earths gravity pulling the moon around

  • 75 Replies
  • 9970 Views
*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #30 on: August 30, 2016, 10:01:13 PM »
If you tie heavy rock on rope, and rotate it around you,
the rope will be pulled from both sides with same force.
Rock pulls with centrifugal force, you counter with centripetal force.
The forces are equal.

(Pseudo, or not, forces are there. That is why the rope is tensed.)

While you rotate rock in big circle around you,
your shoulders will make small circle to counter the rock's pull.

These hammer throwers get pulled by hammer, but they are too heavy to move where it pulls them.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hammer Throwing.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #31 on: August 30, 2016, 10:06:24 PM »
Some trolls just feign ignorance forever. (example, Yendor, possibly Antithecyst)
can i just ask you this how do you know everything you say is right and have you ever thought maybe im wrong about a few things,iv got loads of things to talk about and why i think the earth is flat and thats from just what i see with my own eyes
I have learned calculus, and so I know how to derive (most) of the equations you find on a formula chart. The rest I can do experimentation to find that they always model what happens, so I have no reason to doubt them.
yes your a brainy person alot brainier than me thats for sure but how do you know these charts are right,theres so much deception its crazy,this is why i came on this site is to talk to people like you and to find things out and i thank you for all your replys,theres alot of people on here who just like to put others down for trying to have a say
I know they are right because I can derive them myself. For example:

Displacement and time are fundamental units.

Velocity is defined as a change in distance over a change in time. v=dx/dt.

Acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over time. a=dv/dt or, ddx/ddt. Therefore, vf=v0 +a*t.

That is one of the formulas on the chart.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

-leigh-

  • 110
  • flat earter believer
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #32 on: August 30, 2016, 10:10:37 PM »
Some trolls just feign ignorance forever. (example, Yendor, possibly Antithecyst)
can i just ask you this how do you know everything you say is right and have you ever thought maybe im wrong about a few things,iv got loads of things to talk about and why i think the earth is flat and thats from just what i see with my own eyes
I have learned calculus, and so I know how to derive (most) of the equations you find on a formula chart. The rest I can do experimentation to find that they always model what happens, so I have no reason to doubt them.
last post just varnished,i was saying your a very brainy person alot brainier than me thats for sure and this is why i joined this site to speak to people like you who take there time to answer peoples questions so i thank you for that ok,theres alot of people on here who just like to put people down and take the piss
run by the 33rd scottish rite freemasons

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2016, 10:12:43 PM »
That post is still there. It just moved to page 2.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

-leigh-

  • 110
  • flat earter believer
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2016, 10:22:20 PM »
That post is still there. It just moved to page 2.
i see
run by the 33rd scottish rite freemasons

*

-leigh-

  • 110
  • flat earter believer
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2016, 10:29:44 PM »
That post is still there. It just moved to page 2.
right im off to work now,got a bit carried away on here have been up all night and iv really enjoyed,hope to catch you on here again oneday so i can throw a few more things at you,takecare
run by the 33rd scottish rite freemasons

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2016, 10:30:57 PM »
That post is still there. It just moved to page 2.
right im off to work now,got a bit carried away on here have been up all night and iv really enjoyed,hope to catch you on here again oneday so i can throw a few more things at you,takecare
ha. I've been up all night too, watching The Martian (semi-illigally on my computer) and checking here while it buffers.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2016, 10:34:55 PM »
Ask any scientist to explain HOW the Earth can attract the Moon: he/she won't be able to convey anything of value to you.

At this point in time no one knows how this attractive gravity works: how do two gravitons attract each other?

Obviously, the supposed mechanism must include some kind of a vortex, but then we arrive at another problem: we must have TWO kinds of gravitons, one with a receptive vortex, and one with an emissive vortex.

How do the Sun and all the other planets supply A CONSTANT flux of gravitons? Where do they come from?

How does an iron/nickel core emit gravitons? Which part of the atom then emits gravitons?

How is it possible that this massive field of gravitons is not interfering with the magnetic fields of the Sun and of the other planets?

Additionally, no one knows what a magnetron looks like or how it behaves.

Is it possible that a magnetron = a graviton?




Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2016, 10:37:47 PM »
Ask any scientist to explain HOW the Earth can attract the Moon: he/she won't be able to convey anything of value to you.

