Distances in the universe

  • 614 Replies
  • 36810 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2017, 11:00:31 PM »
That "effect" is faint guess at best....

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:





Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.

Prove it.

A sure thing.

Gravitons = magnetic monopoles = subquarks

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840 (magnetic monopoles: the Nipher experiments)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363

VACUUM TEST #4: PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

https://web.archive.org/web/20140110041712/http://projetmontgolfier.info/

https://web.archive.org/web/20131025082102/http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130522083124/http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg:



The report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire. 

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon. 

PAGE 26 OF THE FINAL REPORT FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).



jack... you are forgetting about ETHER MAGNETISM.

A normal magnetic field is just the beginning in QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS.

The telluric currents/subquarks strings vibrate at a much higher rate than a normal magnetic field, that is why they are called scalar waves.

It is these telluric currents which do cause the phenomenon known as terrestrial gravity.

Your description includes a weak, superificial model based on magnetism; what you need is to learn about ETHER MAGNETISM.


They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.

You can't use the ripples in spacetime bullshit.

I thought you learned your lesson by now.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864 (total demolition of STR/GTR)


What you are saying is that you CANNOT EXPLAIN how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

If you think that they are hypothetical, then please go ahead and offer an alternative explanation for attractive gravitation.

Your research into the field will reveal pretty quickly that NO ONE can explain attractive gravitation. It cannot be done.

Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19535
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2017, 11:17:50 PM »

But I knew little electrically things like that decades before the internet existed thank you, Mr  SmartyPants!



Imagine being a child today. Electrons and Batman have the same relevance.   :P

 

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2017, 02:03:55 AM »
That "effect" is faint guess at best....

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)
Sure, I agree that there have been unexplained observations.

Quote from: sandokhan
Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.
But your fictitious flat earth simply cannot explain numerous simple and not so simple observations without resort to your magical aether that seems able to slow light and radar signals down to " :P walking speed  :P".

So run away and don't come back till you get some real physicists etc to take some notice, of your "Magical Theory of Everything".

So, I repeat!

You have provided your unproven hypotheses, nothing more.
If you really have the "Ultimate Theory of Everything" as you pretend, I fail to see why you restrict yourself to a little backwater like "The Flat Earth Society".

You simply don't have the guts to take your hypotheses out into the wider world.

If your work really is, as you pretend, this "Ultimate Theory of Everything" you owe it to humanity as a whole to make every attempt to get it accepted.

But no, you would rather pretend that you are the expert winning all these debates over the few here and at TFES.org who are not physicists and do not pretend to have the depth of understanding the you pretend to have.

So, get off your backside and make some attempt at getting you wonderful hypotheses into the wider world.
But,  you won't,  you are gutless and would rather be the big king frog in this tiny pond!

What does it gain you or science as a whole for you to win a few debates here? That changes nothing and achieves nothing at all.
Though I guess it makes you feel that you are so superior to the rest of us here.
Well get out and and try to mix it in the real world and see what happens to your marvelous hypotheses!

Bye bye, have a nice day.

Signed: Someone who couldn't care less about your fantasy world.

PS The earth spins happily along, all these spacecraft go along their assigned trajectories without your fantasy, funny that!


Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2017, 03:09:44 AM »
That "effect" is faint guess at best....

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
And of course, you have been completely refuted on one subject so you just jump to another, and start trying to derail the thread to avoid defeat.

I have already dealt with your BS on the Allais effect.

Gravitons are not electrically neutral: stop making the foolish analogy between gravitons and photons.

Prove it.

A sure thing.

Gravitons = magnetic monopoles = subquarks
Asserting more baseless bullshit isn't proving it.

And no, I don't want you to link to another one of your threads with more bullshit in it.

So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.

So instead of proving/providing evidence for one baseless claim, you have just made 2 more.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm
All this does is indicate that electric fields produce forces as well.

Regardless, start with an explanation of it your self, don't just link to a massive wall of text.

I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.


jack... you are forgetting about ETHER MAGNETISM.
As either doesn't exist, who gives a shit?

Your description includes a weak, superificial model based on magnetism; what you need is to learn about ETHER MAGNETISM.
Then how about instead of dismissing it you explain what is wrong with it. Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.

They don't need to attract one another, they need to interact with either space time itself, or other things to cause the effects of gravity.

You can't use the ripples in spacetime bullshit.
Why not?
You are yet to explain why I can't, so I think I will stick to it.

What you are saying is that you CANNOT EXPLAIN how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere.
No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
Again, why would they need to?

If you think that they are hypothetical, then please go ahead and offer an alternative explanation for attractive gravitation.
Curvature of space time.

Your research into the field will reveal pretty quickly that NO ONE can explain attractive gravitation. It cannot be done.
No one can provide an alternative which works any better (or even as good).

Then, the Earth is flat: a force of pressure cannot explain how those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued to the exterior surface of a sphere. Only on a flat surface of the Earth, can pressure gravitation be explained.
Nope.
The BS of pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth. Pretty much not at all, and not matching experimental observations at all.

Now how about instead of just asserting/posting a mountain of crap, you try and explain what is wrong with my refutation of your magnetism BS.

Explain how like magnetic charges can attract one another.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2017, 04:19:35 AM »
Here is the previous installment of the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.msg1892779#msg1892779

You have NEVER been able to refute anything pertaining to the Allais effect.

Yet, here you are claiming that you did.

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.


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.


So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.

Magnetic monopoles = subquarks

I have proven this a long time ago:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813


I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.

Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.

And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm


Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.

You are not making yourself clear; perhaps you are still digesting the fact that you cannot explain the Allais effect.

I am going to give a chance to offer further explanations on your statement as it pertains to terrestrial gravity.


