Origin of magnetic field in the flat earth model

The origin of the Black Sun/Shadow Moon, the relationship between terrestrial gravity and shadowing, why these heavenly bodies are observed only during the solar/lunar eclipses, are subjects which have already been addressed by me numerous times, search/look for them in my messages.

You are the one deflecting/dodging the very issue raised by you.

The Allais effect is real, make no mistake about it.

Here is the report sent by Dr. Allais, a Nobel prize winner, to Nasa:

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

Unless you can explain the Allais effect, nobody here will pay attention to anything you say on the solar eclipse, it is that simple.

It is an interesting effect but is by no means the be all and end all of eclipses. If you claim to have proven it, I suggest you go publish and claim your Nobel Prize.

I can't explain it, but I don't pretend to have invented new astronomical objects to fill holes in a theory that is inconsistent at best - the Allais effect is not observed at every eclipse and at every point on the earth. Regardless, the geometry employed is not consistent with every observation either.

What's more, the two new objects, if they do exert a measurable force, should be measurable at all timen, should they not? Or are they only given force by their alignments with the previous objects?

Your previous posts asmre all well and good, but once again, if you believe enough to fight for it, you will take the time to reiterate.
And try to be succinct. Your jargon is very flashy but it obfuscated your point.
Even if you oversimplify, it opens up room for debate. That is, after all, why you are here.

The origin of the Black Sun/Shadow Moon, the relationship between terrestrial gravity and shadowing, why these heavenly bodies are observed only during the solar/lunar eclipses, are subjects which have already been addressed by me numerous times, search/look for them in my messages.

You are the one deflecting/dodging the very issue raised by you.

The Allais effect is real, make no mistake about it.

Here is the report sent by Dr. Allais, a Nobel prize winner, to Nasa:

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

Unless you can explain the Allais effect, nobody here will pay attention to anything you say on the solar eclipse, it is that simple.

there are also experiments done that could not detect this effect.

and BTW. yes Dr Allis has a Nobel Price, but not in Physics, he has a Nobel Price in Economics. That means his Nobel Price has nothing to do with this topic.

It is now time for you to offer some basic explanations.

Can you explain how attractive gravity works?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

How does a graviton emitted from the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by a water molecule from lake Ontario (as an example)?

Remember, you cannot use TGR to invoke spacetime or anything else like that, your arguments would be debunked in less than 30 seconds.

It is now time for you to offer some basic explanations.

Can you explain how attractive gravity works?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

How does a graviton emitted from the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by a water molecule from lake Ontario (as an example)?

Remember, you cannot use TGR to invoke spacetime or anything else like that, your arguments would be debunked in less than 30 seconds.

Ok, so back to that post up there where I asked you to do this.

You first.

there are also experiments done that could not detect this effect.

and BTW. yes Dr Allis has a Nobel Price, but not in Physics, he has a Nobel Price in Economics. That means his Nobel Price has nothing to do with this topic.


Dr. Maurice Allais received his PhD in Engineering-Physics. After the discovery of the effect that bears his name, he was practically shut out from any grants/further research/conferences. So he turned to economics, receiving a Nobel prize in the process.

There are very strict requirements in order to record the Allais effect: each time they have been fulfilled the effect has been noted/registered. You already have a very substantial bibiography at your disposal featuring the Allais effect having been observed in 1970, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011 (during the solar eclipses).

Since this has devolved into childish back and forth, let's reboot the discussion.

Can anyone who understand what sandokhan is saying explain it?

there are also experiments done that could not detect this effect.

and BTW. yes Dr Allis has a Nobel Price, but not in Physics, he has a Nobel Price in Economics. That means his Nobel Price has nothing to do with this topic.


Dr. Maurice Allais received his PhD in Engineering-Physics. After the discovery of the effect that bears his name, he was practically shut out from any grants/further research/conferences. So he turned to economics, receiving a Nobel prize in the process.

There are very strict requirements in order to record the Allais effect: each time they have been fulfilled the effect has been noted/registered. You already have a very substantial bibiography at your disposal featuring the Allais effect having been observed in 1970, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011 (during the solar eclipses).

He didn't go back to physics because he couldn't defend his theoreis. They fell apart under scientific rigour.

Kind of like you.

It is now time for you to offer some basic explanations.

Can you explain how attractive gravity works?

How do two gravitons attract each other?

How does a graviton emitted from the iron/nickel core interact with a graviton released by a water molecule from lake Ontario (as an example)?

Remember, you cannot use TGR to invoke spacetime or anything else like that, your arguments would be debunked in less than 30 seconds.

as you always do, ask question that are answered a lot of times but you simple ignore them because they do not fit to your Idea.

and why should i explain it to you.
i only showed that you misused informations to support your idea.
-you did not say anything about experiments that did not confirm the Allis effect.
-you said he was a Nobel Price winner without mentioning that he did not get the award in a related subject.