At this point in time no one knows how this attractive gravity works: how do two gravitons attract each other?

Obviously, the supposed mechanism must include some kind of a vortex, but then we arrive at another problem: we must have TWO kinds of gravitons, one with a receptive vortex, and one with an emissive vortex.

How do the Sun and all the other planets supply A CONSTANT flux of gravitons? Where do they come from?

How does an iron/nickel core emit gravitons? Which part of the atom then emits gravitons?

How is it possible that this massive field of gravitons is not interfering with the magnetic fields of the Sun and of the other planets?

Additionally, no one knows what a magnetron looks like or how it behaves.

Is it possible that a magnetron = a graviton?
Gravitation have not ever been observed, only hypothesized. As of now, we don't know how gravity works, but we do know exactly what it does. That is all you need to know to understand orbits. You don't need to understand the subatomic particles involved.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2016, 10:47:58 PM »
As of now, we don't know how gravity works, but we do know exactly what it does.

Then gravity might have a DIFFERENT cause, and not be attractive at all.

Newton certainly thought that gravity is a force of pressure.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?


Nobody can advocate the ether pressure theory like Newton can.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'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... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


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 Correspondence of Isaac Newton, II (Cambridge, 1960)
288-295, 295 (sent 28 Feb. 1679)

‘De gravitatione et aequipondio fluidorum (Newtonian text) in Hall & Hall (note 10), 121-156, 148-9.

Westfall, note 10, 91.
R.Westfall, Never at Rest (Cambridge, 1980)

T.Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4 vols (London 1756-7; reprinted Brussels 1968), 3, 1756, 248-60.


Let us now read Newton's infamous denial of the law of universal gravitation again:

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

Newton fully believed in the ether pressure gravity theory, and thrashed in no uncertain terms the supposed law of attractive 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'.

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

Newton: in which descent it may bear down with it the bodies it pervades with a force proportional to the superficies of all their parts it acts upon...

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces.'

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.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2016, 10:53:20 PM »
Or, you know, it might follow this formula:



Or a simplified formula when things aren't moving too fast:



We know exactly how it behaves, sure we want to know how it works, but that is not a necessity.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2016, 11:08:10 PM »
Ask any scientist to explain HOW the Earth can attract the Moon: he/she won't be able to convey anything of value to you.

At this point in time no one knows how this attractive gravity works: how do two gravitons attract each other?

Obviously, ...

Obviously things aren't so obvious.

Electrostatic force is also not explained.
Nobody knows how it works, and it still works.

Magnetic force is also not explained.
Nobody knows how it works, and it still works.

But all three forces are confirmed in reality.

Gravitational force is weakest of the three and
it is hard to measure gravitational constant G with
accuracy satisfactory for space flights,
but it still works somehow.

And it is proven that aether is not needed for them.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #42 on: August 30, 2016, 11:18:56 PM »
But we do know exactly how magnetism and electricity works:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

And certainly Newton knew exactly how terrestrial gravity works: ether pressure.


Let us now apply this mass of knowledge to the Allais effect, to see just how MISERABLY the above mentioned "formulas" fail.

"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

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:  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)



CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


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.

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!”


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 - above) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!


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.



"Allais noted that the normal, progressive "Foucault motion" of his laboratory's uniquely-designed "paraconical pendulum," during the eclipse, suddenly reversed ... and literally "ran backwards" ... until mid-eclipse, when the pendulum motion reversed again ... rapidly resuming its normal rate and direction of angular rotation (below) ....


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.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2016, 06:30:11 AM »
it really is true that sandokhan writes bigger walls of text when he's backed against a wall. None of that had any bit of relevance to what we are discussing. And someones faulty experiment is not going to change anything.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Definitely Not Swedish

  • rutabaga
  • 8309
  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crime
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2016, 07:20:51 AM »
it really is true that sandokhan writes bigger walls of text when he's backed against a wall. None of that had any bit of relevance to what we are discussing. And someones faulty experiment is not going to change anything.

I couldn't agree more.
He clinges to every straw. Unfortunately they all tend to break.
Quote from: croutons, the s.o.w.
You have received a warning for breaking the laws of mathematics.