Curvature of space time.

I have very bad news for you jackblack.

There is no such thing as space time curvature.

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.

ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.


Do you know that each and every one of the visitors are laughing at you now?

HOW DO GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH (IRON/NICKEL CORE) INTERACT WITH WATER (GRAVITONS RELEASED BY ANY BODY OF WATER)?

HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE?

Can't you see that you are totally unable to offer an explanation? Just like the rest of the RE?

You are making use OF PURE MAGIC.

You are saying that it exists because it exists.

But it doesn't work like that.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH INTERACT WITH WATER RESULTING IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE."


pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth.

But it doesn't.

On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.

On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2017, 04:29:40 AM »
Wait! Flat Earth?! I thought we agreed that we live in a solar system. YOU provided evidence of Neptune and Uranus! Do you retract that? If so, then my evidence about how RE mathematicians and scientists found Neptune is unopposed. Make up your mind: either concede a solar system because you acknowledge planets (your evidence) or concede a solar system because the science behind it is how people found Neptune (my evidence).
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19535
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2017, 05:30:16 AM »

I have been here a couple of months ago, but because of sudden illness i was pre- occupied with different things.


I hope your sudden illness has passed as quickly as it came up.




I have not looked into past subjects anymore and don't really want to dig them up now....


I understand.
When you are ready to engage in dialogue, just do some research and post up.

Focus on getting well for now. It sucks to be sick.




*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2017, 06:18:26 AM »

On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.

On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.
You ideas are utter balderdash, go and try posting on some physics forum and see what reception you get!

One of the neat things about Newtonian Gravitation is that the force is proportional to mass,
So 1.39 x 1018 tonnes of seawater is attracted with a force of - wait for it - 1.39 x 1018 tonnes weight,
an 80 kg person is attracted with a force of 80 kg weight and
a 2 mg ant is attracted with a force of 2 mg weight - see exactly right!

See, what a brilliant idea!
Exactly the right force to keep them all in place, it's a wonder a person with you massive intellect didn't think of it!

It took old Isaac and Robert a while to figure out all the details, but this attractive gravity works a treat.
It even holds artificial and natural satellites and planets in place - see, it's pretty good at its job - you should look into it sometime!

And flat earthers have to postulate all of things from various sorts of aether all the way through dark energy to "we haven't a clue!"

Then finally, you claim that "everything works out beautifully . . . . . . . on a flat earth",
that is if you ignore the numerous simple observations that do not fit on any flat earth at all.
Even the known measurements of the real earth will not fit on a flat earth.
But, of course, Flat Earthers claim that all these geodetic surveyors from old Al-Biruni to the present day must have been  :D Freemasons  :D! I really can't imagine a good Muslim like smart old Al-Biruni being a Freemasons.
But what would I know?

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2017, 07:35:50 AM »
Here is the previous installment of the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.msg1892779#msg1892779

You have NEVER been able to refute anything pertaining to the Allais effect.
And what was the very first thing you quoted me on in that post?
Me refuting it using your reference.

Good job.

If you wish to discuss the Allais effect, do it elsewhere. It has nothing to do with this topic.

So skipping over the Allais effect BS.

So now, as well as proving that gravitons are electrically charged you also need to prove they are magnetic monopoles and that magnetic monopoles are sub quarks.

Magnetic monopoles = subquarks

I have proven this a long time ago:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1615813#msg1615813
I see you didn't even bother to focus on the main point.
There is no mention of gravitons in there at all.

It has links to evidence on magnetic monopoles, then a bunch of baseless claims about sub quarks.

So no, you haven't proven it a long time ago, yet here you are, claiming you have.

I'm going to skip over the rest of your copied and pasted crap.
Again, skipping over it.
Explain it yourself or I don't care, as just copying and pasting shows you don't understand it.

Tell me how magnetism allows like charges to attract.

You are not making yourself clear; perhaps you are still digesting the fact that you cannot explain the Allais effect.
No. I am making myself quite clear.
Both electrostatic interactions and magnetism work under the principle that like charges repel and opposite charges attract.
A south pole (or south "charge") is attracted to a north pole, a positive charge to a negative charge.
2 north poles or 2 south poles or 2 positive charges or 2 negative charges repel each other.

That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.

As such, unless you can explain how magnetism or electrostatic interactions can produce a force of attraction between 2 like particles, it doesn't stand a chance at replacing gravity.

I don't need to explain the Allais effect as you are yet to prove it is a real thing.
I assume you just keep bringing it up to try and avoid admitting you made a massive mistake by claiming electrostatics or magnetism can replace gravity?

Curvature of space time.

I have very bad news for you jackblack.

There is no such thing as space time curvature.
That isn't news. That is just your baseless, bullshit claim.
And again, skipping your copy pasted crap and appeals to authority.

No. I can explain it. Gravity holds it there.
If you don't want to appeal to ripples in space time, then the gravitons from Earth interact with the water, resulting in an attractive force.


Do you know that each and every one of the visitors are laughing at you now?

HOW DO GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH (IRON/NICKEL CORE) INTERACT WITH WATER (GRAVITONS RELEASED BY ANY BODY OF WATER)?

HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE?
That wouldn't result in an attractive force, just like photons from 2 transceivers wouldn't send a signal.
You need the gravitation to interact with the object.
As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

Everyone here with a brain that is using it will be laughing at you. Not me.

Can't you see that you are totally unable to offer an explanation? Just like the rest of the RE?
Nope. Can't you see that I did offer an explanation, while you are continually strawmanning it and are completely unable to provide an explanation for your BS claims?


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW "GRAVITONS FROM THE EARTH INTERACT WITH WATER RESULTING IN AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE."
First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?

pressure gravitation works equally well on a flat or spherical Earth.

