Distances in the universe

  • 614 Replies
  • 20474 Views
*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #90 on: April 27, 2017, 10:04:48 AM »
<snip>
I indeed had no idea of the faint young sun paradox (although I've heard about it elsewhere in the mean time and there was no lack of potential solution to this paradox), the Allais effect and whatever else you mention. Why would that be an issue, though? The shape of the earth is not dependent on my knowledge.

Also, the word "magic" is a bit outdated, don't you think? We used to call things we could not explain, "magic", centuries ago. Meanwhile we know there is no such thing and even if we can't explain something, we know something else is behind it. Also, those three "by magic, blabla" points make 0 sense. And once again, I don't have to explain how two bodies attract eachother, for it to actually happen.

Now let me try your tactics back on you. PLEASE SUGGEST A WORKING, COMPLETE FET MODEL.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

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

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #91 on: April 27, 2017, 10:19:47 AM »
But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.

Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.

How does the Earth attract the Moon?

How do Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons?

It is the central tenet of RE "theory".

If you cannot explain this much, nobody will believe your claims.


I have debated my AFET here and some other places using some 1950 messages out of a total of 2350 (400 messages posted just in the FEB section).

Each and every possible aspect, certainly the best work done towards a complete FE model.


Ask yourself this simple question: how do two bodies attract each other?

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #92 on: April 27, 2017, 11:13:02 AM »
You really don't understand, do you? I don't have to explain how gravity based on mass works for it to exist. If an apple is red but I can't explain why, does that mean that the apple isn't red?


Besides, how is your working model for FET coming along?
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #93 on: April 27, 2017, 01:11:32 PM »
<< more wallpaper! >>

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!


Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? Incorrect!

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #94 on: April 27, 2017, 01:19:05 PM »
<< more wallpaper! >>

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!


Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? Hmm. Did you just "interrupt my conversation" there? Shame on you! I would ignore you but your posts are too entertaining.

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2017, 01:22:33 PM »
<< more wallpaper! >>

The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?

OOOH! OOOH! I KNOW THIS ONE I KNOW THIS ONE PICK ME PICK ME!


Uuumm... 3,000 miles?
Who am I emulating? I'm not but you are ignored alt member of... anyway. whoever you are ignored by reason of "disrespecting". Didin't your family teach you anything as "respect"? Ignored.

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4372
  • Use as directed
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2017, 01:25:05 PM »
You forgot to add in a son of whore and an infinitive in there somewhere.
You just got Weskered, bitches!

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2017, 02:47:07 PM »
jackblack, you blew it.
Nope. I didn't blow anything.
You however have completely failed.
You have shown a complete ignorance of how forces work, and are yet to explain anything at the level you are trying to demand of me.

You are also yet to back up your baseless bullshit, and instead are trying to pretend you never meant some of it.


Your total failure to explain the central tenet of RE theory is noted.
No, the central tenent of RE theory is that Earth is round. This is backed up by experimental observations.
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.
RE theory matches experimental and everyday observations and can provide a predictive framework for various things.

Gravity is the same, even without knowing the exact mechanism behind it, just like electrostatics.

On the other hand, FE and all your other non-scientific bullshit is just pure bullshit, not backed up by any decent experiments.

But there is no such thing as spacetime curvature.
And you are yet to show this.
So far all you have done is complained that someone didn't have time as a variable.
That doesn't show it doesn't exist.
Especially when you then basically explain that it does exist.


Another option is with gravitons. In this case it functions almost identically to electrostatics, but with like charges attracting each other.

Really jackblack?

ARE YOU TELLING US THAT GRAVITONS HAVE... LIKE CHARGES?

IS THAT SO?

Because then gravitons would not be electrically neutral, would they?
No. It comes down to what is meant by charge.
Due to people's understanding of charge and electrostatics, including your claim about how it can replace gravity (which is pure bullshit), gravity can be explained as a force akin to the electrostatic interaction where like charges attract one another, where in gravity the charge is mass. Not an electric charge, a mass charge.

This isn't saying the gravitons have charge either. It is saying the massive objects have a mass "charge".
Just like in electrostatics, the 2 particles have charge, but the particle for the interaction, the photon, does not.

Would you care to explain how those like charges of the graviton WOULD ATTRACT ONE ANOTHER?
Would you care to actually bother reading what I have said and respond to that instead of spouting the same bullshit strawman?

jackblack, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.
I have. Why would I bother repeating myself when you just ignore it?
Unlike you, I actually put effort it, rather than just copying and pasting crap.

How about you tell us how 2 electric charges attract each other.

Which means those four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere BY PURE MAGIC.
Nope, by gravity, which I have explained, just not at below the fundamental level.

RE THEORY = PURE MAGIC
Nope, RE Theory = a model backed up by mountains of evidence.


Dr. Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished physicists of the United States:
I wouldn't give a damn if he was, so far all you have done is pasted mountains of crap and links.

The Allais effect is just baseless, unsubstantiated crap, which your own sources, when honestly analysed, refute it.

Let us then honestly analyze the Allais effect.
I have, one of your references showed 2 pendulums getting the complete opposite effect, clearly indicating it is merely a large error, not an actual effect.

That's right. That doesn't mean it violates relativity.

