Coincidence

And you simply don't understand the question is about the FE. I asked you to apply your dazzling intellect to FE and the heavens. You can't because FE is a fantasy. It doesn't WORK. YOU can't even solve a "simple" - definite 3-body problem - a total solar eclipse on a FE. Integrate it - knock yourself out. You keep referring to models failing over HUNDREDS of years or now even 100 MILLION YEARS!! I am asking for occultations MONTHS in advance.

Regardless of YOUR equations, the RET/Heliocentric WORKS. I have provided examples. Therefore, I don't "buy" what you say. You can provide 10's of walls of text all day long. The end result is RET/Heliocentricity WORKS. I know when and where the Moon will occult Jupiter MONTHS in advance.

FEers have to go to RET/heliocentric models for THEIR answers.

jadyyn, your RE manifesto is very touching, however you are forgetting one essential thing: the Gauss Easter formula.

According to your cherished equations (which you said were not "realistic" earlier, thus contradicting the facts you listed in favor of RE theory; you are defying the very set of equations purportedly used by NASA itself; since they are used by the official RE science, you must accept them), the spring equinox fell on March 21, in the year 325 AD.

I am going to prove to you that no such thing ever happened, thus showing the utter fallacy of the differential equation approach to understanding orbital mechanics.

You also seem to forget that just as Einstein fudged his Mercury equation to fit the results, so the conspirators who invented the RE differential equations of motion had to modify drastically not only the masses of the planets and the Sun, but also their corresponding distances from Earth, in order to, at least, offer accurate results for a time span not extending beyond some three hundred years.


Now, Gauss' Easter formula is the most accurate astronomical dating tool at our disposal.

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD.


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the approximately 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


EXPLICIT DATING GIVEN BY MATTHEW VLASTAR



It is indeed amazing that Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers – the book that every Paschalia researcher refers to – contains an explicit dating of the time the Easter Book was compiled. It is even more amazing that none of the numerous researchers of Vlastar’s text appeared to have noticed it (?!), despite the fact that the date is given directly after the oft-quoted place of Vlastar’s book, about the rules of calculating the Easter date. Moreover, all quoting stops abruptly immediately before the point where Vlastar gives this explicit date.



What could possibly be the matter? Why don’t modern commentators find themselves capable of quoting the rest of Vlastar’s text? We are of the opinion that they attempt to conceal from the reader the fragments of ancient texts that explode the entire edifice of Scaliger’s chronology. We shall quote this part completely:



Matthew Vlastar:



“There are four rules concerning the Easter. The first two are the apostolic rules, and the other two are known from tradition. The first rule is that the Easter should be celebrated after the spring equinox. The second is that is should not be celebrated together with the Judeans. The third: not just after the equinox, but also after the first full moon following the equinox. And the fourth: not just after the full moon, but the first Sunday following the full moon… The current Paschalia was compiled and given to the church by our fathers in full faith that it does not contradict any of the quoted postulates. (This is the place the quoting usually stops, as we have already mentioned – Auth.). They created it the following way: 19 consecutive years were taken starting with the year 6233 since Genesis (= 725 AD – Auth.) and up until the year 6251 (= 743 AD – Auth.), and the date of the first full moon after the spring equinox was looked up for each one of them. The Paschalia makes it obvious that when the Elders were doing it; the equinox fell on the 21st of March” ([518]).



Thus, the Circle for Moon – the foundation of the Paschalia – was devised according to the observations from the years 725-743 AD; hence, the Paschalia couldn’t possibly have been compiled, let alone canonized, before that.


I have just proven to you that the spring equinox could not, and did not, fall on March 21, in the year 325 AD, CONTRARY to the figures implied by the RE equations of orbital mechanics.

Nowhere in those wall of text we can see any scientific data/evidence that back up the belief in a flat earth. It's only a character-inneficient way to say that the current model is not yet complete, or understandable. It does not disprove any space knowledge we already have.

Invoking gaps won't help FE fake belief system, as it cannot provide any scientific explanation for all that in the first place.

It does not disprove any space knowledge we already have.

But it does, in the most profound way.

In the RE universe, it is the Earth's axial of rotation which undergoes a gradual shift (axial precession).

In the real world, the FE context, it is the Sun which undergoes a westward shift of 1.5 km per year (solar precession).

In 100 years we will have 150 km.
In 1000 years, 1500 km.

Let us remember that the upper limit/bound is given by the distance between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer: some 6000 km (flat earth map).

Therefore, a very short chronology of history does prove FE immediately, and disproves directly RE.


Paleomagnetic parameters of the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum:




Paleomagnetic parameters, Southern Italy, 1600 - 2000 AD:



Figure 1. The actual data describing the evolution of the parameters of the geomagnetic field of Southern Italy in the last 400 years [Tanguy, 2005]. The results of instrumental measurements of vector direction of the geomagnetic field, represented in the form of the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, shows dark yellow line. Black circles show the direction of the residual magnetization vectors of samples of lava eruptions of Etna (E) and Vesuvius (V). The size of the circle corresponds to the measurement error. Digit near the circle - the year of the eruption. Blue line shows the path of movement of the North Magnetic Pole, estimated by paleomagnetic product parameters volcanoes Etna and Vesuvius.


The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found at Pompeii and Herculaneum belong to the 17th century



Figure 4. Dating event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" by analogy, having a reliable chronological anchor. Red ellipse is outlined in a cluster corresponding to the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field in the first half of the 17th century. The red dotted line inside the ellipse corresponds approximately to 1631.