But it doesn't.
Nope. It does.

On a spherical Earth the force required to keep the four trillion billion liters of water glued next to the surface of a sphere WOULD CRUSH TO THE GROUND ANY LIFEFORM, and of course ANY CLOUDS. Nothing could escape this colossal force.
Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.

Do you know the great thing about pressure?
It is a force per unit area.
That means the force acting on the large water surface will be much greater than the force acting on a person.

Of course, due to how it works, pressure gravity would at best be able to hold things down, not make them fall.

On a flat earth, on the other hand, everything works out beautifully.
Then how about you explain just how you determined that?
Tell us what pressure is required for a round Earth and what pressure is required for a flat Earth, and how you figured that out.
If you can't, then it is clear you are just making shit up.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2017, 08:09:37 AM »
Gravitons = Magnetic Monopoles

Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.

And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm



Magnetic Monopoles = Subquarks

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

Each and every known element in the periodic table discovered, described decades before their actual discovery: a 100% proof of the existence of the subquark atomic model.

Now, read the following:

MAGNETIC MONOPOLES AND MAXWELL'S ORIG. SET OF EQS.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf


https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052100/http://smphillips.8m.com/pdfs/ESP_of_Quarks.pdf (pg 66-73)

A rigorous and extraordinary demonstration that subquarks = magnetic monopoles.


http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html

An in-depth look at the most recent discoveries in the field of quantum mechanics which DO PROVE the correctness of the subquark ether model.


Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.


That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.


Why are you dreaming so much jackblack?

When and where did I ever propose such a lousy model to account for the orbits of the planets?


In the correct FE model we have TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, exactly the ones described by Newton.

1. Terrestrial gravity - a force of pressure exerted by the telluric currents

2. Planetary/stellar gravity - a rotational force which keeps the planets orbiting above the first dome



As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


Isn't this wonderful? You ask a RE how attractive gravity works and you get something like: BY PURE MAGIC.

All we know is that it happens.

You haven't got a clue as to how attractive gravity works. Which means your RE spherical theory requires A LOT OF UNWARRANTED FAITH to believe in.


First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?

Each electron is composed of nine preons (subquarks with fractional charge, recently discovered).

Each subquark with a negative vortex (receptive vortex) is made up of some 14 billion bosons (=photons). In the correct ether model of the atom, the carrier of light is the boson (currently described as the photon).


Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.


Do you understand where you are and what is being discussed here?

I hope you do.

ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER WOULD STAY GLUED TO THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THAT SPHERE.

If you want pressure gravity to account for this, then that pressure will exert a force on each cloud, living lifeform, tree, everything under the sun.

The force required to keep the water in place would crush anything else to the very ground.


However, on a flat surface of the earth, there is no need to worry about this scenario, as the water is held beautifully, without the need of any pressure, at the flat surface.

Tides are caused by the pressure exerted by telluric waves/subquark strings.

Desperation time strikes deep for you jackblack, as you are unable to provide a clear explanation for attractive gravity:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

*

Gumby

  • 825
  • I don't exist.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2017, 09:47:17 AM »
Sagnac?
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.

*

sokarul

  • 18454
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2017, 09:51:03 AM »
Someone tell him(or quote this post) to stop ignoring me if he isn't scared of a debate.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Gumby

  • 825
  • I don't exist.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2017, 09:57:01 AM »
Someone tell him(or quote this post) to stop ignoring me if he isn't scared of a debate.
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: Distances in the universe
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2017, 10:16:38 AM »
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!

(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2017, 10:55:42 AM »
Wait! Flat Earth?! I thought we agreed that we live in a solar system. YOU provided evidence of Neptune and Uranus! Do you retract that? If so, then my evidence about how RE mathematicians and scientists found Neptune is unopposed. Make up your mind: either concede a solar system because you acknowledge planets (your evidence) or concede a solar system because the science behind it is how people found Neptune (my evidence).

LOL

Does anyone read sandokhan wall of gibberish? Totally ignoring everyone and copying and pasting nonsense.  ::)

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2017, 11:44:37 AM »
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!

(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)

Aha.  It appears you have not done your homework.

While the terms have been refined over the years, the implementation of technology that takes advantage of such anomalous phenomena first proposed in 1949 is successfully underway.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 11:47:53 AM by Piesigma »

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2017, 12:54:19 PM »
What you're completely ignoring is the tryptophyllic counter-anti-tripsolene effect first proposed by Dr. Ilya Ivanitria in 1949. Without talking that into account, you can't account for the way bifartulated nonsensocons interact with topomerons. How do you explain the observations of Dr. Ivanitria when she proved the proportional relationship between bifartulated nonsensicons and negative topomerons!? I bet you don't even know what that is!!

(It's totally within the rules of this site to make up random bullshit, right? Seems fair if others do it.)

Aha.  It appears you have not done your homework.

While the terms have been refined over the years, the implementation of technology that takes advantage of such anomalous phenomena first proposed in 1949 is successfully underway.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Their technology is crude and outdated, but it is consistent with the model. Perhaps I should write to Rockwell and bring them up to speed. Their headquarters is actually not too far from where I live.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2017, 03:40:33 PM »
Gravitons = Magnetic Monopoles
Yes, you keep asserting this bullshit but are yet to back it up.

Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.

And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.
Yet you seem completely incapable of doing so and instead just copy and paste mountains of shit.

Each and every known element in the periodic table discovered, described decades before their actual discovery: a 100% proof of the existence of the subquark atomic model.
And yet another baseless claim.

Now, read the following:

MAGNETIC MONOPOLES AND MAXWELL'S ORIG. SET OF EQS.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf
No. I'm done with your BS links.
Explain it yourself.
Are you capable of doing that?
Does this link even attempt to prove your BS?