BUT IT DOES: YOU ARE FORGETTING THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT.
No, it doesn't.
Just like you don't need relativity to calculate how quickly a ball is travelling after someone who is walking threw it. It is because it isn't a relativistic effect.

Since the ORBITAL SAGNAC is not being recorded/registered/picked up by GPS satelllites
That is because it is translation, not rotation, and thus wont be picked up.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion?
Because it is translation, not rotation.
The correction is based upon the spin of Earth, being one sidereal day.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present.
No, it doesn't.

This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
Yes, including on things like Satellites.
So a clock slowing effect would be observed.

You have not been able to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox: just as usual you used plain denial, nothing else.
No I explained it, pointing out your claims about it are pure bullshit.

The following quote is taken from one of the top treatises on MECHANICS:
i.e. not from you, which explains why you don't actually understand what is being said and how it relates to gravity.

Are you scientifically literate jackblack? Do you understand plain English?
Yes. Are you? Do you?

THE EARTH-MOON-SUN WORKS IN THE SAME WAY.
That's right. So if gravity would produce twice the force, so would ropes.


THEN, WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM.
No, we don't.
That explanation works just fine and doesn't produce double forces.

Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.

No. There isn't.
I already explained why that is pure bullshit.
Viewing it as anchored forces like that, you have an Earth anchored force which pulls the moon towards it. It does not move Earth towards the moon.
You have a moon anchored force that pulls Earth towards it, it doesn't move the moon towards Earth.

To view it more honestly, you have gravity as a force acting between the objects pulling them towards each other, just like the rope/string.


There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.
No there isn't. Stop lying and making up forces.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Only with your BS understanding of them.
With your understanding you even get twice the force required in the rope.

Here are the precise calculations:
Yes, and they work fine, showing that the gravitational force provides the centripetal force, not double.
It breaks down when you baselessly assert that it gets doubled.

It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.
And it doesn't.
Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.

The concept would have gravity acting as the rope, with the force in the rope drawing the moon and Earth towards each other.
It would be the force that is "anchored" at the moon pulling Earth towards it, and the force that is "anchored" at Earth pulling the moon towards it.

That's right. No doubling of forces at all.

You have just been given TWO EXAMPLES which defy your silly explanation.
No. You have provided 2 examples which match my explanation, but then you baselessly assert the forces get magically doubled.

There is no paradox here, just your pathetic ignorance.

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.
No, It doesn't.
It is an equal Moon anchored "attraction" force which is pulling the Earth towards the moon.
It is not an Earth anchored attraction force.

Just like with the string, the string is anchored to Earth, pulling the moon towards it, and it is anchored to the moon, pulling Earth towards it.

You are effectively claiming pulling an object with a string is impossible as it magically produces twice the force.

it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Almost, from your baseless assumptions, which make no sense, and just double the forces, you get double the force.
With honest methods, you just get equal and opposite forces drawing the objects towards each other.

However, on both sides of that rope you have boats. And any boats connected by that rope will move. Four forces involved. The Earth and the Moon are connected by a gravitational string. The same four forces will be at work.
So you are saying in a rope the same 4 forces will be at work and produce double the required force, making pulling an object with a string impossible?

You haven't been able to properly defend RE theory since you came here.
No, we have, repeatedly. The one unable to defend anything is you. Rather than trying to justify FE BS with anything, all you do is attack RE with mountains of ignorance and bullshit.

You had no knowledge of the faint young sun paradox, the Allais effect, the double forces of attractive gravitation and much more before you came here.
You were right for one of them.
I had no idea of the pure bullshit you are claiming to be a paradox, the double forces paradox, because it isn't a paradox. It is just your ignorance of how forces work.


PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Explain how two gravitons attract each other.
Explain how 2 photons attract each other.
Explain how 2 electrically charged objects interact.

If you cannot, and obviously this is the case, nobody will look in your direction.
No, they will, because unlike you, we have models which work. They match reality. They make accurate predictions.
On the other hand all you have is BS. You do have models, you can make predictions with them, but they are almost always wrong.
To try to get away from that, you FEers just claim BS like it's not a real model.

No FE model will ever work in Euclidean space.

But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.

Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.
No we don't.
Get this through your thick skull:
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THE MODEL FOR IT TO BE A THEORY!!!
We have the evidence that backs up the model and shows that it works.
That is enough to make it a theory.

I have debated my AFET here and some other places using some 1950 messages out of a total of 2350 (400 messages posted just in the FEB section).
BULLSHIT.
You haven't debated anything. You just continually assert the same refuted bullshit again and again, no matter how many times it is refuted, until you decide to run away for a bit, then come back and repeat the same refuted bullshit.

That isn't how a debate works.
A debate works by you responding to what your opponent said, and either admitting you were wrong or refuting what they say, not by just repeating the same refuted bullshit.

Each and every possible aspect, certainly the best work done towards a complete FE model.
That you may be right on, but that is because there will never be a complete FE model, because Earth isn't flat.

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2017, 02:50:20 PM »
Now then Sandy, I am sicking of you just repeating the same mountains of refuted bullshit again and again, just so you can ignore what has been said.

