Books on Advanced FET?

  • 61 Replies
  • 7120 Views
Books on Advanced FET?
« on: April 05, 2017, 12:17:58 PM »
This AFET thread is really good:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.330

But it's hard to follow over the years; an index would be welcome. Has it been turned into a book or PDF at any point?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2017, 06:46:02 AM »
“Memorizing and regurgitating are not science. Real science is a constant investigation of the unknown.”

Going against well-established physics which is taught in schools

There is no such thing as well-established physics.

Kepler faked and fugded his entire set of data.

Einstein faked the entire set of data for the 1919 and 1922 eclipses, not to mention the fudging of the entire equation on the perihelion of Mercury.

Chadwick did not discover any kind of a particle called neutron.

Newton put forward a set of differential equations which led directly to the three body problem paradox.

The entire edifice of newtonian mechanics comes crashing down by simply investigating the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

The faint young sun paradox demolishes "established" heliophysics.


My AFET has become the single most viewed and popular thread ever on any flat earth forum.

It includes new results in mathematics: the new global formula for the natural logarithm, the deciphering of the distribution of the zeros of the zeta function, a new formula and also a possible algorithm for the factorization of large numbers.


I also made a prediction in 2013 about the exact number of hidden chambers to be discovered in the Gizeh pyramid; it was fulfilled some two years later:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1831408#msg1831408


As for your own messages, nobody here gives a flying frell about them, make no mistake about it.


*

Gumby

  • 828
  • I don't exist.
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2017, 02:04:11 PM »
“Memorizing and regurgitating are not science. Real science is a constant investigation of the unknown.”

Going against well-established physics which is taught in schools

There is no such thing as well-established physics.

Kepler faked and fugded his entire set of data.

Einstein faked the entire set of data for the 1919 and 1922 eclipses, not to mention the fudging of the entire equation on the perihelion of Mercury.

Chadwick did not discover any kind of a particle called neutron.

Newton put forward a set of differential equations which led directly to the three body problem paradox.

The entire edifice of newtonian mechanics comes crashing down by simply investigating the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

The faint young sun paradox demolishes "established" heliophysics.


My AFET has become the single most viewed and popular thread ever on any flat earth forum.

It includes new results in mathematics: the new global formula for the natural logarithm, the deciphering of the distribution of the zeros of the zeta function, a new formula and also a possible algorithm for the factorization of large numbers.


I also made a prediction in 2013 about the exact number of hidden chambers to be discovered in the Gizeh pyramid; it was fulfilled some two years later:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1831408#msg1831408


As for your own messages, nobody here gives a flying frell about them, make no mistake about it.

How old is the world?
How dumb can you be?
I think MH370 was hijacked and the persons who did the hijacking were indeed out to prove a flat earth.

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2017, 02:07:14 AM »
Can we have some proof of the scientific blunders, as for kepler, he fudged some results but the rules he came up with were proved true years later.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2017, 03:16:25 AM »
as for kepler, he fudged some results but the rules he came up with were proved true years later.

You still don't get it.

Kepler FAKED, FUDGED, INVENTED, FORGED the entire Nova Astronomia, from one end to the other.

No elliptical orbit was ever discovered.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

His catastrophic first "law" of planetary orbital motion leads directly to the biggest blunder in modern science: the three body problem paradox.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2017, 05:55:53 AM »
Ok when I say can you provide me proof, that requires more than linking more links to your society as that is hearsay. You have to use more than one source to be able to call it evidence, oh and it can't come from your own club as of course given beliefs the posts will be cherry picked.

I pointed this thing out ages ago when I showed that the FE wiki entry for the Bedford Level Experiment was taken from Wikipedia, but all the citations had been removed and the information that went against FE ideas (the refraction proof) was completely left out. That's cherrypicking and cannot be used as a reference.

That's like me saying all German officers were actually anti Hitler and then only include information about how Rommel disagreed with Nazi ideology and attempted to have Hitler killed. It doesn't prove anything
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2017, 03:31:40 PM »
“Memorizing and regurgitating are not science. Real science is a constant investigation of the unknown.”

Going against well-established physics which is taught in schools

There is no such thing as well-established physics.