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html
Are you aware this site is dead? It doesn't have anything like you suggest.
See this is one problem with just linking to crap and copying and pasting ancient BS. The links can die.

That is why you should explain things yourself.

That means your hypothetical planets couldn't be held together by that. If you tried that, the repulsive charges would cause it to be blown apart.
It also means that you can't have the link between Neptune and Uranus. If both are attracted to the sun then they must be an opposite "charge" to the sun and thus the same charge as each other, which means they would repel each other, not attract.


Why are you dreaming so much jackblack?
I'm not the one dreaming. This alone completley refutes the BS you have been claiming, that gravity could be replaces by electrostatic or magnetic interactions.

When and where did I ever propose such a lousy model to account for the orbits of the planets?
See, this is another problem with copying and pasting so much BS, you don't even realise what it claims.

Here we have an example:
Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way.
You were even nice and bolded it to draw attention to it.

In the correct FE model we have TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, exactly the ones described by Newton.
So in the non-existent model.
There is no FE model.
And what you claim is not what is described by Newton.

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


Isn't this wonderful? You ask a RE how attractive gravity works and you get something like: BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope. Not pure magic, a known limitation of science which applies to every single scientific field.
We do not know what causes a photon to interact with an electron to transfer energy. We just know it does.

All we know is that it happens.

You haven't got a clue as to how attractive gravity works. Which means your RE spherical theory requires A LOT OF UNWARRANTED FAITH to believe in.
No. We have a very good understanding. So no, very little faith is required. The only faith required is that in common with all science, which is far less than any other system.

On the other hand FE is a pile of bullshit repeatedly requiring unsubstantiated magic to work, making it require so much faith it isn't funny.

First, how about you explain how photons interact with electrons?

Each electron is composed of nine preons (subquarks with fractional charge, recently discovered).

Each subquark with a negative vortex (receptive vortex) is made up of some 14 billion bosons (=photons). In the correct ether model of the atom, the carrier of light is the boson (currently described as the photon).
And this crap doesn't explain the interaction at all. How does the vortex interact with the photon(s)?

You also seem to have no idea what these words mean.
A boson isn't always a photon.
A boson is a particle with integer spin.
This can be a photon, a phonon, a graviton, a proton an electron pair in a superconductor and so on.

Except the oceans are pretty much the same on alleged flat Earth and the real round one.
As such, the pressure required would be the same. As such either life forms would be crushed on both or neither.


Do you understand where you are and what is being discussed here?
Yes. Do you? You don't seem to. You seem to have no idea at all.


ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, FOUR TRILLION BILLION LITERS OF WATER WOULD STAY GLUED TO THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF THAT SPHERE.

If you want pressure gravity to account for this, then that pressure will exert a force on each cloud, living lifeform, tree, everything under the sun.

The force required to keep the water in place would crush anything else to the very ground.
You are yet to establish this.
How did you determine what pressure was required?

However, on a flat surface of the earth, there is no need to worry about this scenario, as the water is held beautifully, without the need of any pressure, at the flat surface.
Pure bullshit.
How does this beauty hold the water to the surface?
Why can't this beauty work with a spherical Earth?

Desperation time strikes deep for you jackblack, as you are unable to provide a clear explanation for attractive gravity:
Nope. The only desperate person here is you. Asserting pure nonsense with no backing to try and pretend a RE is impossible.

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

Again, this isn't just gravity, this is everything. Even the stuff in your BS. You just reduce what we have as the fundamental level down one more step. But then you just have baseless assertions with no greater explanatory power. In fact, you have less as you have more things to explain.

*

dans

  • 156
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2017, 06:22:25 PM »
sandokhan post guide 101

1- Make sure to bring unproved and/or imaginaries things add an "=" with a similar thing:
i.e.: unicorns = leprechauns = gold pots and the end of the rainbow (by the way the rainbow is an unicorn fart)

next step:

2- if you can't explain something by yourself copy/paste a mountain load of crap and make sure all of it is not proved and/or even real. (if you can convice them or prove anything try to confuse them)

3- after that, claim that you absolute defeat the people that repeatedly had debunked you.

4- profit ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?

i'm no physicist, but NOT A SINGLE sandokhan STATEMENT has been observed or proved, just a lot of failed and/or debunked experiments/theories that doesn't match reality, one thing is for sure, relativity CANT explain quantum physics/mechanics and viceversa.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2017, 10:49:35 PM »
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140130061439/http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (it is very easy to find any web page that is not active anymore on the internet archive)

jackblack, you were asked a very simple question: can you provide an explanation as to how attractive gravity works?

Here is your answer:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


But this is PURE MAGIC.

You have no idea how two gravitons attract each other.

You are requiring of your viewers an unwavering FAITH in pure magic: the pressurizing force which would keep in place four trillion billion liters of water would not affect anything else, not the clouds, not any lifeform, nothing else.

You are living in a fantasy world of your own making: ignoring very cleary explained experiments conducted by some of greatest physicists in history, Dr. Francis Nipher, Dr. Maurice Allais, Dr. Steve Lamoreaux, and clinging to PURE MAGIC as explanation for gravity.

For this is what you wrote:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.



Electron/photon interaction in ether theory, the Compton effect:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter110-ParticleNature.htm

"The photo-electric effect and the Compton effect are
cited as proof that photons are transmitted from source to
destination. Recorded impacts are evidence of the arrival of
the sent photons. However, the same effect can be explained
by waves traveling through the medium of aether activating
aether cells already located at the destination, thus giving the
false impression of the cells actually having traveled there.
Similarity with a line of dominoes provides visualization of
this phenomenon. The first one is pushed into the second and
so on, with the final domino striking whatever is next to it at
the destination. Think also of waves from a ship striking the
seashore. It is the waves but not the water that travel from
the ship to the shore. It is acknowledged that the photoelectric
effect and the Compton effect gained acceptance
because they were able to provide a quantitative evaluation
of the phenomena, whereas the wave analysis did not, but it
is suggested that this was due to the lack of consideration of
an aether supporting the waves."