SOUTHERN ITALY ARTIFACTS CONVENTIONALLY DATED 800 BC - 500 AD ACTUALLY BELONG TO THE 17TH CENTURY


List of 31 artifacts, paleomagnetic parameters:



The data coincide perfectly: the artifacts found in Southern Italy ("800 BC - 500 AD") belong to the 17th century:



Figure 4. The paleomagnetic data on Southern Italy, describing the evolution of the vector direction of the geomagnetic field in the period 1600-2000 years BC and 800 BC - 500 years BC .. Red crosses correspond to the declination and inclination vector residual magnetization patterns characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD [Evans, 2005]. The points correspond to samples that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79": pyroclastic rocks (volcanic tuff deposits) - the point of the blue, the artifacts - the point is red. Green diamond corresponds to the archaeological site Carthage. The diameter of a circle of red color corresponds approximately to the "linear" speed variations in the direction of the vector of the geomagnetic field (over 100 years in the scale plate). The rest of the symbols are shown in Figure 1.


Even more striking results were obtained when comparing between them averaged parameters of the samples (Figure 5). It was found that the parameters of the Archaeological Site Carthage, averaged parameters of the samples of artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79" and averaged parameters of the samples, characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD practically coincide (Figure 5, they circled in red ellipse).



Figure 5. The paleomagnetic data on Southern Italy, describing the evolution of the vector direction of the geomagnetic field in the period 1600-2000 years BC and 800 BC - 500 years BC .. red four-pointed star averaged values ​​correspond to the declination and inclination vector residual magnetization patterns characterizing artifacts period 800 BC - 500 AD Green filled circle - the averaged value of the parameter sample artifacts that characterize the event "The eruption of Vesuvius in '79." The numbers about stars, diamonds and circles denote their corresponding year. The remaining symbols are shown in figure 1 and 4 and in the text.

It does not disprove any space knowledge we already have.

But it does, in the most profound way.

In the RE universe, it is the Earth's axial of rotation which undergoes a gradual shift (axial precession).

In the real world, the FE context, it is the Sun which undergoes a westward shift of 1.5 km per year (solar precession).

In 100 years we will have 150 km.
In 1000 years, 1500 km.

Let us remember that the upper limit/bound is given by the distance between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer: some 6000 km (flat earth map).

Therefore, a very short chronology of history does prove FE immediately, and disproves directly RE.

I doubt this is a valid way to assert knowledge. You are just refusing data that contradict FE.

Can you provide evidence for solar precession? Since the entire sky - not only the Sun, mind you - changes position according to RE model and axial precession, you should be able to provide the same for FE model.

Also, you have no scientific explanation for the Sun in FE model. How does it "float"? What makes it move? How eclipses occur? And what causes the Sun to shift 1.5 km/year westward?

You cannot provide answers to this. All you can do is speculate.

So, all things considered, FE is disproved.

Can you provide evidence for solar precession?

Immediately.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

THE SIRIUS MERIDIAN TRANSIT PERIODS DATA: INEXISTENCE OF EARTH’S AXIAL PRECESSION


Also, you have no scientific explanation for the Sun in FE model.

In fact, I am the only FE that can provide such a precise explanation.

For starters, here is the FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290


Let us see what force I. Newton claimed was/is responsible for the Sun's movement.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity


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

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


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

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

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


Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

ETHER DRIFT RESULTS: CONFIRMATION OF DAYTON MILLER'S RESULTS/EXISTENCE OF DYNAMIC ETHER


It can be proven immediately that the shape of the Sun must be that of a disk (and not spherical):

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."



Solar Atmosph. Pressure as a Function of Depth (official science information)

Depth (km) % Light from this Depth Temperature (K) Pressure (bars)

0 99.5 4465 6.8 x 10-3
100 97 4780 1.7 x 10-2
200 89 5180 3.9 x 10-2
250 80 5455 5.8 x 10-2
300 64 5840 8.3 x 10-2
350 37 6420 1.2 x 10-1
375 18 6910 1.4 x 10-1
400 4 7610 1.6 x 10-1

This table indicates that the solar atmosphere changes from being almost completely transparent to being almost opaque over a distance of about 400 km. Notice also that in this region the temperature drops rapidly as we near the surface, and that the pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.


The solar eclipse is caused by the Black Sun (and not the Moon): ABSOLUTE PROOF, THE ALLAIS EFFECT.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1623305#msg1623305


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

AXIAL PRECESSION IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT VI

The solar eclipse is caused by the Black Sun (and not the Moon): ABSOLUTE PROOF, THE ALLAIS EFFECT.

Really... My, my, we ARE pulling at straws... FEF is getting sillier and sillier...

1) Why does the Sun turn pitch black?

2) Why does the solar eclipse happen ONLY during a New Moon if it is unrelated?

3) Why is the "black" part of the Sun the same angular size of the Moon - always - therefore predicted in advance?

4) Um, during a total solar eclipse or eclipse in general, where does the Moon go?

5) Why doesn't the total eclipse make the whole Earth dark (Moon >= Sun - angular size)?


6) Why does the "Black Sun" during an annular eclipse have/show a ring (Moon < Sun - angular size)?


7) Why does the "Black Sun" extend beyond the Sun's disk:


RET/Heliocentric simple, elegant explanation:


BTW, here is a cool picture of the ISS during a solar eclipse:

Wow sandokhan!

