And you can see how nobody is discussing Neptune because there is nothing to discuss. The FE people cannot even give a reason for the Ecliptic (the place on the sky where planets move) is where we know it is.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: FE and the discovery of Neptune.
« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2014, 12:33:27 AM »
Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The next sentence reads:

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

Only a RE could miss that.


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 is as simple as this.


. 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.”


A dismissal, in no uncertain terms, of the law of attractive gravity, as it is being taught in high schools/universities all over the world.


Perhaps you will believe Steve Lamoreaux (Yale) and John Webb (USNW):

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Through.the.Wormhole-Can.We.Travel.Faster.than.Light?ENG.HD

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, subquark strings/telluric currents/magnetic monopoles double torsion strings):

starts at 9:31 (negative energy and pressure gravity experiment)


John Webb (USNW): the first total and definite proof that the speed of light is VARIABLE

starts at 28:50