Overwhelming support for general relativity.

  • 116 Replies
  • 5394 Views
*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2016, 09:57:10 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.

If you claim as above I am genuinely interested in how you got to that conclusion.
Just substantiate your claim. Or change your views on it. Either is fine.
Your just saying how everything is wrong, but I am yet to see you make a substantiated positive claim.


You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill?  Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg? 

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1355
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2016, 10:02:13 AM »
Quote
You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill?  Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg? 
I know that science is not complete. I wont trust anyone saying it is. edit
But that was not an answer.

You said that general relativity supports a flat earth hypothesis. I am trying to understand your statement. By saying that something else has holes in it does not substantiate an unrelated claim. If you concede that general relativity does not in fact support a flat earth model, just say so, and we can chat about how science has a long way to go.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2016, 10:03:57 AM »
Quote
You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill?  Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg? 
I know that science is not complete. I wont trust anyone saying it is. edit
But that was not an answer.

You said that general relativity supports a flat earth hypothesis. I am trying to understand your statement. By saying that something else has holes in it does not substantiate an unrelated claim. If you concede that general relativity does not in fact support a flat earth model, just say so, and we can chat about how science has a long way to go.

If you don't think that GR supports FET, then please, by all means, present your case. 

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2016, 10:08:14 AM »
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.

Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.


If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2016, 10:10:04 AM »
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.

Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.


If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.

If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court.  Sorry, you lose, loser. 

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1355
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #65 on: May 24, 2016, 10:10:13 AM »
Passing the responsibility to someone else to substantiate their claim?

Super short version - General relativity relates matter to gravity, FE gravity does not work unless it is in the infinite plane model.

Enough about me, I though we where talking about you. You keep passing the responsibility of substantiating positive claims to others. Now I am repeatedly asking you to substantiate a positive claim you made.

Again, if you change your views that is completely acceptable.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #66 on: May 24, 2016, 10:13:12 AM »
Passing the responsibility to someone else to substantiate their claim?

Super short version - General relativity relates matter to gravity, FE gravity does not work unless it is in the infinite plane model.

Enough about me, I though we where talking about you. You keep passing the responsibility of substantiating positive claims to others. Now I am repeatedly asking you to substantiate a positive claim you made.

Again, if you change your views that is completely acceptable.



Burden of proof fallacy much?  lol

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #67 on: May 24, 2016, 10:15:32 AM »
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.

Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.


If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.

If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court.  Sorry, you lose, loser.
Lol

You can't support your claim, like always.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #68 on: May 24, 2016, 10:19:38 AM »
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.

Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.


If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.

If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court.  Sorry, you lose, loser.
Lol

You can't support your claim, like always.

Forgive sokarul.  He and his gay soccer buddies are busy playing grabass while running around the soccer field.  He will be back soon with coherent statements.  Be patient.

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #69 on: May 24, 2016, 10:24:21 AM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #70 on: May 24, 2016, 10:27:41 AM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies? 

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1355
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #71 on: May 24, 2016, 10:28:32 AM »
Quote
Burden of proof fallacy much?  lol
Ducked again!
Burden of proof fallacy; your claiming the onus is on me to disprove your claim. Well in short, general relativity directly relates to Gravity and its effects in space time. The flat earth model without an infinite plane (also without celestial bodies), is in conflict to this as gravity will pull everything to its centre, leaving you with a ball.

I have a feeling that You just don't know how general relativity supports a flat earth. Your refusal to even attempt to answer makes it clear you cant. You made a claim on faith alone then, which is fine.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #72 on: May 24, 2016, 10:40:05 AM »
Ducked again!

You are just dodging and weaving, are you not? 

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #73 on: May 24, 2016, 10:45:51 AM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #74 on: May 24, 2016, 10:48:16 AM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.

Why do you think I am looking forward to continuing with you?  Is it because you have an inflated idea about your worth?  Are you always on your high horse looking down? 

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2016, 10:52:51 AM »
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2016, 10:55:01 AM »
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.

I think that the OP claims that GR disproves FET.  Why is the burden of proof on me to defend it?  Is this how you people always debate?

*

sokarul

  • 16042
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2016, 11:57:17 AM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.