You are very good at the cut and paste ... but it is always the same dribble and it is old math. You quote Lorentz using a 1961 computer for his calculations ... well, the entire global computing power at that time would not have been as powerful as a modern entry level PC. I am familiar with older computer technology as I collect old PDP and VAX equipment and my father programmed IBM 350's in the 60's. The floating point precision of these behemoths was quite limited in comparison. Of course that doesn't render your information incorrect, but it shows that you have no ability and are just quoting some documents you found.

Lets see you perform a few of these formula ... do the calculations for a NEA orbit including the asteroid, sun, Earth and moon in the equation. Make sure you provide detail (since you try to appear verbose this should be easy for you) in every step and document where the problems arise.

Wow sandokhan!

You are very good at the cut and paste ... but it is always the same dribble and it is old math. You quote Lorentz using a 1961 computer for his calculations ... well, the entire global computing power at that time would not have been as powerful as a modern entry level PC. I am familiar with older computer technology as I collect old PDP and VAX equipment and my father programmed IBM 350's in the 60's. The floating point precision of these behemoths was quite limited in comparison. Of course that doesn't render your information incorrect, but it shows that you have no ability and are just quoting some documents you found.

Lets see you perform a few of these formula ... do the calculations for a NEA orbit including the asteroid, sun, Earth and moon in the equation. Make sure you provide detail (since you try to appear verbose this should be easy for you) in every step and document where the problems arise.

Don't knock the copy paste king, at least he answers questions and doesn't derail the thread.

Although I do read them, I have come to realise the great walls of text aren't even worth reading a majority of the time. He quotes from areas of our sciences that are known to be incomplete, outdated, have holes and/or paradoxes to make FE look attractive. He obviously put in some effort, so gets the benefit of the doubt. But in the end its trivial because the earth is a sphere.

brouwer, you don't know basic trigonometry:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65251.msg1743860#msg1743860

Now, you have the audacity to discuss bifurcation theory and Smale horseshoes?


Using gravitational forces only, one can provide a set of differential equations for any number of celestial bodies.

What occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.


But in theory it can.

Not even in theory.

Obviously, you have no idea about Lyapunov exponents and symplectic integration.


Let d(t) be the distance between two solutions, with d(0) being their initial separation. Then d(t) increases approximately as d(0)e^λt in a chaotic system, where λ is the Lyapunov exponent. The inverse of the Lyapunov exponent, 1/λ, is called the Lyapunov time, and measures how long it takes two nearby solutions to diverge by a factor of e.

Since the solar system is not integrable, and experiences unpredictable small perturbations, it cannot lie permanently on a KAM torus, and is thus chaotic.


Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).


Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine


To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.


To put it bluntly: there is no way to predict anything pertaining to the heliocentrical solar system based on Newton's description of the orbit of the planets using a set of nonlinear differential equations.

Jeez, your math is useless. You never proved a single point or variable or even provided for reasoning of the variables.
Your copy pasta maths are garbage.

orifiel, c'est vrai, que vous êtes fille?

You never proved a single point or variable or even provided for reasoning of the variables.

Here are the established facts of science:

Poincare did prove that the three body is not integrable.

What occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

And the equations of motion of the RE orbital mechanics, posted earlier, are much more complicated/complex than the set of equations describing the three body problem.


KAM theory has been proven, and is one of the greatest achievements of 20th century mathemtics.

Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).


Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine


These are true facts of science.

Jack Wisdom (MIT): It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the orbit of the Earth will suddenly exhibit similar wild excursions in eccentricity.

The exponential divergence of chaotic trajectories precludes long-term prediction given the limited knowledge of the state of our solar system.


Let us take a closer look the chaotic dynamics of planetary formation; thus, a clear indication that the initial conditions cannot be predicted with accuracy (as we have seen, a mere 15 meters difference in the data will have catastrophic consequences upon the calculations).

OFFICIAL SCIENCE INFORMATION

Four stages of planetary formation

Initial stage: condensation and growth of grains in the hot nebular disk

Early stage: growth of grains to kilometer-sized planetesimals

Middle stage: agglomeration of planetesimals

Late stage: protoplanets


For the crucial stages, the initial and early stages, prediction becomes practically impossible.

As if this wasn't enough, we have absolute proof that in the age of modern man planet Earth underwent sudden pole shifts (heliocentrical version), thus making null and void any integration of the solar system/Lyapunov exponents calculations which do not take into account such variations of the system's parameters:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1635693#msg1635693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1546053#msg1546053


kibitzer, I told you that you do not understand the theory of nonlinear differential equations.

The Lorenz butterfly effect HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTING POWER.

It is an analytical result, established well before the advent of modern computing.

It doesn't matter what kind of "modern" computing device you will use: you will get THE SAME RESULTS.


Let me show you what sensitive dependence on initial conditions means, using one of the most famous examples: the Lorenz attractor butterfly effect.

In 1961, Lorenz was running a numerical computer model to redo a weather prediction from the middle of the previous run as a shortcut. He entered the initial condition 0.506 from the printout instead of entering the full precision 0.506127 value. The result was a completely different weather scenario.


Can you understand now Kibitzer? It has everything to do with the dependence of the sensitivity of the initial conditions of a set of nonlinear ordinary differential equations.

These equations lead directly and conclusively to homoclinic tangles; moreover, since the initial conditions cannot be known at all, with any degree of precision, it means that this set of equations cannot be used at all to describe any orbits of any planets.


And I have proven that the date of March 21, assigned as the date of the spring equinox for the year 325 AD, is completely false, thus providing a direct proof that the RE orbital equations are pure garbage.


The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.









http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/


Moreover, these photographs show and prove that the Sun does not orbit at an altitude of 3000 miles, that it does not have a 32 mile diameter, and that it does rise and set, which brings to our attention the precession subject.