Kepler faked and fugded his entire set of data.

Einstein faked the entire set of data for the 1919 and 1922 eclipses, not to mention the fudging of the entire equation on the perihelion of Mercury.

Chadwick did not discover any kind of a particle called neutron.

Newton put forward a set of differential equations which led directly to the three body problem paradox.

The entire edifice of newtonian mechanics comes crashing down by simply investigating the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

The faint young sun paradox demolishes "established" heliophysics.


My AFET has become the single most viewed and popular thread ever on any flat earth forum.

It includes new results in mathematics: the new global formula for the natural logarithm, the deciphering of the distribution of the zeros of the zeta function, a new formula and also a possible algorithm for the factorization of large numbers.


I also made a prediction in 2013 about the exact number of hidden chambers to be discovered in the Gizeh pyramid; it was fulfilled some two years later:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1831408#msg1831408


As for your own messages, nobody here gives a flying frell about them, make no mistake about it.

Let's be quite clear about all what you claim.
Every accusation you level at some of the greatest minds in the history of science is backed by nothing other than.......because YOU said so......and possibly a few other bamsticks who like yourself have no scientific credibility whatsoever. Referencing yourself and claiming your some super mathematician is nothing short of demonstrating just how mad as a brush you actually are.

If you ever get a paper published in Nature or are possibly nominated for a Nobel prize, or are given a chair at MIT, then we might start taking you seriously but until then you will be classed as that mad delusional crazy guy.

What we have to remember is we all live in a world that operates and works on The very principles you deride.


Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2017, 04:20:49 PM »
Chadwick did not discover any kind of a particle called neutron.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1935/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1935 was awarded to James Chadwick for the discovery of the neutron.

So, I don't see why you are claiming that he did not discover the neutron.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2017, 07:43:11 PM »
My AFET has become the single most viewed and popular thread ever on any flat earth forum.
Incorrect.  The Number Game has that honor with 468,740 views and 61,391 replies to date.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2017, 12:19:02 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.

How Chadwick fooled the entire scientific community, as he did not discover any particle called the neutron:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61446.msg1604716#msg1604716 (nuclear energy file)


lonegrager, you are unable to address the Sagnac effect, the Allais effect, the faint young sun paradox...

Greatest minds in the history of science? You mean this?

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.



How delusional or very ill informed you must be to rely on such bullshit as science...


Here is the Sagnac effect for you again.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS NOT BEING RECORDED BY SATELLITES OR ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The ether does exist since the Sagnac effect cannot be explained by relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886174#msg1886174


It doesn't take much to demonstrate that your messages amount to nothing at all.


As for my formulas, they do work. Perfectly.





Go ahead and visit your local university, and ask any mathematics professor to come up with a global explicit natural logarithm formula: they will tell you that it cannot be done; if Gauss, Jacobi and Ramanujan were not able to come up with it, no one else could.

But I could.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2017, 01:20:56 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.
And why isn't your Advanced Flat Earth Theory also in Complete Nonsense? Though Angry Ranting might be more fitting.

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2017, 01:39:48 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.

How Chadwick fooled the entire scientific community, as he did not discover any particle called the neutron:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61446.msg1604716#msg1604716 (nuclear energy file)


lonegrager, you are unable to address the Sagnac effect, the Allais effect, the faint young sun paradox...

Greatest minds in the history of science? You mean this?

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.



How delusional or very ill informed you must be to rely on such bullshit as science...


Here is the Sagnac effect for you again.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS NOT BEING RECORDED BY SATELLITES OR ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The ether does exist since the Sagnac effect cannot be explained by relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886174#msg1886174


It doesn't take much to demonstrate that your messages amount to nothing at all.


As for my formulas, they do work. Perfectly.





Go ahead and visit your local university, and ask any mathematics professor to come up with a global explicit natural logarithm formula: they will tell you that it cannot be done; if Gauss, Jacobi and Ramanujan were not able to come up with it, no one else could.

But I could.