How about you try to debate honestly for once.
Pick a single topic to discuss (or next time I will pick on for you).
Preferably one of:
Your BS, baseless, refuted claim that electrostatics or magnetism can replace gravity and produce attractive forces between the planets, requiring like electric charges/magnetic monopoles to attract.
Explain how any particles interact below the fundamental level, such as how a positive and negative electric charge interact and attract one another.
Your double forces BS, explaining why the forces need to be doubled, why you claim the Earth "anchored" force must both pull the moon towards Earth and move the Earth towards the moon.

Are you able to do that, or just continue your dishonest posting of mountains of refuted crap?

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2017, 05:06:20 PM »
But you have to explain how two bodies attract each other.
Otherwise, your RE hypothesis is just a pipe dream.
No, we don't!
"Thales (B.C. 600) observed that amber (elektron) when rubbed attracted light substances."
The Greeks of 600 BC did not have the slightest understanding electricity, but that did not make it less real!

We know a tremendous lot about the behaviour of gravitation, but no-one would pretend that we understand even all of that.

Quote from: sandokhan
How does the Earth attract the Moon?
Gravitation, easy!

Quote from: sandokhan
How do Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons?
You are the only one suggesting that the "Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons"!
In "RE theory" gravitons are hypothetical, but even so no-one is suggesting that "gravitons attract gravitons" any more than "photons attract photons" (actually they do, but it a very second order effect).
And even if gravitons are real then their energy would be so low as to preclude any possibility of "measuring" individual gravitons as can be done with photons.

Quote from: sandokhan
It is the central tenet of RE "theory".

No, understanding gravitation is not "central tenet of RE 'theory'"

You completely blew any chance of credibility when you come up with stupidity like
Quote
Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!
Utter garbage, proving that you haven't even the slightest idea about forces!

By the way, have you forgotten?
And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?

Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power.
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2017, 05:10:12 PM »
Ask yourself this simple question: how do two bodies attract each other?

I did an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravitational force attracting two bodies together. You can find it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0

?

SlipSpace2

  • 1
  • What's this FE thing about then?
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2017, 05:11:35 PM »
Hiya everyone! How's everyone doing? :D I was just taking a look at this thread and thought I should give my thoughts on it! (I literally made a profile for it!) So here we go:

First off, the initial question:
What is the current plausible explaination for this ?
Note: "this" being the current model of the universe and the vast distances involved.

     I understand the issue, really. It's hard to believe--in a universe so big--that we can find the distances and motions of most nearby objects in the universe. But, the basic idea--as I understand it--is that mass attracts other mass, with the strength of the attraction being dependent on both the amount of mass attracting and the distance it's attracting from. That's it. This attraction never 'meters out', per se, it just gets really weak. This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space. ...Well damn, that;s a lot of variable to try and work out. Luckily, we don't need to know the exact location and course, just an estimate.

     When I say estimate of course, I mean a very close estimate, which takes into account most of the major masses near the object, as well as it's velocity. But, even without use being able to calculate this, our current understanding of physics says they'll move through constant attraction through and with every body with mass.

(Fun fact: If any of this is wrong, feel free to correct me! It would be cool if you could do it politely as well. [It's what the thread's for.])

     Now, on to what actually takes up the majority of this thread about distance: Proving different models of gravity. Specifically, the method of discussion.

     I'm no expert on subatomic particles or forces, but I do have some significant experience in the fields of debate and logic.

     Science, no matter how you use it, is a tool. It's a tool for understanding, education, and discovery. Using its tenants, we can develop an idea, no matter what field or genre. As a field of the same name, its always evolving through the use of the tool, trying to spread ideas and facts. But, it has it's limits. You can only teach to those who are willing to learn, and it cannot be taught by those who are not willing to learn as well. In science, no one's a master and everyone's a student.

     Science can be taught through debate as well, following the same limits as well. This brings me to Sandy's posts, on which I will be frank:

     Disregarding your haughty and grating attitude which easily leads to conflict, you don't seem to understand the basis of debate, which has been explained well to you by Jack (a little confrontational, sure, but I understand his lack of tact after running out of patience). The first action of debate isn't to to speak but to listen. You consider the ideas of others and try to understand them, comparing them to your own and trying to think through them. Of course, to do this, you need to understand your own argument first. Have your own ideas, then edit and support them with evidence. DO NOT use the evidence as your idea, because it's someone else's by definition.

      So Sandy, what I'm trying to say is, I don't care if your idea is right or not. (FYI, I actually think the ideas you present are interesting and worth thought. You're presenting it wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not the Earth is flat, round, or a gosh darn pole with a duckbill. You present your idea, back it up with evidence, explain that evidence, then do the opposite with the opponent... without petty insults. Stop trying to prove everyone wrong; try to get others to understand your views with reason. If the other people don't understand it, then phrase it so they do. Don't bite back with the same response but with a couple of changed words. Hostility and a lack of willingness to compromise will get you nowhere. Back up your arrogance with actual quality of character.

(Sorry, btw, Jack. I feel I may have echoed you on some points here, but I really just had to say something... for me more than anyone else.)


-SlipSpace 2

Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #102 on: April 27, 2017, 06:21:31 PM »
"Thank you for sharing with me! Now I know that the solar system is held together by magnetism. How interesting! I always thought that it was gravity. Oh well. At least the next time I look up from the spinning, spherical earth at the distant moon and gigantic Sun, I will understand."

Is that what you want me to say?
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2017, 10:24:39 PM »
Gravitation, easy!