2) Why does the solar eclipse happen ONLY during a New Moon if it is unrelated?

I have explained this several times: when the VERY FIRST SET OF ECLIPSES OCCURRED, the Moon and the Sun were at the spring equinox position, each on an opposite side of the two FE semicircles. When the Black Sun first covered the Sun (a solar eclipse), the Moon was located on the opposite side of the FE map (what we call a New Moon today).

In the new radical chronology, we can explain why there are no astronomical/historical records for the 1662 March 20 total solar eclipse:

The Bundahishn (the most fantastic treatise in pre-Flood cosmology and astronomy) tells that at a certain time in the past, the Earth had 24 hour a day light, coming from two Suns (the visible Sun and our present Moon) and that there were no solar or lunar eclipses.

Then, the Black Sun and its companion (the heavenly body which does bring about now the lunar eclipse) caused the first solar and lunar eclipses, in a cosmic catastrophe which is still recalled in various legends around the world.

Aborigines of the New World: “the Sun and the moon had equal light in the past."


At the other end of the world the Japanese asserted the same: the Nihongi Chronicle says that in the past "the radiance of the moon was next to that of the sun in splendor."


Traditions of many peoples maintain that the Moon lost a large part of its light and became much dimmer than it had been in earlier ages.


The memory of a world without a moon lives in oral tradition among the Indians. The Indians of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Colombia relate some of their tribal reminiscences to the time before there was a moon. "In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens," say the tribesmen of Chibchas.


Traditions of diverse peoples offer corroborative testimony to the effect that in a very early age, but still in the memory of mankind, no moon accompanied the Earth.


At 12:00 o'clock on March 20, 1662, the year 1 in the new radical chronology timeline, this is what happened (as recorded in the Bundahishn):

"The evil spirit [Ahriman] went toward the luminaries." "He stood upon one-third of the inside of the sky, and he sprang,
like a snake, out of the sky down to the earth." It was the day of the vernal equinox. "He rushed in at noon," and "the sky was shattered and frightened." "Like a fly, he rushed out upon the whole creation, and he injured the world and made it dark at midday as though it were in dark night. And noxious creatures were diffused by him over the earth, biting and venomous, such as the snake, scorpion, frog, and lizard, so that not so much as the point of a needle remained free from noxious creatures."

This is what the people all over the flat earth could see at that time (the drawing, of course, is not to scale):



Those who have a problem with SIMULTANEOUS SOLAR/LUNAR ECLIPSES should read the following:


From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.


3) Why is the "black" part of the Sun the same angular size of the Moon - always - therefore predicted in advance?

The Black Sun, the Sun, the Moon, and the Shadow Moon have the SAME DIAMETER, that's why.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "


ISS/ATLANTIS SOLAR/LUNAR TRANSIT VIDEOS/PHOTOGRAPHS:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81131#msg81131

The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.









http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/


Moreover, these photographs show and prove that the Sun does not orbit at an altitude of 3000 miles, that it does not have a 32 mile diameter, and that it does rise and set, which brings to our attention the precession subject.


2) Why does the solar eclipse happen ONLY during a New Moon if it is unrelated?

I have explained this several times: when the VERY FIRST SET OF ECLIPSES OCCURRED, the Moon and the Sun were at the spring equinox position, each on an opposite side of the two FE semicircles. When the Black Sun first covered the Sun (a solar eclipse), the Moon was located on the opposite side of the FE map (what we call a New Moon today).

In the new radical chronology, we can explain why there are no astronomical/historical records for the 1662 March 20 total solar eclipse:

The Bundahishn (the most fantastic treatise in pre-Flood cosmology and astronomy) tells that at a certain time in the past, the Earth had 24 hour a day light, coming from two Suns (the visible Sun and our present Moon) and that there were no solar or lunar eclipses.

Then, the Black Sun and its companion (the heavenly body which does bring about now the lunar eclipse) caused the first solar and lunar eclipses, in a cosmic catastrophe which is still recalled in various legends around the world.

Aborigines of the New World: “the Sun and the moon had equal light in the past."


At the other end of the world the Japanese asserted the same: the Nihongi Chronicle says that in the past "the radiance of the moon was next to that of the sun in splendor."


Traditions of many peoples maintain that the Moon lost a large part of its light and became much dimmer than it had been in earlier ages.


The memory of a world without a moon lives in oral tradition among the Indians. The Indians of the Bogota highlands in the eastern Cordilleras of Colombia relate some of their tribal reminiscences to the time before there was a moon. "In the earliest times, when the moon was not yet in the heavens," say the tribesmen of Chibchas.


Traditions of diverse peoples offer corroborative testimony to the effect that in a very early age, but still in the memory of mankind, no moon accompanied the Earth.


At 12:00 o'clock on March 20, 1662, the year 1 in the new radical chronology timeline, this is what happened (as recorded in the Bundahishn):

"The evil spirit [Ahriman] went toward the luminaries." "He stood upon one-third of the inside of the sky, and he sprang,
like a snake, out of the sky down to the earth." It was the day of the vernal equinox. "He rushed in at noon," and "the sky was shattered and frightened." "Like a fly, he rushed out upon the whole creation, and he injured the world and made it dark at midday as though it were in dark night. And noxious creatures were diffused by him over the earth, biting and venomous, such as the snake, scorpion, frog, and lizard, so that not so much as the point of a needle remained free from noxious creatures."