I am sure that you will agree that there is a great deal of variability in the quality and believability of what people put forward as 'evidence' on this forum. For evidence to stand it must be backed and supported and verified by other sources especially when of a scientific nature. Having looked at all your sources that you use to validate your claims I can only say they fail at the first hurdle. Putting single links to sources of a dubious nature prove nothing. There is no point in keeping on repeating your claims about the sagnac effect when it has been shown that rather than being at odds with relativity, it actually supports it.

There have always been those lone voices crying foul in the wilderness that are at odds with the discoveries of main stream science, science that has been corroborated by both observation and experimentation, and overtime has been proven to consistently robust and therefore can be taken as true. These voices will normally latch on to some peripheral aspect and due to their misunderstanding of the subject will make false and inaccurate claims. Your claims all fall into this category and none have been proven to have any validity. It's pointless using FE sources to prove any of your points.
I could come back and post thousands of links that would counter all you unsubstantiated claims....but what would be the point.
Scouring the web for false information to support your claims is an exercise in futility. You have an ulterior motive.....to vainly prove the false claim that the earth is flat, when all wisdom says otherwise.

I make three challenges to you.

1) Get you claims against Einstein, Chadwick et al published in a recognised journal.
2) Get your mathematical discoveries published in a mathematical journal of which there are many. If you are indeed on to something real and original and not imagined I am sure many journals will be more than happy to publish.
3) Have your mathematical discovery verified by an independent mathematician and publish the verification here on this forum.


http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/ijm

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2017, 06:17:21 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.
Your claim didn't specify which section of the forum.  :P
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2017, 08:29:23 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.

Hmm.....
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

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

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6540
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2017, 10:14:54 AM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.

I am thinking of a suggesting a special section where all the sandokhan posts belong.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2017, 12:51:18 PM »
The Number Game is located in the CN section: entertainment, not FET.

I am thinking of a suggesting a special section where all the sandokhan posts belong.

I think I might have an idea for a name for this receptacle...perhaps it could be called a
bin

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2017, 01:44:01 PM »
Here is the Sagnac effect for you again.

THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS NOT BEING RECORDED BY SATELLITES OR ANY OTHER SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

The ether does exist since the Sagnac effect cannot be explained by relativity:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886058#msg1886058

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1886174#msg1886174
Like many times before, the orbital sagnac effect is insignificant. Why don't you prove that it is signficant, and show your work. And while you're at it, publish a peer reviewed paper on how we're missing it.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2017, 10:28:35 PM »
It is an established fact of science that the ORBITAL SAGNAC is much larger than the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC: and that IT IS NOT being registered by GPS satellites.

Or do I have to do your homework for you?


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

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.


Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3934v1.pdf

Please note the theoretical orbital sagnac shows up in these calculations, but is not picked up/registered/recorded by GPS satellites.



http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=39644&sid=380ab2ccf12f0e84dc604ec3feeed59e#p39644

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37771#p37771



THE SAGNAC EFFECT IS MUCH LARGER THAN STR.

The Sagnac effect is far larger than the effect forecast by relativity theory.

STR has no possible function in explaining the Sagnac effect.

The Sagnac effect is a non-relativistic effect.

COMPARISON OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY, starts on page 7, calculations/formulas on page 8

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly-TimeandtheSpeedofLight.pdf

page 8

Because many investigators claim that the
Sagnac effect is made explicable by using the
Theory of Special Relativity, a comparison of
that theory with the actual test results is given
below. It will be shown that the effects
calculated under these two theories are of very
different orders of magnitude, and that
therefore the Special Theory is of no value in
trying to explain the effect.


Thus the Sagnac effect is far larger than any
purely Relativistic effect. For example,
considering the data in the Pogany test (8 ),
where the rim of the disc was moving with a
velocity of 25 m/s, the ratio dtS/dtR is about
1.5 x 10^7. Any attempt to explain the Sagnac
as a Relativistic effect is thus useless, as it is
smaller by a factor of 10^7.


Referring back to equation (I), consider a disc
of radius one kilometre. In this case a fringe
shift of one fringe is achieved with a velocity
at the perimeter of the disc of 0.013m/s. This
is an extremely low velocity, being less than
lm per minute. In this case the Sagnac effect
would be 50 billion times larger than the
calculated effect under the Relativity Theory.