You mean attractive gravitation.

HOW, THEN, DO TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER, IF IT IS THAT EASY TO EXPLAIN IT?

You are the only one suggesting that the "Earth's gravitons attract the Moon's gravitons"!
In "RE theory" gravitons are hypothetical, but even so no-one is suggesting that "gravitons attract gravitons" any more than "photons attract photons" (actually they do, but it a very second order effect).


Are you a FE believer? Because only a FE believer would deny that the Earth's gravitons would attract the Moon's gravitons.

In fact, EACH AND EVERY RE SCIENTIST must rely on the idea of attractive gravitation in order to even hypothesize how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

If RE gravity IS attractive, then PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TWO GRAVITONS ATTRACT EACH OTHER, OR HOW TWO BODIES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

If you cannot, as it obviously is the case, your hypothesis amounts to nothing else than a pipe dream.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #104 on: April 27, 2017, 10:35:01 PM »
Instead, both objects are drawn towards one another.

You are only describing HALF OF THE FORCES INVOLVED HERE.


Let me remind you of the undeniable facts.



BOTH BOATS, CONNECTED BY A ROPE/STRING, WILL MOVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER.

This involves FOUR FORCES.

Let there be two rafts ( x and y )  freely floating on a clear calm lake with a rope between them.
Both rafts are still and are a rope length apart. 
The man on (raft x) pulls on the rope which is attached to raft y.
Raft x will move toward raft y,… and raft y will move toward raft x.
Both rafts will receive equal and opposite force and motion. 
It is not possible for (raft x) to remain still and be the source of the force.


Here is how modern science describes the EARTH-MOON SYSTEM:

When science teachers are asked how does gravity work, they answer in this manner:

Gravity is a force.

Gravity is directed towards the center of the orbit i.e. the sun.

That makes gravity the centripetal force.

Imagine a ball attached to a string and you are holding the other end of the string and moving your hand in such a way that the ball is in circular motion. Then tension in the string is centripetal force.

Now, ball = earth

you = sun

tension in the string = gravity


Gravity is the reason one object orbits another. An analogy is swinging a ball on a string over your head. The string is like gravity, and it keeps the ball in orbit. If you let go of the string, the ball flies away from you. (Dr. Eric Christian, April 2011)


http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4569 (UCSB Science Line)

Centrifugal force acts on a rotating object in a direction opposite the axis of rotation. Imagine that you have a tennis ball tied to a string. If you swing the tennis ball on the string around in a circle, you would feel the ball tugging on the string. That is the centrifugal force on the ball. It is counteracted by tension in the string that you are holding. In this example, the tension force in the string is like the gravitational force between the earth and the sun. The ball doesn't get closer or farther from your hand. If you suddenly cut the string, the ball would go flying away, but that wont happen to the earth because of the sun's gravity.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4583

Forces can make something move or stop something from moving. For a planet in orbit around the sun, the string is invisible. That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


That invisible string is the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun.


Then, EXACTLY as in the case of the string connecting the boats, BOTH THE EARTH AND THE MOON WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES AS FOLLOWS:

Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!



Within the "attraction" concepts:

From Earth, the concept requires that Earth's gravity is attracting the Moon; and an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

From the Moon, the Moon's gravity is attracting the Earth; and this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 

Using: 1 ) Newton’s equation as given above, 2 ) basic arithmetic, 3 ) common logic and 4 ) the mechanics of force, it is shown that the assumed Earth and Moon seated forces are equal; and as a result;…"all attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!


It is as simple as this.

On the lake, BOTH BOATS CONNECTED BY THE STRING WILL BE SUBJECTED TO FOUR FORCES, THAT IS WHY THEY WILL START MOVING TOWARDS EACH OTHER.

As we have seen, modern science describes the Earth-Moon as follows:

Now, ball = Moon

you = Earth

tension in the string = gravity


THE SAME FOUR FORCES WILL BE AT WORK.

Earth attracts the Moon, BUT ALSO an equal Earth anchored “attraction” force is pulling the Earth toward the Moon.

The Moon attract the Earth, BUT ALSO this Moon seated force is equally pulling the Moon toward the Earth.
 
There are FOUR FORCES INVOLVED HERE.

"All attraction models" produce twice the force that is required to balance the centrifugal forces of orbit!

*

Shifter

  • 11448
  • ASI
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2017, 10:41:24 PM »
This means that every single object with mass in the universe is technically affecting every other object, all at different strengths that also constantly change to due the expansion of space.

That means that somewhere, out in a far far away galaxy billions of lightyears away, There is a grain sand on an alien planet beach gravitationally attracted to me. The super massive black hole in that galaxy is pulling on me too. I thought I could feel something dragging on me! I knew it!!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2017, 10:54:06 PM »
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.

You do need to explain how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

So far you have totally failed to do so.


Spacetime curvature is a mathematical pipe dream.

Here is how it came into existence.

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.


THE SAGNAC EFFECT TOTALLY DISPROVES THE EXISTENCE OF SPACETIME AND DOES PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER.


This isn't saying the gravitons have charge either. It is saying the massive objects have a mass "charge".

Fine.

PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THOSE GRAVITONS WITH MASS CHARGES ATTRACT EACH OTHER.

Your failure to do so means you are working on a pipe dream hypothesis, that is all.