This is what the people all over the flat earth could see at that time (the drawing, of course, is not to scale):



Those who have a problem with SIMULTANEOUS SOLAR/LUNAR ECLIPSES should read the following:


From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.


3) Why is the "black" part of the Sun the same angular size of the Moon - always - therefore predicted in advance?

The Black Sun, the Sun, the Moon, and the Shadow Moon have the SAME DIAMETER, that's why.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "


ISS/ATLANTIS SOLAR/LUNAR TRANSIT VIDEOS/PHOTOGRAPHS:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81131#msg81131

Honestly, you like other FEers, don't have a clue about astronomy. You can cut and paste all you want but you don't understand what you are doing.

In 2003, here is that path of the total eclipse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_November_23,_2003)

Here is the day-by-day, blow-by-blow account of the pictures taken:
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/antarctica_book_hi.pdf)

Here is the Moon table that day, November 23 - new moon - would be next to the Sun:
(http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2003/november)

The new moon is not across the Earth from the Sun - that is the FULL Moon. New Moon is when the Moon is right next to (vertically) the Sun and sometimes causes an eclipse when it overlays the Sun.

You can not have a solar and lunar eclipse at the same time as a Solar eclipse uses a NEW Moon and a Lunar eclipse uses a FULL Moon. They are on the opposite sides of the Earth from where the Sun is.

Where does this "Black Sun" hide the rest of the time? Why doesn't it block the stars?

This is soooo ridiculous it isn't even worth discussing. I am glad you are relying on aborigines for your information. Your "Black Sun" is as much of a fantasy as the FE model.

As you really have no clue whatsoever about Astronomy, I am not going to waste my time even responding to this total nonsense.

jadyyn, you have nothing going for you here, do not kid yourself.

Where does this "Black Sun" hide the rest of the time? Why doesn't it block the stars?

The Black Sun's orbit is circular around the outer edges of the Flat Earth; it does cross the upper sky to cause the solar eclipses at very special determined times.

What I described to you were the details OF THE VERY FIRST SOLAR ECLIPSE.

Now, the official theory says this: If the full moon or new moon is appreciably close to one of these nodes, then an eclipse is not only possible – but inevitable.

This is exactly what happens in the flat earth astronomy, but it is the Black Sun which causes the solar eclipse, not the Moon.


I am sure that you are looking for a 100% proof on this point.

THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE: THE ALLAIS EFFECT

The Allais Effect I

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1623305#msg1623305


Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)


Dr. Maurice Allais report to Nasa:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.


The Allais Effect II (detection during the 1999, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 solar eclipses):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually  accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


The Allais Effect III (the radiation of the Black Sun and commentaries of the 19th century's most accomplished astronomers: the existence of at least TWO dark bodies which also orbit the earth):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430



The Allais Effect IV (the identity of the third heavenly body which takes part in a solar eclipse, other than the Sun and the Earth)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054


The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-Allais-Pendulum-motions.jpg

"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!



The Allais Effect VI (axial precession is not related to Newtonian mechanics)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033



http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

The detailed behavior of both pendulums over the eclipse period shown in Fig. 8 was remarkable. During the period before the eclipse no particular disturbance was detected, and the 10-minute precession amounts of both pendulums generally exhibited the same behavior. After the local eclipse maximum the precession amount of the automatic pendulum started to increase steadily, while that of the manual pendulum started to decrease steadily. This trend continued unabated until about forty minutes after fourth contact, when the sense of change of the precession of the manual pendulum changed to be the same as that of the automatic pendulum.

After this both pendulum precession amounts marched together in almost perfect lockstep, decreasing until about 12:15, then executing an abrupt spike upwards and back downwards which ended at about 13:15, and then increasing until about 14:20, at which point the manual pendulum precession again reversed its trend. It is clear from the calmness of the environmental data that these phenomena were not linked to any variation of meteorological conditions.


Analysis. This long Foucault-type pendulum behaved in a very stable manner. However well after the end of the locally visible eclipse, at around 11:33 (to the recording resolution, i.e. between the readings at 11:29 and 11:36), some influence clearly acted for a short period to increase the precession rate. This influence was no longer apparent during the next inter-reading interval (from 11:36 to 11:43), and then reversed itself to some extent during the next interval (from 11:43 to 11:50).

The Allais Effect VII (stationary earth/Foucault's pendulum anomalies)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642668#msg1642668

The physical reality is this. The Allais effect noticed can be due to either a momentary fluctuation in the earths rotation, or in the aethers rotation over that area of space where the alignment occurs.  The former for obvious reasons (the energy factor) is illogical.

"Nobel prize winner Maurice Allais had to go and throw another monkey wrench in the spokes of the heliocentric bicycle. Allais performed a marathon 30 day Foucault Pendulum experiment in 1954. During the experiment an eclipse occurred. Surprisingly, the pendulum changed angles by a significant 13.5 degrees! This suggests something in space was affecting the pendulum, not the motion of the earth."


Contrary to your very uninformed opinion, the best astronomers of the 19th century thought that MORE THAN ONE DARK BODY ORBITS THE EARTH:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


You see jadyyn, you simply haven't your homework at all.


HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED THESE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT IS TWENTY TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THAT CALCULATED USING THE MOON'S POSSIBLE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE.