Why do you think I am looking forward to continuing with you?  Is it because you have an inflated idea about your worth?  Are you always on your high horse looking down?
A pile of dog shit has more reading comprehension than you do.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2016, 12:03:07 PM »
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.

I think that the OP claims that GR disproves FET.  Why is the burden of proof on me to defend it?  Is this how you people always debate?

Yes, I have read that claim and the substantiation that followed. I am specifically asking YOU to provide substantiation for YOUR claim, not because you are required but because I (or anyone) won't believe you otherwise.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #79 on: May 24, 2016, 12:55:22 PM »
Simple contradiction between the standard FET and GR, if the earth was a finite plane then the gravity (or space time curvature or whatever you want to call the effect GR describes that causes masses to become closer) caused by the mass of the plane would cause the plane to collapse into a sphere.
You could say that some other force/effect is countering gravity (or space time curvature or...) but then you have two unnecessary additions to your theory that can be both removed, so by occam's razor the theory is better without them.
Basically GR is only consistent with FET if you add extra effects to cancel out the gravity caused by GR.

Also if you are just going to say that the earth is too strong to be warped into a sphere, you would still have a gravitational effect (or space time curvature or...) draging everything north, so a mass on a string won't go straight down but would point slightly north.

So what is the point of including GR in the FET, and can you name a piece of evidence for GR instead of Newtonian mechanics,  that isn't faked by NASA.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 12:59:34 PM by Empirical »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #80 on: May 24, 2016, 01:00:44 PM »
GR does not have much to say about the shape of the Earth except for that it along with conservation laws, would favor a spherical shape and not a disc-like shape.  However, the observation of a RE is something that applications of GR, like GPS satellites has hinged on.

GR does not prove the Earth round, but its application has encountered the observation of a RE.  GR most definitely does not support a FE, that is just Jroa trolling, or "kidding around" as the admins like to put it.

Personally, I think Jroa is a terrorist against truth and reason, in the the Davisian interpretation of the word.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #81 on: May 24, 2016, 01:35:11 PM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?

Isn't this classed as "low content" in the "upper fora"

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 15718
  • Or should I?
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #82 on: May 24, 2016, 08:58:36 PM »
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?

Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?

Isn't this classed as "low content" in the "upper fora"

Agreed. Nice work derailing the thread, not presenting any evidence and not refuting any of our claims jroa.

At least Sandokan says GR is false to support a FE model.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #83 on: May 24, 2016, 11:23:31 PM »
For those who really want to understand the myth behind relativity theory, a classic work: The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers

https://books.google.ro/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=einstein+myth+ives+papers&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK4riKzfTMAhUBVhQKHXAiA-YQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20myth%20ives%20papers&f=false


Herbert Ives (Bell labs):

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesGenesis.pdf


And, in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."


The best paper on the mistakes committed by Einstein, the MM experiment, the Miller experiment, the Sagnac experiment, Nernst experiment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eTFecrvwvc8J:lowenergytransmutations.org/documents/The_Real_Einstein_Monti_Cesarano.doc+&cd=9&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro

« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 11:31:34 PM by sandokhan »

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1355
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #84 on: May 24, 2016, 11:51:19 PM »
And yet GR is still proven today with real life experiments on a daily basis. In fact almost everyone here had used equipment that relies on the understanding of General Relativity.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 15718
  • Or should I?
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #85 on: May 25, 2016, 12:46:11 AM »
For those who really want to understand the myth behind relativity theory, a classic work: The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers

https://books.google.ro/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=einstein+myth+ives+papers&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK4riKzfTMAhUBVhQKHXAiA-YQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20myth%20ives%20papers&f=false


Herbert Ives (Bell labs):

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesGenesis.pdf


And, in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.

What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.

Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."


The best paper on the mistakes committed by Einstein, the MM experiment, the Miller experiment, the Sagnac experiment, Nernst experiment:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eTFecrvwvc8J:lowenergytransmutations.org/documents/The_Real_Einstein_Monti_Cesarano.doc+&cd=9&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro

Just for the record, I repect the way you put forward your opinions and ideas.