You are forgetting that I can always prove the exactness of the quantum ether model.

In that model, what are currently described as bosons, become the carriers of light.



https://web.archive.org/web/20120128042636/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf


A century-old claim by  two early leaders of  the Theosophical
Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluat-
ed. Their observations  are  found  to be consistent with  facts  of  nuclear
physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their as-
sumption that they saw atoms is rejected.  Their account of the force binding
together the fundamental constituents of  matter is shown to agree with the
string model.  Their description of these basic particles bears striking similar-
ity to basic ideas of superstring theory.  The implication  of  this remarkable
correlation between ostensible paranormal  observations of subatomic parti-
cles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither funda-
mental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists  currently as-
sume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.


Given that the gaps in the periodic table represented by these anticipated un-
stable elements were known to Besant & Leadbeater, how can we be sure that
their descriptions were based upon real  objects and were not fabricated  ac-
cording  to their expectations?
Knowing which  groups of  the periodic  table
these  undiscovered  elements belong  to could  have  enabled them  to  deduce
what shape their atoms ought to have, having decided upon a rule to link atom-
ic shapes to groups. But the values of  the atomic weights of  these elements
were unknown to science at the time when Besant and Leadbeater published
observations of them and yet the "number weights" (defined shortly) that they
calculated for  these  elements  agree with  their  chemical atomic  weights  to
within one unit. It is highly implausible that this measure of agreement could
have  come about by  chance in  every case. Furthermore, analysis (Phillips,
1994) of the particles reported to have been observed in the supposed atoms of
these elements undiscovered by science at the time reveals such a high degree
of agreement with the theory presented in this paper to explain micro-psi ob-
servations of atoms that neither deliberate fabrication nor hallucinations influ-
enced by knowledge of the gaps in the periodic table are realistic explanations
of these elements being examined before their scientific discovery.  These two
considerations strongly suggest that the descriptions by Besant and Leadbeat-
er of the supposed atoms of these elements must have been based upon physi-
cal objects, for there is simply no more plausible alternative that can explain
such a measure of agreement.


The fact that elements in the same subgroup of a group of the periodic table do not always occur in the same subgroup of the micro-psi  version of this table is inconsis-
tent with what one would expect if  Besant and Leadbeater  had been merely
guided by their knowledge of chemistry to fabricate the correlation.  Secondly,
how could hallucinations, whose cause was located entirely inside their brains
and not outside amongst the trillions of atoms in all the chemicals they exam-
ined, generate UPA populations in MPAs that always turned out to be about 18
times the correct atomic weights of their elements?  This is true, remarkable,
even for elements like francium and astatine, whose atomic weights must have
been unknown to Besant and Leadbeater because science discovered them in,
respectively,  1939  and  1940,  about seven years  after the deaths of  the two
Theosophists.  How, if  MPAs  are not atoms, could they have anticipated  in
1908 - five years before scientists suspected the existence of isotopes - the
fact that an element such as neon could have more than one type of  atom, an
MPA, moreover, whose calculated number weight of 22.33 is consistent with
their having detected with micro-psi the neon-22 nuclide before the physicist
J. J. Thomson discovered it in  1913?
One must turn to particle physics for an-
swers.



This paper has presented evidence (summarized in Table 3) of how facts of
nuclear and particle physics are consistent with purported psychic descriptions
of subatomic particles.  It is because Besant and Leadbeater finished their ob-
servations many years before pertinent scientific knowledge became available
that their work cannot be rejected  as fraudulent once this consistency is ac-
cepted.  Nor can critics plausible interpret their observations as precognitive
visions of future ideas and discoveries of  physics.  If  this had been the case, Besant and Leadbeater might reasonably have been expected to describe atoms
according to the Rutherford-Bohr model. The nuclear model of the atom was
formulated by Rutherford in 1911, two years after they concluded their main
investigation of MPAs. Yet none of its features can be found in their publica-
tions. Instead of being atoms, as would be expected if micro-psi faculty were
actually precognition, MPAs are more exotic objects which, as Figure 5 shows,
have  compositions and  UPA  populations indicating  that  they consist of  the
constituent quarks and subquarks or two atomic nuclei of  an element.  This
makes  them more  akin  to what  nuclear physicists  call  "compound nuclei,"
which are formed in high-energy physics laboratories by the collision and brief
fusion  of  two  very  fast-moving  nuclei. Moreover, precognition would  not
have led Besant and Leadbeater to portray some chemical molecules such as
methane and benzene in a way that conflicts with chemistry.  If they had used
merely  precognition, they  would never have observed four MPAs for which
atomic theory can provide no corresponding element; they would have record-
ed only MPAs of known elements.

The fact that most of their descriptions of MPAs were  published  several  years  before  physicists even suspected  that atoms had nuclei excludes the possibility  of their fraudulent use of scientific knowledge about the composition of nuclei in terms of protons, neutrons and
mass numbers because no such information existed then, Chadwick discover-
ing  the  neutron  in  1932, twenty-four years  after  the first  edition  of  Occult
Chemistry  appeared.
No normal or alternative paranormal explanation  of the
correlation between modern physics and their ostensible 100-year old obser-
vations  of  subatomic  particles appears  to exist  other  than that  Besant  and
Leadbeater genuinely described aspects of the microscopic world by means of
ESP, albeit one disturbed by the act of paranormal observation.