I have just proven to you that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

All you have shown is that somehow the Allais affect happens. I'm sorry, but where in all this does Allais mention a "Black Sun" causing the effect and the Moon not contributing at all to the effect? - "The nature of this common influence is unknown"

The "Dark Sun" jumping out from the edges (Antarctica) at the right moment for a solar eclipse is too funny. It only comes out when a visible solar eclipse is needed and not during a New Moon when it is not? When it "crosses ... at very special determined times", do you have any pictures of it occulating stars? I would imagine, such pictures would be common - a pitch black circle obscuring stars. It is after all dark enough to completely obscure the Sun and no one over the decades and centuries of watching the skies has photographed it? It would most certainly be mentioned EVERY solar eclipse we observe. This "Black Sun" is new to Astronomers everywhere for sure - as are most astronomical FE phenomena.

Um, I might have proof of the son of your "Black Sun" - too small for an eclipse and wrong time of the month/Moon orbit March 11, 2012 (http://www.moonconnection.com/moon-march-2012.phtml):
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)

The Black Sun absorbs visible light, it cannot be seen except when it passes in front of the Sun.

But its formidable effects can be recorded with precision.

Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."

This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.


Perhaps it would be helpful to show you the data pertaining to the Allais effect, as recorded in 1970.

Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"





Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum (dasned green line - http://www.enterprisemission.com/Saxl-70-Graph-red&green.jpg ) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!


WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN AND FOR SURE THE IDENTITY OF TWO OF THREE HEAVENLY BODIES WHICH TAKE PART IN A SOLAR ECLIPSE: THE EARTH AND THE SUN.

The identity of the THIRD PLANET cannot be the Moon: the observed antigravitational effects are humongous, completely and absolutely unexplainable within the framework of newtonian gravitation and relativity theory.

The Allais effect has been observed again and again with the same fantastic results:

Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

These are the extraordinary effects of the Black Sun as it passes in front of the Sun during a solar eclipse.

Can you provide evidence for solar precession?

Immediately.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1718735#msg1718735

THE SIRIUS MERIDIAN TRANSIT PERIODS DATA: INEXISTENCE OF EARTH’S AXIAL PRECESSION

Can you read properly? Or are you just trolling right now? I asked for the evidence backing up "solar precession".

Do you believe your source disproves the current Earth model? Can you invalidate current scientific knowledge? Otherwise I'll have to count this a gap fallacy: Not being able to explain an effect won't necessarily invalidate previous knowledge about said effect.

Do you believe the entire scientific community is wrong and lying to us - and themselves?

Also, you have no scientific explanation for the Sun in FE model.

In fact, I am the only FE that can provide such a precise explanation.

For starters, here is the FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290


Let us see what force I. Newton claimed was/is responsible for the Sun's movement.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity


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

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


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

Pressure gravity is just false - there is no such thing. Feel free to show evidence on the contrary.

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."



Solar Atmosph. Pressure as a Function of Depth (official science information)

Depth (km) % Light from this Depth Temperature (K) Pressure (bars)

0 99.5 4465 6.8 x 10-3
100 97 4780 1.7 x 10-2
200 89 5180 3.9 x 10-2
250 80 5455 5.8 x 10-2
300 64 5840 8.3 x 10-2
350 37 6420 1.2 x 10-1
375 18 6910 1.4 x 10-1
400 4 7610 1.6 x 10-1

This table indicates that the solar atmosphere changes from being almost completely transparent to being almost opaque over a distance of about 400 km. Notice also that in this region the temperature drops rapidly as we near the surface, and that the pressure (measured in bars, where one bar is the average atmospheric pressure at the surface of the Earth) is very low - generally 1% or less of Earth surface atmospheric pressure.

The wall of text above just proves absolutely NOTHING. If you really enjoy copy-paste, then could you kindly do that somewhere else?

The solar eclipse is caused by the Black Sun (and not the Moon): ABSOLUTE PROOF, THE ALLAIS EFFECT.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1623305#msg1623305


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1642033#msg1642033

AXIAL PRECESSION IS NOT RELATED TO NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT VI

Solar eclipses occur when the Moon is directly between the Sun and the Earth. This is a fact - that's why it's only seen from some locations, both total and partial. The Allais Effect proves nothing. You are completely wrong, confused, or trolling with that stupid "black sun" nonsense.

The Black Sun absorbs visible light, it cannot be seen except when it passes in front of the Sun.

Evidence?

WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN AND FOR SURE THE IDENTITY OF TWO OF THREE HEAVENLY BODIES WHICH TAKE PART IN A SOLAR ECLIPSE: THE EARTH AND THE SUN.

The identity of the THIRD PLANET cannot be the Moon: the observed antigravitational effects are humongous, completely and absolutely unexplainable within the framework of newtonian gravitation and relativity theory.

False. The 3rd body is the moon, it's a fact. If the moon is not the 3rd body involved, please provide evidence to back up the following statements:

1- The moon can be seen on the sky during a Solar eclipse, but not at the Eclipse itself.

2- A solar eclipse can occur during every lunar phase - not only the full moon.

I say both statements above cannot be refuted by any observational and scientific evidence. Can you provide evidence on the contrary?

The Allais effect has been observed again and again with the same fantastic results:

Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

These are the extraordinary effects of the Black Sun as it passes in front of the Sun during a solar eclipse.

This proves nothing, much less the existence of said black sun.

Can you provide evidence of the existence of a black sun? Can you provide evidence that the black sun can only absorb light when aligned with the Sun? Can you prove that the current scientific knowledge about eclipses are wrong?

If you can't then I suppose you are not telling the truth.

Like I said...