How about you tell us how 2 electric charges attract each other.

Sure thing.

Both electrical and magnetic fields are made up of MAGNETIC MONOPOLES.

Here is what a magnetic monopole looks like:



There are two types of magnetic monopoles/subquarks: one with a left handed spin (laevorotatory) and one with a right handed spin (dextrorotatory):



These magnetic monopoles (anu) consist of strings of bosons.


As an example, here is how electricity flows through a conductor:

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.






Dr. Robert H. Romer, former Editor of the American Journal of Physics, also chastised the diagram shown above, purporting to illustrate the transverse plane wave traveling through 3-space. In endnote 24 of his noteworthy editorial, Dr. Romer takes that diagram to task as follows:

"…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."


Ether = subquark strings travelling in double torsion fashion (one string is made up of dextrorotatory subquarks, the other string consists of laevorotatory subquarks)



MAGNETRICITY = ETHER MAGNETISM

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

PRECISE, REAL TIME, PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICAL CURRENTS, THE DOUBLE VORTEX/SPIN/STRINGS AT WORK:





Let us now back to 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

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.



Electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity.


I have, one of your references showed 2 pendulums getting the complete opposite effect, clearly indicating it is merely a large error, not an actual effect.

You are dreaming, just as usual.

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.




*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #107 on: April 27, 2017, 10:58:33 PM »
Gravity is not needed for RE to be a theory.

You do need to explain how one trillion billion gallons of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

So far you have totally failed to do so.


I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #108 on: April 27, 2017, 11:00:55 PM »
Because it is translation, not rotation.
The correction is based upon the spin of Earth, being one sidereal day.


Just as usual, your superficial approach to science becomes painfully apparent.


Further proofs that the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/linear/translational motion.

The other question one might ask is at what level curvature is important--if it is circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect as Ashby claims, how much does the path have to deviate from a straight line to cause the effect? At Los Angeles the earth rotates about 27 meters during the nominal 70 millisecond transit time of the signal from satellite to receiver. The deviation of the 27 meter movement from the straight line chord distance is only 35 microns at its largest point. It certainly seems incredible that a 35 micron deviation from a straight line could induce a 27 meter change in the measured range.


As a final proof that it is movement of the receiver which is significant--not whether that movement is in a curved or straight line path--a test was run using the highly precise differential carrier phase solution. The reference site was stationary on the earth and assumed to properly apply the Sagnac effect. However, at the remote site the antenna was moved up and down 32 centimeters (at Los Angeles) over an eight second interval. The result of the height movement was that the remote receiver followed a straight line path with respect to the center of the earth.

The Sagnac effect was still applied at the remote receiver. The result was solved for position that simply moved up and down in height the 32 centimeters with rms residuals
which were unchanged (i.e. a few millimeters). If a straight line path did not need the Sagnac adjustment to the ranges the rms residuals should have increased to multiple meters. This shows again that it is any motion--not just circular motion which causes the Sagnac effect.

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf

(Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, R. Wang/R. Hatch)


In the Sagnac experiment, an ether wind must exist due to its propagation above the flat surface of the Earth which leads to the observed time difference.

"Sagnac detected the first-order effect of a man-made ether wind by using light following
a closed path in a rotating apparatus. In relation to his equipment, light traveled at
different speeds in two opposite directions."

In light of these results, mainstream science has resorted to modifying the speed of light
using two approaches: the Modified Lorentz Ether Theory and Non Time Orthogonal Analysis. However, both of these hypotheses are based either on the Lorentz transformation or on the Minkowski metric/spacetime, and as such are totally in error.


The Sagnac effect demonstrates that electromagnetic beams traveling in opposite directions will not travel at the same speed.

"So what is making one of the light  beams travel slower? Sagnac said it was due to the ether impeding its  velocity - a resistance that is easily generated by rotating the table. So  predictable and precise are these results that the “Sagnac effect,” as it is  commonly called, is used routinely in today’s technology for the purpose of sensing rotation, as well as in mechanical gyroscopes."




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

This is an IOP article.

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


OFFICIAL GPS DATA, provided by NASA/JPL.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130218082359/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2006/paper28.pdf

"The term “Sagnac effect” is part of the vocabulary of only the observer in the rotating reference frame. The corresponding correction applied by the inertial observer might be called a “velocity correction.” While the interpretation of the correction is different in the two frames, the numerical value is the same in either frame."


Calculations performed at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

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

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



Yes, including on things like Satellites.
So a clock slowing effect would be observed.


BUT IT IS NOT BEING OBSERVED, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Many people believe that GR accounts for all the observed
effects caused by gravitational fields. However, in
reality GR is unable to explain an increasing number of
clear observational facts, several of them discovered recently
with the help of the GPS. For instance, GR
predicts the gravitational time dilation and the slowing of
the rate of clocks by the gravitational potential of Earth,
of the Sun, of the galaxy etc. Due to the gravitational
time dilation of the solar gravitational potential, clocks in
the GPS satellites having their orbital plane nearly parallel
to the Earth-Sun axis should undergo a 12 hour period
harmonic variation in their rate so that the difference
between the delay accumulated along the half of the orbit
closest to the Sun amounts up to about 24 ns in the time
display, which would be recovered along the half of the
orbit farthest from the Sun. Such an oscillation exceeds
the resolution of the measurements by more than two
orders of magnitude and, if present, would be very easily
observed. Nevertheless, contradicting the predictions of
GR, no sign of such oscillation is observed.
This is the
well known and so long unsolved non-midnight problem.
In fact observations show that the rate of the
atomic clocks on Earth and in the 24 GPS satellites is
ruled by only and exclusively the Earth’s gravitational
field and that effects of the solar gravitational potential
are completely absent.
Surprisingly and happily the GPS
works better than expected from the TR.