Looking into the links and citations now, thanks.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2016, 02:14:36 AM »
And yet GR is still proven today with real life experiments on a daily basis.

To this very date, almost one hundred years later, there isn't a single experiment which can prove the existence of general relativity.

ALL the experiments performed during the last 90 years ASSUMED, from the very start, a constant speed of light.

The most famous of these, the Pound-Rebka experiment, failed miserably to prove anything relating to general relativity.

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

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


Let us get back to the Martin Ruderfer experiment of 1960-1961.

It proved for the first time, conclusively, the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.

But the GPS satellites, orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the Earth would be orbiting the Sun (heliocentrical hypothesis), CONSTITUTES A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EFFECT.

That is, the results of the Ruderfer experiment also apply to this case.


But the ORBITAL MOTION SAGNAC EFFECT IS NOT RECORDED BY GPS SATELLITES.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus,
ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.


First, the gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.

Second, as Charles Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether
drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/EtherDrift.pdf


BY ASSUMING THAT STR IS CORRECT, MODERN ASTROPHYSICS MUST ALSO ASSUME THAT THE ORBITAL VELOCITY OF THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN, IN AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT, MUST BE A CONSTANT.

However, upon further reflection, it became
apparent that one significant complication with respect to
the two frames was not dealt with. Specifically, GPS was
compared in the two frames assuming that the earth’s
orbital velocity was constant.

What is the significance of this interim conclusion? We
have shown that, assuming the speed of light is isotropic
in the sun’s frame, the velocity of clocks on the spinning
earth will cause them to be biased by just the amount
needed to make it appear as if the speed of light is
actually isotropic on the earth.

However, the true believer in
SRT can argue that this is simply a coincidence and that it
is still the magic of SRT which automatically causes the
speed of light to be isotropic on the earth. There is no way
to refute his argument in this simplified case where we
have assumed that the direction of the orbital velocity
vector is constant. But, when the change in the orbital
velocity direction is allowed, we get an astonishing result.

By contrast, if SRT/GRT is
correct, we would expect that the clocks on earth and in
the GPS system would require an adjustment for the
effect of the sun’s differential gravitational potential.
Since clocks on earth and in the GPS system function
properly by ignoring the effect of the sun’s gravitational
potential, we must conclude that SRT/GRT is wrong.

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf


The missing orbital sagnac is consistent with the earth at absolute rest, with a rotating ether field above it (rotational sagnac effect).

"In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame."


The orbital Sagnac effect is totally missing from GPS.

But, in the heliocentrical theory, the orbital Sagnac effect would be cancelled by the spinning Mossbauer effect, proven by Martin Ruderfer; such a cancellation would mean the existence of an ether field.

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2016, 02:17:34 AM »
sandokhan, just curious, is there anything in "mainstream science" that you actually believe is legit? Kepler, Newton, Einsten etc. all seem to be wrong.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4410
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2016, 02:35:26 AM »
Mainstream science = the original ether equations of J.C. Maxwell

Mainstream science = the discoveries of N. Tesla

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521


Kepler, Newton, Einstein = fudged data, fake experiments


To understand what mainstream science really is, we have to go back to the Hertz experiment of 1887.


"It was the discovery of this type of wave [transverse electromagnetic wave] that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm


A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.

Tesla injected signals/energy directly into such a scalar wave (longitudinal wave), which would travel through the normal radio wave (transversal wave) without causing any ripples in the sea of ether.

Modern wireless technology uses only hertzian waves, causing ripples in the sea of ether.

True wireless technology means to use only scalar waves, non-hertzian waves, to send signals.


Tesla did not extract energy from the Schumann cavity: he created it right at the start in the form of ball lightning spheres, this was his secret.





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


During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by the Herman von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable."

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

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'

'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly expressed his confidence in its success."
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 02:39:15 AM by sandokhan »

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1355
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #89 on: May 25, 2016, 02:46:44 AM »
I love how the conspiracies greatest reasoning is "Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."

Essentially, "we have already printed the text books, we cant change it now!"

If there was any truth to this, and there was any commercial application, people would discover it and apply it. There have been many people since Tesla, just as smart as Tesla, playing with electricity every day.