The following sections of the article by Dr. Stephen Phillips provide a complete and correct model of the atom, up to boson/antiboson level:


Micro-psi Atoms
Quark Model
A Statistical Test
Quantum Chromodynamics
The String Model
Micro-psi Confirmation of the String Model
Structure of the UPA (Subquark)
Superstrings
UPA as Subquark State of Superstring


Detection of subquarks/preons:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1278981.html#msg1278981


Biography of Dr. Stephen Phillips:

DR STEPHEN PHILLIPS earned his Ph.D. at the University of California, where he also taught mathematics and physics. In 1979 one of his scientific papers was published, proposing a theory that unified particle interactions and predicted that quarks are not fundamental (as most physicists currently believe) but are composed of three more basic particles ('subquarks') which, may have since been detected at FermiLab, high-energy physics laboratory near Chicago in America. He has lectured on his research at the Cavendish Laboratory of Cambridge University.



In the Occult Chemistry (copied by Murray Gell-Mann, P. Dirac, and P. Higgs), A. Besant described correctly EACH AND EVERY element of the periodic table (including isotopes); moreover, the atom is shown to be made up of vortices (ether/subquarks/tachyons).

A 100% statistical proof of the correctness of the ether model (see also the graphs in the article of Dr. Phillips).



OCCULT CHEMISTRY TABLE OF CONTENTS:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/ocindex.htm

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm


You, on the other hand, have nothing at your disposal other than this:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


The shit that you hold to be your scientific belief can be dismissed easily and immediately using the Nipher experiments:

Dr. Francis Nipher was one of the most respected physicists of the 20th century.

And his experiments are very easy to follow and to understand.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

New Evidence of a Relation Between Gravitation & Electrical Action (1920)
Gravitational Repulsion (1916)
Gravitation & Electrical Action (1916)
Can Electricity Reverse the Effect of Gravity? (1918)

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Dr. Francis Nipher one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm


A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS: FOR THE SAME MASS OF THE OBJECTS, AND FOR THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION, THE EXPERIMENT PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITATION AND ELECTRICITY ARE ABSOLUTELY LINKED.


I told you that you are scientifically illiterate.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

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

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


Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

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'



I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “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.”



You have nothing at your disposal other than this pathetic argument:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.


If you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, there is no credibility whatsoever attached to the RE hypothesis.


« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 10:52:33 PM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2017, 11:29:16 PM »
Here, once and for all, is the CORRECT QUANTUM ETHER MODEL.

Chadwick (neutron), Pauli (neutrino), Gell-Mann (quarks), Higgs (boson), ALL of these physicists COPIED their "discoveries" from a single source.

In fact, Gell-Mann did not even bother to modify the information on the quarks contained in that treatise.

The entire theory of strings was copied from the pages of this work.

The greatest treatise on ether, quantum mechanics ever written:

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

Each and every element and isotope correctly described (in 1908) DECADES before they were even discovered: promethium (1945), astatine (1940), francium (1939), protactinium (1921), technetium (1937), deuterium, neon-22 nuclide (1913).

A clear description of strings, bosons, quarks, subquarks, positrons, DECADES before these concepts even came into existence.


HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.



A proton is further subdivided into baryons, the first state of ether.



The further subdivions occurs at the level of mesons, each consisting of six subquarks, the second state of ether:



Then we reach the third state of ether, the quarks, each made up of three subquarks:



The fourth state of ether, are the subquarks/magnetic monopoles/gravitons themselves:




EACH AND EVERY SUBQUARK IS MADE UP OF SOME 14 BILLION BOSONS.

"The exact number of these bubbles included in an ultimate physical atom is not readily ascertainable, but several different lines of calculation agree in indicating it as closely approximating to the almost incredible total of fourteen thousand millions. Where figures are so huge direct counting is obviously impossible, but fortunately the different parts of the atom are sufficiently alike to enable us to make an estimate whose margin of error is not likely to be very great."

A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.

Aspden calls the neutrino ‘a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance’ and says that it simply denotes ‘the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum’.

The particles that make up the magnetic field are subquarks (also called omegans, tachyons, preons).

A subquark (tachyon, anu, omegan) is made up of vortices which consist of bosons and antibosons (strings of bosons).

Ether (telluric currents) consists of double vortices of subquarks also; in a conductor, the atoms made up of subquarks will align themselves to let bosons pass from a subquark to another, that is, electricity.

An electric current brought to bear upon the Anu checks their proper motions, i.e., renders them slower; the Anu exposed to it arrange themselves in parallel lines, and in each line the heart-shaped depression receives the flow, which passes out through the apex into the depression of the next, and so on. The Anu always set themselves to the current. Fig. 4. In all the diagrams the heart-shaped body, exaggerated to show the depression caused by the inflow and the point caused by the outflow, is a single Anu.




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2017, 11:35:32 PM »
SUBQUARK QUANTUM ETHER PHYSICS

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science. Could this be the beginning of a Theory of Everything – the holy grail of modern physics?


Quantum foam, also known as space-time foam, is a concept in quantum physics proposed by Nobel physicist John Wheeler in 1955 to describe the microscopic sea of bubbling energy-matter. The foam is what space-time would look like if we could zoom in to a scale of 10-33 centimetres (the Planck length). At this microscopic scale, particles of matter appear to be nothing more than standing waves of energy. Wheeler proposed that minute wormholes measuring 10-33 centimetres could exist in the quantum foam, which some physicists theorise could even be hyper-spatial links to other dimensions. The hyper-spatial nature of the quantum foam could account for principles like the transmission of light and the flow of time. Some scientists believe that quantum foam is an incredibly powerful source of zero-point energy, and it has been estimated that one cubic centimetre of empty space contains enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.