All you have shown is that somehow the Allais affect happens. I'm sorry, but where in all this does Allais mention a "Black Sun" causing the effect and the Moon not contributing at all to the effect? - "The nature of this common influence is unknown"

The "Dark Sun" jumping out from the edges (Antarctica) at the right moment for a solar eclipse is too funny. It only comes out when a visible solar eclipse is needed and not during a New Moon when it is not? When it "crosses ... at very special determined times", do you have any pictures of it occulating stars? I would imagine, such pictures would be common - a pitch black circle obscuring stars. It is after all dark enough to completely obscure the Sun and no one over the decades and centuries of watching the skies has photographed it? It would most certainly be mentioned EVERY solar eclipse we observe. This "Black Sun" is new to Astronomers everywhere for sure - as are most astronomical FE phenomena.

Um, I might have proof of the son of your "Black Sun" - too small for an eclipse and wrong time of the month/Moon orbit March 11, 2012 (http://www.moonconnection.com/moon-march-2012.phtml):
(" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">)

Something causes this Allais effect. Apparently no one knows.

The Black Sun absorbs visible light, it cannot be seen except when it passes in front of the Sun.

Starlight is visible light. If such a "Black Sun" disk existed, it would block out starlight. Please demonstrate it, especially since it goes beyond the Sun's face during an eclipse. Astronomers would be very interested.

Also per OP, what does this have to do with planets' motions or in my example, the Moon occulting Jupiter?

During a solar eclipse (1) the Moon can't be seen (other than crossing the face of the Sun) because (2) the Moon is always a New Moon (the only lunar phase - totally black) - right next to/on the Sun.

kirk...you don't stand a chance with me here.

Do you believe your source disproves the current Earth model?

The faint young sun paradox thrashes the RE theory: simply not enough time for any spherical planet to have formed itself.

Certainly the faint young sun paradox is one of the most devastating proofs available against the RE: it has not been solved until now at all.


Pressure gravity is just false - there is no such thing. Feel free to show evidence on the contrary.

LAMOREAUX-CASIMIR EFFECT: THE ULTIMATE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF PRESSURE GRAVITY

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

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)


Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


In case you didn't know, Newton fully believed in pressure gravity.

Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.


The wall of text above just proves absolutely NOTHING.

It does prove, using the very data provided by Nasa, that Sun could not have a spherical shape at all: Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.


The Allais Effect proves nothing.

Dr. Maurice Allais report to Nasa:

http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects".


HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED THESE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT IS TWENTY TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THAT CALCULATED USING THE MOON'S POSSIBLE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE.

I have just proven to you that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

Actually, you have proven nothing.

THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED THESE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT IS TWENTY TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THAT CALCULATED USING THE MOON'S POSSIBLE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE.

All this means is that the Moon can not account for all the effects. The Moon can still make solar eclipses. You have not disproved this.

All the stuff you presented says that a pendulum swings weirdly during a solar eclipse. It does not explain a solar eclipse. It does not mean there is no Moon involved and you need a "Black Sun". That is YOUR personal interpretation. I did not see anyone else talking about a "Black Sun".

Other people have noted this anomaly and are trying to figure it out... that is the only conclusion from everything you presented.

How does this "Allais Effect" affect the orbits of the Moon and planets?

All this means is that the Moon can not account for all the effects. The Moon can still make solar eclipses. You have not disproved this.

jadyyn...silly word games won't get you anywhere with me.

Can you fully understand what we are discussing here?

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


Thus, neither the regular cyclical variation of the pendulum, nor the
anomalous behavior at the time of solar eclipse can be explained by the
presently understood theory of gravitation. Something else is at work.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED THESE ANTIGRAVITATIONAL EFFECTS: THE ALLAIS EFFECT IS TWENTY TO ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THAT CALCULATED USING THE MOON'S POSSIBLE GRAVITATIONAL INFLUENCE.

I have just proven to you that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.



Can you comprehend the data that has just been presented in front of you?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.


"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


jadyyn, we are talking about an effect that is BETWEEN TWENTY MILLION TIMES GREATER AND ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THAN THE AMPLITUDE CALCULATED BY THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION.

THE MOON DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR ANYTHING: FOR NONE OF THE EFFECTS OBSERVED.

Got it... There is one or more UNKNOWN forces that affect the PENDULUM.

The Moon's force is insufficient - OK. No where does it say it is NONEXISTENT. No where does it say the Moon does not cause a solar eclipse.

All it says is that various things have been tested and none found to explain the force ON THE PENDULUM. It does not reference the CAUSE of SOLAR ECLIPSES.

Again, what does this have ANYTHING to do with the motion of the Moon and/or planets in the solar system? How does this make the FE model better than the RET/heliocentric model that ACCURATELY explains/predicts occultations, transits and the eclipses that we see? We have software/table describing these MONTHS in advance.

Yo sandokha; "...THE MOON COULD NOT POSSIBLY CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE..."

But perhaps hundreds of millions of people have watched as the "moon" and "sun" move across the sky and the moon pass between the Earth and sun causing a total or partial eclipse. We have more than enough technology that constantly monitors the position of the moon. It is not possible for the moon to be anywhere else during the eclipse.

The effects on a pendulum do not preclude the fact that the moon eclipses the sun but rather add a further unknown to the minute gravitational flux. RE and modern science may not have ALL the answers and yes, we still have a few milestones to reach ... but idiotic steps backwards like thinking the world is flat and attributing ever changing "god like" attributes to Aether (as yet not a provable thing) will never get us past those challenges. Your little black sun sitting off on the edge of Antarctica and moving (only on special occasions) in front of the sun to eclipse it such that it causes the effects on the pendulum is pure rubbish. If it could cause any effect when it is in front of the sun then it should also have measurable effect while in transit to that location and also when it is in its "garage on the end of the world". Oh let me guess ... Aether blocks its effects if it is not directly over the plane of the Earth and directly in front of the sun yet another miracle property of cocaine ... oops I mean Aether!