Member of the BOTD
Sign up here.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2016, 07:03:19 PM »
ok then the earths gravity is so strong it holds the moon up and pulls it around us,thats right yeah,so if the moons gravity is pulling on us with the same force as newton said why does it only move our seas it would be doing alot more to earth than just moving our seas because with the same force our earth is keeping the moon where it is and dragging it around,so theres no way its equal gravity
Do you understand how orbiting works?
iv no need to fella its all nonsence and not even worth my time
I think I found the problem.  You don't understand it, but claim it doesn't work.


does that make it any clearer or should i just give up
Capitalization and punctuation would help.
no not fussed at all with big words and all that im just trying to make my point but its me against loads of globers
I was talking about commas and periods.  Run-on sentences aren't very clear.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2016, 11:13:12 PM »
I think I found the problem.  You don't understand it, but claim it doesn't work.
But this is one of top FE arguments. "I don't understand something, therefore it must be false/wrong/impossible/prove flatness" etc. The OP clearly doesn't really understand the process, nor I can tell he read sufficient information about it.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2016, 03:59:38 AM »
But we do know exactly how magnetism and electricity works:

...

That's what I said.
We DO know HOW.
We do not know WHY.

We know HOW all three of them work.

And your "Aether Pressure" is almost no different from "Denpressure",
except in fact that using fluids as cause of things to fall is disproven easily.

WHAT is Electricity?
WHAT gives charge to electrons and protons to make us see "electricity"?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2016, 04:33:42 AM »
if the earths gravity is pulling the moon around and around us how can the moon have any pull on us like moving the seas,surely thats reverse gravity and if gravity is true there couldnt be no such thing because 2 gravitys would be fighting eachother and the moon is much smaller than earth,im new to this but it dont take a scientist to work this out its common sence
because of newton's third law. The earth pulls on the moon with 1.985E20Newtons of force, and the moon pulls on the earth with 1.985E20 Newtons

There is one amount of force between the earth and moon but it cannot be true a small object influences the larger object by the same amount.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2016, 04:37:56 AM »
If you tie heavy rock on rope, and rotate it around you,
the rope will be pulled from both sides with same force.
Rock pulls with centrifugal force, you counter with centripetal force.
The forces are equal.

(Pseudo, or not, forces are there. That is why the rope is tensed.)

While you rotate rock in big circle around you,
your shoulders will make small circle to counter the rock's pull.

These hammer throwers get pulled by hammer, but they are too heavy to move where it pulls them.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hammer Throwing.

I think the hammer thrower will be moving in response to the motion of the hammer and both the hammer and the thrower will be orbiting their centre of mass?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2016, 04:56:51 AM »
Electricity = Magnetism

The charge of a subquark is given by the shape of its vortex: emissive (+), receptive (-).

Magnetricity = flow of bosons through subquark strings

Subquark = Magnetic Monopole

In a conductor, the subquarks/magnetic monopoles will align to let the bosons pass through them: this is commonly called electricity.

In a magnetic field, the same magnetic monopoles will align to let the bosons pass through them: this is commonly called magnetism.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

In any magnet, there will be a double flow/flux of magnetic monopoles: South to North, but also North to South.


Subquark ether quantum physics:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


Tesla used ONLY non-hertzian waves (scalar waves).


Tesla's thoughts on non-hertzian waves:

http://www.teslaenergy.org/intro4.html


"It was the discovery of this type of 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 the presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shock waves 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."


Hertz did not discover any kind of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances.

Tesla realized immediately that Hertz erroneously identified shock waves through the air as true e/m waves.


Now, the precise theory of scalar waves vs. normal e/m waves.


"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper Whittaker theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum."

"This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."


http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker1.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker2.html


J.C. Maxwell original set of ether e/m equations:

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


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.


It is not my ether pressure theory: it is Newton's ether pressure theory, beautifully described earlier in this very thread.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux's classic experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, proves effectively that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #51 on: September 01, 2016, 05:20:32 AM »
Electricity = Magnetism

The charge of a subquark is given by the shape of its vortex: emissive (+), receptive (-).

Magnetricity = flow of bosons through subquark strings

Subquark = Magnetic Monopole

In a conductor, the subquarks/magnetic monopoles will align to let the bosons pass through them: this is commonly called electricity.

In a magnetic field, the same magnetic monopoles will align to let the bosons pass through them: this is commonly called magnetism.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332

In any magnet, there will be a double flow/flux of magnetic monopoles: South to North, but also North to South.