Obviously the gravitational
slowing of the atomic clocks on Earth cannot be due to
relative velocity because these clocks rest with respect to
the laboratory observer. What is immediately disturbing
here is that two completely distinct physical causes produce
identical effects, which by it alone is highly suspicious.
GR gives only a geometrical interpretation to the
gravitational time dilation. However, if motions cause
time dilation, why then does the orbital motion of Earth
suppress the time dilation caused by the solar gravitational
potential on the earthbased and GPS clocks?
Absurdly
in one case motion causes time dilation and in the
other case it suppresses it. This contradiction lets evident
that what causes the gravitational time dilation is not the
gravitational potential and that moreover this time dilation
cannot be caused by a scalar quantity. If the time dilation
shown by the atomic clocks within the earthbased
laboratories is not due to the gravitational potential and
cannot be due to relative velocity too then it is necessarily
due to some other cause. This impasse once more
puts in check the central idea of the TR, according to
which the relative velocity with respect to the observer is
the physical parameter that rules the effects of motions.
The above facts show that the parameter that rules the
effects of motions is not relative velocity but a velocity
of a more fundamental nature.


On the other hand, the time dilation effect of the solar
gravitational field on the atomic clocks orbiting with
Earth round the Sun, which is predicted by GR but not
observed, is a highly precise observation. It exceeds by
orders of magnitude the experimental precision and
hence is infinitely more reliable. If the orbital motion of
Earth round the Sun suppresses the time dilation due to
the solar gravitational field and moreover does not show
the predicted relativistic time dilation due to this orbital
motion, then it seems reasonable that a clock in a satellite
orbiting round the Earth in a direct equatorial orbit or in a
jet flying round the Earth too should give no evidence of
such a relativistic time dilation. The relativistic time dilation
alleged in both these round the world Sagnac experiments
is in clear and frontal contradiction with the
absence of such a relativistic time dilation effect in the
case of the orbiting Earth round the Sun.



Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit
time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely
canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

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


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

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

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

In fact, there is other evidence that the wave-front bending and absence of the
Sagnac effect in the earth-centered frame is due to the clock-biasing effects of velocity
and that an ether drift velocity actually exists in the earth-centered frame. First, the
gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such
that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the
appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or
else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.


I already told you that your messages are not meant to swell the RE ranks.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2017, 11:02:53 PM »
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.

You haven't shown anything.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70403.msg1902001#msg1902001

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2017, 11:10:21 PM »
I have evidence that shows attractive gravity is a thing. I'm interested to know what you make of my experiment, which can be found at the link in my above comment.

You haven't shown anything.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70403.msg1902001#msg1902001

Your counterarguments in that post seem to be:

 - Cavendish screwed up the experiment
(I ran the experiment, so are you saying I too, did it wrong? If so, please explain what.)
 - electro-gravitation is a thing
(I ran the experiment with nothing that conducts electricity so I'm fairly sure electricity had nothing to do with it. If it did, please explain what.)
 - zero point energy exists
(zero point energy and gravitational attraction can both exist in the same universe. Also in my experiment, all my masses were far enough apart for zero point energy to affect nothing. If I'm wrong, please explain how.)

Further, that post doesn't specifically concern my experiment, just Cavendish's.

I apologise, but I have shown something. I saw it and have data for it, which under zetetic and scientific conditions means it's valid. How do you explain my findings? Do you want further data?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2017, 11:11:51 PM »
Here is an experiment denying your "findings".


http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out in full vacuum by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2017, 11:20:45 PM »
Here is an experiment denying your "findings".

Okay, so you've already got me on the wrong foot here. I really don't like you suggesting my findings are false, especially because that insinuates I have done something wrong without explicitly claiming that. It's sneaky and I don't like it, but I'll ignore it because I couldn't care less what you think of me, I just care about what you think of my science.

(Note: I believe in a flat earth.)

Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

What? No, the results are basically identical, and within the margin of error listed on that very graphic! Even the source you pull your quotes from doesn't claim they are falling at different rates, because they very clearly aren't.

However, this is all deflection. What do you think of my experiment? Was anything wrong with my experiment? Not looking at anyone else's work, but specifically mine. Is my experiment flawed, and if so how? I genuinely want to know, because if I'm wrong, it opens up a whole bunch of options for consideration.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2017, 11:27:39 PM »
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.

When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:

http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png

Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.


Dr. Bruce DePalma published his experiment in a respected journal.

So did Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

So did Dr. Steve Lamoreaux.

So did Dr. Maurice Allais.


No, the results are basically identical



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

Final conclusion of the experiment:

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM »
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.

When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:

http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png

Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.


Dr. Bruce DePalma published his experiment in a respected journal.

So did Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev.

So did Dr. Steve Lamoreaux.

So did Dr. Maurice Allais.