Post (1967) shows that the two (Sagnac and STR) are of very different orders of magnitude. He says that the dilation factor to be applied under SR is “indistinguishable with presently available equipment” and “is still one order smaller than the Doppler correction, which occurs when observing fringe shifts” in the Sagnac tests. He also points out that the Doppler effect “is v/c times smaller than the effect one wants to observe." Here Post states that the effect forecast by SR, for the time dilation aboard a moving object, is far smaller than the effect to be observed in a Sagnac test.



Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites, and at the same time the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon the clocks is missing also, the hypotheses of the Ruderfer experiment are fulfilled.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

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.

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2017, 03:06:59 AM »
It is an established fact of science that the ORBITAL SAGNAC is much larger than the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC: and that IT IS NOT being registered by GPS satellites.

I simply cannot fathom why such an eminent mathematician, physicist and cosmologist as yourself restricts you material to this poor little forum!

Surely you would receive a Nobel Prize for such advanced material.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2017, 03:42:56 AM »
Not only that but I have devised "free" energy equipments based on SOUND.

Practically all currently accepted free energy devices use basically some form of geometric arrangements of magnets (Floyd Sweet transistor, Bedini magnets, Testatika), not understanding that this is the most basic level of free energy science.

The most elegant form of free energy devices strives to achieve a ball lightning object (a 3 cm diameter ball lightning sphere will produce 1 MW power), just like in the tibetan acoustic levitation experiment.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2017, 04:47:42 AM »
Not only that but I have devised "free" energy equipments based on SOUND.

Practically all currently accepted free energy devices use basically some form of geometric arrangements of magnets (Floyd Sweet transistor, Bedini magnets, Testatika), not understanding that this is the most basic level of free energy science.

The most elegant form of free energy devices strives to achieve a ball lightning object (a 3 cm diameter ball lightning sphere will produce 1 MW power), just like in the tibetan acoustic levitation experiment.
You have done this and that and all these other things!

But show the world the devices actually working and in mass production and people will treat you with a bit of respect.

As it is, it's all airy fairy stuff on paper, where there are thousands of other free energy machines,
all languishing because they do not work!
Show us that yours is different by getting it/them into actual production, but so far you are nothing but hot air - proves us wrong!

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 07:36:51 AM »
Not only that but I have devised "free" energy equipments based on SOUND.
...

The most elegant form of free energy devices strives to achieve a ball lightning object (a 3 cm diameter ball lightning sphere will produce 1 MW power), just like in the tibetan acoustic levitation experiment.

Cool! When will I be able to buy some of this equipment? Will it be before or after sceptimatic provides some evidence that his dome model actually exists?

Have you thought about applying your awesome math and science skillz toward solving the perpetual motion paradox? In the meantime, why not apply them toward the no-map-of-the-flat-earth-that-works paradox? Flat map of a flat earth that neatly explains everyday observations should be trivial for someone of your intellect.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2017, 01:46:56 PM »
You're wildly misinterpreting someone else's work, Sandokhan. Also, try coming up with your own text for once.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2017, 10:50:13 AM »
How Chadwick fooled the entire scientific community, as he did not discover any particle called the neutron:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

I read it and there isn't anything about Chadwick not being the discoverer of the neutron.
Let me put it this way, who do you think is the discoverer?

I also did a search on these forums for the word Chadwick and you seem to post the same in other threads:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69708.msg1882579#msg1882579


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm
"A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.msg1424161#msg1424161
"You certainly have not done your homework on neutrons. In fact, Chadwick did not discover anything resembling a neutron."


--------------------
So, can you tell me who you credit the discovery to and link to some source?

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2017, 11:11:06 AM »
From your link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm

"Chadwick reasserts the first person in order to continue relating his experimental observations. Moreover signals a coming superabundance of evidence for the new hypothesis. If rays rather than particles were the consequence of the collision, these would radiate with equal intensity in all directions. If particles emerge, then the rules of the billiards table apply, and their speed and direction are determined by the speed and direction of the impinging particles. That the latter is the case is strongly suggested by Chadwicks observation of the very different ranges of the protons ejected in the forward and backward directions. The simple explanation, which Chadwick does not stop to give, is based on the law of conservation of momentum. The reference in the last sentence to the neutron hypothesis is a reminder that some uncertainty remains in what is being proposed. Observing events in an ionization chamber is one thing; accounting for them another."