Subquark ether quantum physics:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101


Tesla used ONLY non-hertzian waves (scalar waves).


Tesla's thoughts on non-hertzian waves:

http://www.teslaenergy.org/intro4.html


"It was the discovery of this type of 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 the presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shock waves 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."


Hertz did not discover any kind of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances.

Tesla realized immediately that Hertz erroneously identified shock waves through the air as true e/m waves.


Now, the precise theory of scalar waves vs. normal e/m waves.


"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper Whittaker theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum."

"This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."


http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker1.html

http://www.enterprisemission.com/whittaker2.html


J.C. Maxwell original set of ether e/m equations:

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


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.


It is not my ether pressure theory: it is Newton's ether pressure theory, beautifully described earlier in this very thread.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux's classic experiment, performed at Yale, in full vacuum, proves effectively that terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.

What are you describing is mostly mathematics, not real thing.

For now we know that "Magnetic fields are generated by rotating electric charges"
(from http://www.livescience.com/38059-magnetism.html)

Those charges are electricity on subatomic particles within materials.
In ferromagnetic materials the dipoles are organized and add up to make magnetoc field of an object.

You are skipping the fact that I pointed out in my previous post:
WHAT is the real nature of that (or "any") electricity?

Looks like you are trying to arrange "big scientific words and phrases" into your own version of "poetry".
Not many interdependable and compatible facts and not much consistency in all that.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2016, 06:38:23 AM »
You have been given the exact and correct explanation.

That paper describes the very facts brought forth in my previous message.


An electrical charge is a flow of bosons through subquark strings.

This charge will attract the free flowing telluric currents (again, subquark strings): the creation of a magnetic field.


Conversely, let us suppose that you have a magnetic field and you place a conductor in this same field. The flow of magnetic monopoles (subquarks) within that magnetic field will induce a similar flow in the subquarks of the conductor: what we call electricity.


Clear enough?


I have already described the real nature of electricity: boson flow/flux, charges are given the shape of the subquark, laevorotatory (emissive +) or dextrorotatory (receptive -).


I always bring proofs for my statements: this is what sets apart my messages from any other.


Read them again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759332#msg759332


Subquark ether quantum physics:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1401101#msg1401101

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2016, 06:49:40 AM »

I always bring proofs for my statements: this is what sets apart my messages from any other.

False.  You claimed GPS calculations proved the Earth did not rotate around the Sun, where either:

1.  you seem to believe we can measure speed of light differences by placing the speed of light measuring equipment in different relative positions on our Earth which is rotating around the Sun, or

2. You were unable to understand why a Sagnac calculation is required in GPS calculations because the Earth is rotating.

How about you make a retraction of your claim?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 06:52:38 AM by Aliveandkicking »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2016, 07:18:44 AM »
You must be on some kind of medication which is affecting your clear judgement.


Make sure you read this discussion again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1814207#msg1814207

The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded by GPS satellites is a basic fact of science: that is why your previous message is completely meaningless.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2016, 07:28:59 AM »
You must be on some kind of medication which is affecting your clear judgement.


Make sure you read this discussion again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67788.msg1814207#msg1814207

The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded by GPS satellites is a basic fact of science: that is why your previous message is completely meaningless.

You do not understand why Sagnac calculations are being used in GPS because the Earth rotates.    It is used because the frame of reference being used for part of the calculations is for a stationary Earth because it simplifies speed of light calculations, while also in an interative process the far more complex frame of reference involving the spiral path of light is also being used in the calculations.    The sagnac calculation refers to the adjustment that has to be made because the Earth is rotating and the assumption made in part of the calculations is that it is not rotating.

Comprendo?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2016, 08:34:09 AM »
What you have described is the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect: a well known fact of science.

However, the rotational Sagnac effect also means a different thing if the ether theory is correct: it is the rotation of the ether field above the Earth which does cause this effect, and not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

But we also have the ORBITAL Sagnac effect: and this one IS NOT being recorded by GPS satellites.


Certainly we have been through this before.


TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS: the GPS satellites must incorporate both the rotational Sagnac effect AND the orbital Sagnac effect.

The second effect, the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded.


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.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

Do you comprehend these basic facts?

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.