So, if we could describe a microscopic standing wave pattern that appeared particle-like and incorporated a vortex within its structure, we might have the basis for a theory that could unite all the current variants in modern physics. Figure 1 appears to meet these criteria – it is a drawing of a subatomic particle reproduced from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, which was first published in 1909, although a similar diagram was published in a journal in 1895. Leadbeater explains that each subatomic particle is composed of ten loops which circulate energy from higher dimensions. Back in 1895, he knew that physical matter was composed from "strings" – 10 years before Einstein's theory of relativity and 80 years before string theory.



According to Leadbeater these particles are composed of 10 vibrating strings, which are in turn composed of even smaller particles, which are in turn composed of even smaller strings, etc... This suggests that the seemingly incompatible standard model and string theory may in fact be two sides of the same coin.

String theory proposes that everything is composed of incredibly minute strings or loops of energy-matter vibrating in ten (or more) dimensions. Our brains can only comprehend four dimensions – the three spatial dimensions (length, width and height) plus one temporal dimension (time). So according to string theory, six (or more) hidden spatial dimensions must exist beyond our perception. It is interesting to note that the ancient cosmologies of eastern religions are based on seven planes of existence, with our physical plane being the lowest.

According to Leadbeater the fundamental particle shown in Figure 1 is merely the fundamental particle of our physical dimension (plane 1) – for this reason I will refer to it as the 1-atom. 1-atoms are so small that modern science has not yet detected them, but they were theorised back in 1974 by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam, who referred to them as "preons". According to Leadbeater, two varieties of 1-atom exist (positive and negative), each with the same basic structure but the spirals spin the other way in the negative variety (see Figure 2). This is due to zero point energy flowing down through the negative atoms and up through the positive atoms.



1-atoms are far from being the ultimate fundamental particle from which everything in the universe is composed. Each 1-atom is composed of ten separate "strings" (closed loops) which are in turn composed of coiled loops of even smaller particles – see figure 3.



1-atoms are the fundamental particles of the physical plane (plane 1), 2-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 2, 3-atoms are the fundamental particles of plane 3, etc. According to Leadbeater, each 1-atom is composed of forty nine 2-atoms, each 2-atom is composed of forty nine 3-atoms, each 3-atom is composed of forty nine 4-atoms, etc. The matter of the lower planes is composed of the matter of the higher planes, so all the planes can interpenetrate each other and occupy the same space. Figure 3 shows the number of fundamental atoms from the various planes that make up one fundamental atom of the physical plane.



According to Leadbeater there are actually seven phases of physical matter; and where that ends different kinds of even subtler matter begin. The three lowest phases of physical matter (1:1, 1:2 and 1:3) broadly correspond to solid, liquid and gas. The four higher phases of physical matter (1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7) are etheric, and are what science refers to as subatomic particles or dark matter. 1-atoms belong to the 1:7 phase and combine in many different molecular permutations to produce the hundreds of sub-atomic particles and chemical elements known to science.

Figure 5 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom as described by Leadbeater a hundred years ago. The nucleus is composed of six units (in two groups of three), and each unit is composed of three 1-atoms. According to conventional science the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is composed of only three units called quarks.



Figure 7 depicts the subatomic structure of a hydrogen atom (in the 1:3 gaseous phase) and its decomposition through four etheric phases:

•The 1:4-molecules are baryons.
•The large 1:5-molecules are unstable mesons.
•The small 1:5-molecules and the 1:6-phase molecules are quarks.
•The 1:7-atoms (or 1-atoms) are preons.
Leadbeater did not state what the membranes surrounding the molecular structures are composed of, but they are probably 2-atoms or 3-atoms.



Figures 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 are extracted from Occult Chemistry by Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant. The book depicts the subatomic structure of every element in the periodic table from Hydrogen to Uranium, including various isotopes (atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers). Leadbeater knew that isotopes existed in 1907 – five years before conventional science discovered them.

The Higgs Field
The Higgs field is a quantum field that is believed to permeate the entire universe. The theory was proposed by physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s to account for the fact that that particles have mass. Particles of matter that interact with the Higgs field are subject to resistance, which shows itself as mass. Particles that interact strongly with the Higgs field are heavy, while those that interact weakly are light. The Higgs field has been compared to treacle through which every particle in the universe has to "swim". Small particles can easily move through the Higgs field so they appear to have negligible mass, but large particles create more drag so appear to be heavier.

Leadbeater described something very similar to the Higgs field over 50 years earlier in Occult Chemistry. He explained that an incredibly dense substance, which he called koilon, permeates the entire universe, and that every atom of matter corresponds to an empty bubble in this incredibly dense substance.

When a particle moves, its corresponding bubble must move through the dense koilon and this causes resistance. This resistance manifests as inertia in the particle, and inertia gives the appearance of mass. Large particles correspond to large clusters of bubbles which are subject to greater resistance, giving the appearance of a large mass. Small particles correspond to small clusters of bubbles which are subject to less resistance, giving the appearance of a small mass.


The perfect description of ether (telluric currents): these currents consist of subquarks (both dextrorotatory and laevorotatory).

*

Gumby

  • 825
  • I don't exist.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2017, 02:32:56 AM »
Piles of uncontaminated bull manure!

Nice drawings though.