The difference between science and Aetherism is that science postulates a hypothesis then proceeds to experiment to see if there is physical evidence to support the hypothesis. This is a never ending refinement on past science. Aetherism observe anomalies and build "fact" without experimentation.

kirk...you don't stand a chance with me here.

(mucho stuff deleted stuff that has been posted numerous times before)

I have just proven to you that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

Yes, we can copy and paste too!
Oh, please don't ever fill posts like this! At the very least give a reference to it.

You do remind me of the "Self made man that worshipped his creator".

I know I will draw the Wrath of Sandokhan, but someone has to say it! You post reams of stuff like this and I'm sure no-one else reads it.

Quote from: sandokhan on January 12, 2016, 01:39:49 PM

kirk...you don't stand a chance with me here.

(mucho stuff deleted stuff that has been posted numerous times before)

I have just proven to you that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

Yes, we can copy and paste too!
Oh, please don't ever fill posts like this! At the very least give a reference to it.

You do remind me of the "Self made man that worshipped his creator".

I know I will draw the Wrath of Sandokhan, but someone has to say it! You post reams of stuff like this and I'm sure no-one else reads it.

I know I don't read it. I wait for someone else to respond to it. Guess I'm lazy.

Just because the equations are not integrable, it does not mean the solution cannot be found.

You are now refering to numerical solutions/analysis. This is a bit different approach... so the sensitivity property holds. So, you are basically confusing two mutually distinct approaches.


Poincare showed that the problem is not integrable. Most orbits are unstable and may be chaotic, which means that arbitrarily close initial conditions result in orbits that separate exponentially and cannot be computed numerically for arbitrarily long times.

Do you understand what does "to integrate" mean? It means to find analityc solutions. Explicit formulas. But at the very next sentence you are already refering to numerical solutions.

It has ALREADY been proven that the three body problem is not integrable; the sensitivity property holds without resorting to numerical solutions (these solutions just show the extraordinary dimension of the entire problem).

Yes.

Now, so that everybody will understand the nature of the problem, a technical incursion into the three body problem.

Hyperbolic periodic solutions have stable and unstable manifolds consisting of solutions which converge to the periodic solution as t > ±infinity. Poincare called these asymptotic solutions. A solution which lies in the both the stable and unstable manifolds approaches the periodic solution in both time directions and is called bi-asymptotic.

Poincare’s famous paragraph quoted in the first page of this thread arose from his realization that while the stable and unstable curve had to intersect, they did not have to overlap exactly. In fact, more likely, they could intersect transversely.

Then because they are invariant the hyperbolic dynamics forces them to fold and cross in a very complicated manner.

Thus we arrive the phenomenon knows as homoclinic tangle.

Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

True, but it implies nothing.

THE MORE COMPLICATED THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL, THE GREATER IS THE DEPENDENCE ON THE INITIAL CONDITIONS

That is not the rule.

And about solar eclipses. Allais never provided any explaination. Multiple experiments performed to evaluate this effect had shown both postitive and none effect at all. Either way, it seems that this is not yet explained and therefore cannot be taken as any proof. QED.

The Allais effect does prove that the planet orbiting in front of the Sun during a solar eclipse IS NOT THE MOON.




In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


Let me explain again what happened during the Allais experiment.

Before the eclipse, there was a normal clockwise swing of the pendulum.


AT THE START OF THE SOLAR ECLIPSE, THE PENDULUM STARTED TO REVERSE ITS MOTION: IT RAN BACKWARDS, IN A RAPID COUNTERCLOCKWISE MOTION.

For the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse”] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


The Moon could not have possibly have caused this unimaginable effect upon the pendulum: the amplitude is ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES GREATER THEN THE AMPLITUDE CALCULATED BY THE THEORY OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION.



Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory)!


The radiation emitted by the Black Sun caused the extraordinary antigravitational effects upon the pendulum:

FOR A FULL 45 MINUTES, THE PENDULUM REVERSED ITS MOTION, TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY DEFYING NEWTON'S LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION.

AFTER THE ECLIPSE, THE REGULAR MOTION RESUMED.

IT WAS TOTALLY DUE TO THE EFFECT OF THE BLACK SUN PASSING IN FRONT OF THE SUN.

The precise calculations prove it.

If anyone is thinking about believing him just ask yourself why solar eclipses only happen during the new moon phase.

As I said...

NO WHERE does the "Allais Effect" say the MOON does not ECLIPSE the SUN.

ALL it says is there is another force or forces in effect that people are researching to explain.

YOU propose a "Black Sun" (BS) with no proof of it. Can YOU predict (1) its angular size or (2) where the eclipse can be viewed on Earth or (3) why the ENTIRE Earth is not plunged into darkness during a total eclipse (Moon/BS bigger than Sun) or (4) why your BS extends beyond the Sun without obscuring stars along the way?

Based on measurements and tracking, we KNOW the Moon causes the total eclipse. Its orbit (New Moon) and angular size (distance from Earth) match the dark shadow across the sun precisely. We can predict the eclipse (partial, annular, or total) including its length as observed from various places on Earth precisely with the Moon's orbit/distance (Moon mathematically -> Allais Effect ~-1, everything else ~+1,000).

So your BS in an attempt to explain the "Allais Effect" does not explain/demonstrate everything else - in fact contradicts many things (BS Mathematically -> Allais Effect ~+1, everything else ~-1,000).