----------------------------------
"But Chadwick can work with the new-fangled physics when he has to. His calculation (based on the mass defect, the difference between the rest-mass energies of the particles before and after collision, which is emitted or released as radiation energy) concerning the carbon nucleus that would be the consequence of an alpha-beryllium cluster shows that the quantum of energy produced would be rather feeble, much less than that estimated by the Joliot-Curies using the Compton effect. Chadwick repeats his earlier understatement: It is difficult to make such a quantum responsible ..."


----------------------------

Do you know what a quantum is?

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2017, 02:44:39 PM »
Not only that but I have devised "free" energy equipments based on SOUND.

Practically all currently accepted free energy devices use basically some form of geometric arrangements of magnets (Floyd Sweet transistor, Bedini magnets, Testatika), not understanding that this is the most basic level of free energy science.

The most elegant form of free energy devices strives to achieve a ball lightning object (a 3 cm diameter ball lightning sphere will produce 1 MW power), just like in the tibetan acoustic levitation experiment.

In your dreams!.....No you've not!
I think the 1st and 2nd laws would have something to say about that. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

You do talk the most complete and utter crap.
In fact I bet if you put all the crap you came out with and put it in a big pile we could all quite possible see the curvature of the earth from the top.

Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2017, 02:53:21 PM »
Now to make a point this is a good example of the type of crap that Sandokhan the numpty regularly comes out with...

Practically all currently accepted free energy devices use basically some form of geometric arrangements of magnets (Floyd Sweet transistor, Bedini magnets, Testatika), not understanding that this is the most basic level of free energy science.

How does he do it? How does he keep this flow of nonesense up? That is the true mystery of this forum.
Do you think he will actually build his perpetual motion sound machine? I've heard the sound energy it uses is from his non stop farting... not sure if it's true as it's something I picked up on the flatearth wiki....and we all know how suspect that is.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2017, 10:23:35 PM »
What is a free energy device?

The ability to activate the antigravitational force represented by the laevorotatory subquark strings.

Very simple.

By using certain geometric configurations of magnets (such as the ones I described earlier) a few KW can be obtained: the magnetic field of those magnets will attract at a minimum level the subquark strings/telluric currents .

However, that is the kindergarten level of free energy devices.

What we want is to get at least 1 MW of power in an elegant manner.

But this can only be obtained by creating ball lightning spheres (a ball lightning object, 3 cm in diameter, will deliver 1 MW).

Nikola Tesla did create these ball lightning devices, as carefully documented here:


Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2017, 11:27:43 PM »
What is a free energy device?

The ability to activate the antigravitational force represented by the laevorotatory subquark strings.

Very simple.

By using certain geometric configurations of magnets (such as the ones I described earlier) a few KW can be obtained: the magnetic field of those magnets will attract at a minimum level the subquark strings/telluric currents .

However, that is the kindergarten level of free energy devices.

What we want is to get at least 1 MW of power in an elegant manner.

But this can only be obtained by creating ball lightning spheres (a ball lightning object, 3 cm in diameter, will deliver 1 MW).

Nikola Tesla did create these ball lightning devices, as carefully documented here:



Do you really believe all this rubbish you post? Do you really believe the universe is prepared to give you a free lunch?
Every 'free energy' device ever built has never worked.

Just because you string together some science sounding words and include a groovy 1960s inspired graphic you think that counts as evidence. Just like your last foray into mathematics, which I have to say raised some laughs at th local university, this is yet more Sandokhan junk.

I'll tell you what, you go build your device and demonstrate it to the world and I'll eat my iPad......and for desert I'll chew on my phone.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Books on Advanced FET?
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2017, 01:08:55 AM »
Here, for example, is the VTA device built by Floyd Sweet: of course it does work, but it produces only a few KW.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/vta.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20030219235640/http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/vta.htm


The first free energy device was built by Hans Coler and was carefully analyzed by the British after 1945:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/HansColer/HansColer.htm

https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110830165516/http://www.rexresearch.com/coler/colerb~1.htm