No, the results are basically identical



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.

Final conclusion of the experiment:

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.

Yeah, my experiment is not up to scratch with a peer-reviewed journal. Of course it isn't. I did it in my basement. However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment. What are you suggesting caused my alleged error?

If you want more information, ask and you shall receive. What do you want me to show to you? I have the data on my computer.

Look at the mean data down the bottom, that's what counts. And then look at the margins of error. It's clear from the margins of error and mean data that this experiment could have all been down to pure chance. If it had been run more than 7-13 times (and replicated), then you could increase its accuracy and I would be more likely to believe you.

To recap my points:
 - How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong? (I'd actually sincerely like to know, because it matters a great deal for the FE formula I'm deriving)

 - What data do you want from my experiment?

 - Your data does not disprove mine. (In fact, you can never say something is 'proven' or 'disproven' in science. You can say something isn't supported by the majority of evidence, but I have multiple replications and I can't see any for the experiment you describe)

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does. (I could be misinterpreting you, in which case please let me know.)

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #115 on: April 28, 2017, 12:34:45 AM »
Your experiment, as such, does not include nearly enough details to make anybody look in its direction.
When asked to provide some kind of a video or proper visual images, you came up with this:
http://i.imgur.com/HS81mbR.png
If you bothered to read it, there was never any intention of a proof or even a measurement just a simple demonstration that masses attract!
All he said was
I did an experiment which showed qualitative evidence for a gravitational force attracting two bodies together. You can find it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70405.0
Just as the one I posted here
was intended as nothing more that a crude demonstration.

By the way those requested items must have been lost in the mail. Could you please resend:
By the way, have you forgotten?
And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?

Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power.
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!

Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist (I read about quantum magnetic monopoles, but not "free ones") or admit that your theories are a heap of garbage!

And if you cannot give solid evidence of free energy machines, not just pretty pictures of scam machines, admit they are simply fraudulent devices to extract money from gullible customers!

:o :o :o Like cheap free energy machine plans, only $200!  :o :o :o

If YOU had any guts you would get your revolutionary "theories" published and proven, or disproven!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #116 on: April 28, 2017, 01:02:30 AM »
Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist

Magnetic monopoles are a proven fact of science.

Magnetic monopoles discovered for the first time:

http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-by-lcn-scientists

http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/%E2%80%98magnetricity%E2%80%99-observed-and-measured-for-the-first-time

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab


However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.

So now you finally admit to resorting to "peer-reviewed" replications of the Cavendish experiment.

I told you that those experiments have terrible flaws in them, make sure you read this paper thoroughly:

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html


In the gyrodrop experiment, runs 3-7 simply cannot exist, cannot occur on a round earth.

http://depalma.pairsite.com/gyrodrop.html

The calculations in this paper are pretty clear:

h) Fictitious Force Increment: Calculation to find a hypothetical, fictitious force increment which would have to be applied to the Non-Rotating gyroscope to cause the increased acceleration observed for the Rotating gyroscope

The fictitious force increment is 0.024 lbs.

g) Change in Acceleration:

Percentage change in acceleration: 0.333%

The mean standard deviation for the non-rotating object is: 0.66203

The mean standard deviation for the rotating object is: 0.66097


NOW, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE NIPHER EXPERIMENTS.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852840#msg1852840

“Dr. Francis Nipher, Professor of physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, did some of the pioneering electrogravitics work at Washington University in St. Louis back around the turn of the last century. He applied high voltage to lead balls, lead spheres and hollow metal boxes and compared the repulsive effect induced in small test spheres hung vertically near them, similar to the original Cavendish experiments but with high voltage. Dr. Nipher went to great lengths to insert protective, grounded screens of glass between the solid lead spheres and the suspended balls to rule out electrostatic effects.”

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

*

ScintillaOfStars

  • 88
  • Hi, Huan.
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2017, 01:18:53 AM »

However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.

So now you finally admit to resorting to "peer-reviewed" replications of the Cavendish experiment.

I told you that those experiments have terrible flaws in them, make sure you read this paper thoroughly:

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html


What? I didn't 'resort to anything. I think my experiment can stand alone, but you said:


Go ahead and take up your experiment with some peer review in a lesser known scientific journal: they will demand far more details from you before offering a final verdict, and even require of you to do it in a full vacuum.


So I responded by showing you peer-reviewed studies. How is this logic incorrect?

Also, I read the Miles Mathis paper before I even started my experiment, and I deliberately, because of that paper, went about it from a skeptical perspective. You ought to know I did the experiment skeptically had you read my OP.

Mile's paper refers to the experimental setup of the original experiment, pointing out flaws I think are valid. That's why I tried to remove those flaws from my experiment. I ask you again, not to attack you but to gain clarity: What did I do wrong?


In the gyrodrop experiment, runs 3-7 simply cannot exist, cannot occur on a round earth.


No experiment is exactly perfect. There is such a thing as margin of error. Are you saying that this one study was done perfectly? Look at the margin of error that is listed on the photo. It clearly shows runs 3-7 can exist.

I say it again:

 - Your data does not disprove mine.

and

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.

Yes, they calculate a fictitious force element. And? That's called being thorough. I have nothing against that.