In case you didn't know, Dr. Maurice Allais is one of the giants of 20th century physics.

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.


1959 > Laureate of the “Gravity Research Foundation”, USA, for his 1959 paper New theoretical and experimental research work on gravity

1959 > Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society for his research into gravity and the motion of the paraconic pendulum

If you refute the "some dude said stuff and he's obviously right" in anyone else's argument, then you can't use it to support yours.

This is a personal letter discussing a theory, not empirical evidence tried and tested in a scientific arena.
It's like, just as an exaple, using a forum post to support an argument with little scientific evidence. Sound familiar?

Try and work like your flat earth model works - top to bottom. The burden if proof is on you, since your florid and obfuscating explanations don't seem to be doing your theory justice.
We don't understand. Explain yourself.

Dr. Maurice Allais received his PhD in Engineering-Physics. After the discovery of the effect that bears his name, he was practically shut out from any grants/further research/conferences. So he turned to economics, receiving a Nobel prize in the process.

if you call him Dr you have to use the extension h.c.

WHAT? M/M experiment attempted to register the movement of earth through the aether, no movement was detected. The existence of the aether was proven to exist by several different experiments years later.

And how did these experiments "prove" it?
By measuring motion through it.

That is the big issue, you have some experiments indicating no motion through the aether and other experiments indicating motion through the aether.
That is impossible.
What these experiments collectively show is that there is no aether.

It was Einstein that disproved the existence of aether by totally ignoring its existence when he stole other ideas to compile his brilliant master piece of total BS mathematical Jedi mind-ffff!

You mean by ignoring it and showing that it wasn't needed and that unlike the ballistic theory of light and the aether model, his model actually explained all the experiments which "proved" and "disproved" aether?

Several scientists disagreed with Einstein's THEORY, they were ignored, or totally destroyed financially, or in other diabolical ways.

Yes, they disagreed with it. So what? They couldn't find anything wrong with it.

JackBlack's modus operandi is to attack the person instead of the argument.  He is a sad bitter old man, but it makes him feel better to belittle people who have differing opinions from his own.

No. I have repeatedly destroyed people's arguments, and their response is often just dismissal, ignoring it, repeating the same refuted crap or insults.

I see you only seem to like going off at REers, rather than all the FEers that repeatedly insult people.

If you want anyone to believe that the Moon causes the solar eclipse, then you are going to have to explain the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354

Not until you can show it is real.

One of the papers you linked indicates it isn't real and there was just a large error in the experiment.

Here is the report sent by Dr. Allais, a Nobel prize winner, to Nasa:

You say that like it should mean something.
What was his Nobel prize in?

Economics. Not any scientific field. Nothing to do with gravity or rotation or pendulums or the Allais effect.

Unless you can explain the Allais effect, nobody here will pay attention to anything you say on the solar eclipse, it is that simple.

Unless you can demonstrate it is real, I have no reason to explain it.

We can track the moon, we know where it is. We predict eclipses on the basis of the position of the moon.
Unless you have something that actually refutes that (and no, the Allais effect doesn't), you have no justification for thinking any differently.

jackblack, you really need to take care of yourself. A sure sign of cognitive dissonance is your desperate attempt to mislead your readers, and of course your own self.

For here is what you wrote.

One of the papers you linked indicates it isn't real and there was just a large error in the experiment.

I told you that you are scientifically illiterate.

REFERENCE #1

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)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

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

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

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

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

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


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


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70052.msg1892354#msg1892354

Published in the Physical Review Journal

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).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.


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.

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


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

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

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



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

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

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

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



Can you read English jackblack? Are you scientifically literate?

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.


Moreover, Dr. Maurice Allais has discovered an even more remarkable phenomenon: THE PERIODICITY OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT, as evidenced in the report sent to Nasa.

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

PART B, SECTION IV, PAGE 35

So back to the debate.
Anyone else care to weigh in? With something that doesn't require a degree in sandokhanology, preferably.

jackblack, you really need to take care of yourself. A sure sign of cognitive dissonance is your desperate attempt to mislead your readers, and of course your own self.

For here is what you wrote.

One of the papers you linked indicates it isn't real and there was just a large error in the experiment.

I told you that you are scientifically illiterate.

How about you cut out the insults and instead try to provide something rational to back up the mountains of bullshit you are spouting?

So far all you have are baseless claims.

I am very scientifically literate.
I know the title, and even the abstract can be misleading and not actually based off the data obtained.

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

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

And have you actually looked at their data?
If not, you should.
It shows that it simply suffers from large errors, and it isn't an effect like the Allais, effect.
If it was the Allais effect, it would effect the pendulums equally, but it doesn't.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. How about instead of repeatedly trying to derail thread with mountains of crap you instead deal with the topic at hand?

I will skip over the rest of your copied and pasted, irrelevant crap.