The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect is not recorded by GPS satellites is a basic assertion of modern physics.


Now, you are not an expert in the field, which means you have no knowledge of the Martin Ruderfer experiment of 1961.

In one of the most intriguing experiments of the 20th century, Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory (1961).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179 (also includes the references on the Ives experiment, a hexagonal closed path Sagnac effect)


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182


Do you understand what we are discussing here?

There is no way out for you.


The GPS satellite which supposedly orbits the Earth, while AT THE SAME TIME it is revolving around the Sun together with the Earth, CONSTITUTES A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EFFECT.


Then, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


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.



And things don't stop here.

In addition to the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, we have an even greater problem: the GPS clocks DO NOT RECORD the Sun's gravitational potential.

It is assumed that the orbital velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is a variable; however, the GPS clocks show that the this velocity MUST BE CONSTANT, as it does not record the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon these clocks.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780


Since GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, it means that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2016, 09:01:53 AM »
Wall of text is getting bigger guys.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2016, 11:23:33 AM »
What you have described is the ROTATIONAL Sagnac effect: a well known fact of science.

However, the rotational Sagnac effect also means a different thing if the ether theory is correct: it is the rotation of the ether field above the Earth which does cause this effect, and not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

But we also have the ORBITAL Sagnac effect: and this one IS NOT being recorded by GPS satellites.


Certainly we have been through this before.


TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS: the GPS satellites must incorporate both the rotational Sagnac effect AND the orbital Sagnac effect.

The second effect, the orbital Sagnac effect IS NOT recorded.


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.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

Do you comprehend these basic facts?

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.


The fact that the orbital Sagnac effect is not recorded by GPS satellites is a basic assertion of modern physics.


Now, you are not an expert in the field, which means you have no knowledge of the Martin Ruderfer experiment of 1961.

In one of the most intriguing experiments of the 20th century, Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory (1961).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179 (also includes the references on the Ives experiment, a hexagonal closed path Sagnac effect)


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182


Do you understand what we are discussing here?

There is no way out for you.


The GPS satellite which supposedly orbits the Earth, while AT THE SAME TIME it is revolving around the Sun together with the Earth, CONSTITUTES A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EFFECT.


Then, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


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.



And things don't stop here.

In addition to the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, we have an even greater problem: the GPS clocks DO NOT RECORD the Sun's gravitational potential.

It is assumed that the orbital velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is a variable; however, the GPS clocks show that the this velocity MUST BE CONSTANT, as it does not record the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon these clocks.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780


Since GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, it means that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

The paper you are quoting is explaining why when that particular frame of reference is used for the calculations there is no need to take account of Earths orbital motion.

The following paper goes into more detail but the nuts and bolts are described already in the abstract:

http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/relgrav/solciclos/ashby_d.pdf




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7037
Re: earths gravity pulling the moon around
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2016, 11:40:56 AM »
Your picking at the straws doesn't work with me.

Obviously, you haven't done your homework on this one at all.

Neil Ashby's ideas on the subject have been debunked thoroughly.

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


You have failed to address the Ruderfer experiment.

Now, you are not an expert in the field, which means you have no knowledge of the Martin Ruderfer experiment of 1961.

In one of the most intriguing experiments of the 20th century, Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory (1961).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179 (also includes the references on the Ives experiment, a hexagonal closed path Sagnac effect)


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182


Do you understand what we are discussing here?

There is no way out for you.


The GPS satellite which supposedly orbits the Earth, while AT THE SAME TIME it is revolving around the Sun together with the Earth, CONSTITUTES A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EFFECT.


Then, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.


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.



And things don't stop here.

In addition to the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, we have an even greater problem: the GPS clocks DO NOT RECORD the Sun's gravitational potential.

It is assumed that the orbital velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is a variable; however, the GPS clocks show that the this velocity MUST BE CONSTANT, as it does not record the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon these clocks.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780


Since GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, it means that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.


As for the paper quoted (the one I posted in my previous message) it is a remarkable demonstration of the need FOR A LOCAL ETHER THEORY, which would help explain the Sagnac effect. It was meant to show the effects of the orbital Sagnac effect, had that effect been recorded by the GPS satellites.

The paper fails to address the much more advanced concept of the Ruderfer experiment, a spinning Mossbauer effect.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 11:48:51 AM by sandokhan »