Bring back sagnac!
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.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22984
  • The Most Forum Legend
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2017, 03:23:48 AM »

The sun is 33m in diameter and 3.8 km away
Pluto due to it's eliptical orbit 110-170 km away from the sun as a tiny golfball.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star 1.000.000 km away
The Andromeda galaxy 650.000.000.000 km away

The planets found by the trappist telescope 40.000.000 km away

All numbers are calculated with an earth with a 30cm diameter as reference.




this workplace is on strike

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2017, 02:02:50 AM »
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140130061439/http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html (it is very easy to find any web page that is not active anymore on the internet archive)
No. It isn't.
Some sites use a robots.txt file which stops crawlers like this indexing them. Regardless, it shows you don't bother putting in any effort.
It isn't on me to find the evidence for your claims.

And of course it just repeats the same baseless bullshit as you.
jackblack, you were asked a very simple question: can you provide an explanation as to how attractive gravity works?

Here is your answer:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

And there you go lying about me.
That was specifically for how gravitons interact, not how gravity works.

But this is PURE MAGIC.
No. It is a known limitation of all of science.

You have no idea how two gravitons attract each other.
And you still keep repeating this same bullshit as if they should, showing a complete ignorance of how a graviton model of gravity would work.

Do you not bother reading what people say?

Why should they attract?

You are requiring of your viewers an unwavering FAITH in pure magic: the pressurizing force which would keep in place four trillion billion liters of water would not affect anything else, not the clouds, not any lifeform, nothing else.
Nope. Not at all. You are the one appealing to faith in pure magic, where on a flat Earth the water is just held their magically without requiring anything, but on a round Earth it needs something.

Electron/photon interaction in ether theory, the Compton effect:

http://www.teslaphysics.com/Chapters/Chapter110-ParticleNature.htm
And like usual, you link to more crap. What's the matter, unable to explain it yourself?

Also, all you did was lie and deflect. The wave model can't explain it, because 2 waves overlapping would have the same energy, yet doesn't result in the electron being ejected.

So now do you want to tell us how the magic aether waves interact with your magic aether cells?


You are forgetting that I can always prove the exactness of the quantum ether model.
You are yet to prove a single thing. All you do is spout nonsense.

And I will skip over the rest of your copied and pasted BS.


You have nothing at your disposal other than this pathetic argument:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.

You mean that fact that is completely irrefutable, which you are trying to abuse to unfairly attack RE and other real sciences when FE and your other bullshit suffers the same?

If you cannot explain how two gravitons attract each other, there is no credibility whatsoever attached to the RE hypothesis.
RE is not just a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory, that doesn't need gravity to be a theory.
If that is all you have to attack the RE, pathetic strawmen and dishonesty and complaining we don't know exactly how everything works in the universe, then you have no refutation of the reality of RE.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2017, 02:04:10 AM »
Now Sandy, instead of pasting more mountains and mountains of bovine excrement, you instead try to do what was asked of you quite some time ago:
EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!

Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6745
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2017, 02:13:52 AM »
RE is not just a hypothesis.

But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.

It rests ON PURE MAGIC.


Here you are confirming the above assertions:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.



The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.

No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.

Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.


You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?

Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.

BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.

THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.

It is as simple as this.


I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536


EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!

Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.


You are mistaken again.

That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.

There is no need for like charges to attract.

Planets/stars are kept in orbit by the very effect of the rotational ether which takes place above the first dome.


If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

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

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

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2017, 04:05:16 AM »
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.
Does that matter? If an apple falls but we can't explain why, does that mean the apple didn't fall at all? No it doesn't. We observe that mass attracts mass, whether we can explain it or not.
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: Distances in the universe
« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2017, 04:21:50 AM »
RE is not just a hypothesis.

But it is: in fact it is the most miserable of all hypotheses.

It rests ON PURE MAGIC.


Here you are confirming the above assertions:

As for how, how do any particles interact with anything else, right down to the very fundamental level?
No one knows. All we know is that it happens.



The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.

No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.

Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.


You still do not know what a WAVECLE is?

Only the ether theory can properly the current debacle on the wave vs. particle debate.

BOSONS TRAVEL THROUGH SUBQUARK STRINGS IN A LONGITUDINAL WAVE FASHION.

THESE LONGITUDINAL WAVES PROPAGATE THROUGH THE TRANSVERSAL SUBQUARK STRINGS.

It is as simple as this.


I am going to go to even more lengths to show you how bosons/photons interact with electrons:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774536#msg1774536


EXPLAIN HOW 2 LIKE MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC "CHARGES"/MONOPOLES CAN ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER!!!

Either that, or admit your blatant lie that they can replace gravity for celestial mechanics was completely wrong.


You are mistaken again.

That is the COMPLETELY WRONG model of FE planetary/stellar gravitation.

There is no need for like charges to attract.

Planets/stars are kept in orbit by the very effect of the rotational ether which takes place above the first dome.


If you do not believe me, here is Newton explaining to you how this works:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

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

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

Newton had no idea. He may have speculated a bit in idle chat with friends, but he didn't know what gravity was. His equations, however, were perfectly useful for water and people staying on Earth and all of the orbits observed in the sky. You throwing a rock will behave according to the exact same laws of gravity as the Moon orbiting the Earth. (Please recall that it was RE mathematicians who found Neptune using Newtonian equations.)

However, Newton turned out to be imperfect after measurements got much better. The orbit of Mercury was a little funny, and it took Einstein to work out a new theory of gravity. Now we have an even better theory of gravity that accounts for subtler effects and other phenomena such as time dilation (important for your GPS). Einstein's predictions keep coming true: black holes, time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves...

Sorry, dude. He beat you to it a hundred years ago.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2017, 04:30:59 AM »
The very basis of RE theory, the notion/concept of attractive gravitation remains TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED.

No one can answer how two gravitons attract each other.

Which means we have to believe that four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.

I laughed, can't deny the man has style.

Gravity is a tricky one, I thought we had more or less given up on finding a graviton, isn't that where string theory came from?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

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