I'd like to take a side not to say, because clearly I have not said it enough: I am not advocating for the existence of a Round Earth. I am advocating for the existence of gravity on a Flat Earth. There is no reason a Flat Earth can't have gravity.

Now, onto your side-topic of Nipher. The papers you source admit the Cavendish Experiment was valid. In fact, Nipher's experiment doesn't work if Cavendish's experiment doesn't show gravitational attraction. So which is it?
1. Was the Cavendish experiment flawed, and if so, specifically how is my replication.
2. Was the Cavendish experiment correct, meaning you can use your Nipher deflection.

You can't have it both ways.

So, to recap:

 - How do you suggest my experiment has gone wrong?

 - What data do you want from my experiment?

 - Your data does not disprove mine.

 - Your experiment doesn't show, or claim to show, what you purport it does.

 - Is Cavendish, and therefore Nipher, wrong?

*

rabinoz

  • 23024
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #118 on: April 28, 2017, 01:41:05 AM »
Either give us some real evidence that magnetic monopoles actually exist
Magnetic monopoles are a proven fact of science.
Magnetic monopoles discovered for the first time:
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/magnetic-monopoles-discovered-by-lcn-scientists
http://www.london-nano.com/research-and-facilities/highlight/%E2%80%98magnetricity%E2%80%99-observed-and-measured-for-the-first-time
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab
Quote
The monopoles discovered this week are not that Holy Grail, but are the next best thing. Rather than existing throughout the universe, they only exist within a special type of material called `spin ice’. They can be imagined as the north and south poles of magnets, but free to float around independently within the material. However, someone living within in a block of spin ice would think that these are exactly those magnetic monopoles long sought by physicists.

Try again! They are not "free magnetic monopoles". They are still paired within the "spin ice".
Of course, there is no theoretical reason why they should not exist, but so far none have been found "free".

Quote from: sandokhan
However, it showed qualitative data supported by over 20 different peer-reviewed replications of the Cavendish Experiment.
<< ignored >>
You will really have to learn how to use
Code: [Select]
[quote author=victim's nsme] . . . << sandokhan''s latest copy-pasta >>. . .[/quote]
??? ??? So we can identify your current victim!  ??? ???
By the way, I'm waiting for:
By the way, have you forgotten?
And yes, I know that the field strength of magnetic monopoles would fall off as the inverse square of distances,
;D ;D but all local suppliers seem out of magnetic monopoles;D ;D
So do you know anywhere I can buy some magnetic monopoles so I can check it out?

Maybe you could send some over here, should I pay you by PayPal?
Then
The topic is "Distances in the universe" so a simple question:
what is the "correct" distance of the sun, moon and planets from the earth?
Could I add a simple item to my requests? Please also forward a quote for a "free energy machine" that will produce 10 kWh per day of electric power. "
In case you cannot do the sums, that is an average power of only 0.417 kW or 417 W - should be a doodle for someone like you!

And if you cannot give solid evidence of free energy machines, not just pretty pictures of scam machines, admit they are simply fraudulent devices to extract money from gullible customers!
:o :o :o Like cheap free energy machine plans, only $200!  :o :o :o

If YOU had any guts you would get your revolutionary "theories" published and proven, or disproven!

Bye bye, have fun!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4810
Re: Distances in the universe
« Reply #119 on: April 28, 2017, 01:42:29 AM »
You were invited to read a very important paper on the Cavendish experiment, requiring of you at least a few days of serious stuying.

Yet, here you are 15 minutes later claiming that it is no problem at all for you.

So, I have to do your homework for you.

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

Did you read up on the Walker (Cavendish type experiment) experiment?

Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

 It is even more strange now that we have apples weighing only ounces standing as proof of gravitational theory, the weight and density of the earth, and the accepted value of an important constant. That is to say, we now accept apples as having easily measurable and verifiable gravitational attractions, but we ignore the gravitational attractions of walls weighing thousands of pounds. I can only imagine that we do this because walls are not made of metal, or walls are not spherical, or something. I can’t really fathom it.

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.


This means that the four walls must be taken into account, not only as blockers of wind, but as suppliers of mass and any possible E/M interaction.

This is clear, I think, with Cavendish, and it is equally clear with Walker and all modern machines and environs. Walker is in his basement, surrounded by tons of earth. And yet he completely ignores this. He thinks that because he has gone to the center of his room, he has exhausted the boundaries of rigor. Other experiments are done in massive modern buildings that weigh thousands of tons, and that may have any number of different E/M fields, some created by the earth, some created by the iron beams in the buildings, some created by electrical networks in the building. None of this is considered. It is claimed that these considerations are probably negligible, since the forces would be so small. But if we are using one of these tiny modern machines, our forces are already so small they are barely able to override residual air resistance (if in fact they can). We shouldn’t just assume that these things are or are not happening, we should have to prove it.


“As Cavendish proved…[there were] enormous effects of air currents set up by temperature differences inside the box.” We don’t hear much of that anymore. We are supposed to assume that Cavendish solved his wind problems by building the box.

Next he says this:

With such small beams as I am now using it is much more convenient to replace the long thin box generally employed to protect the beam from disturbance by a vertical tube of circular section, in which the beam with its mirror can revolve freely. This has the further advantage that if the beam is hung centrally, the attraction of the tube produces no effect, and the troublesome and approximate calculations which have been necessary to find the effect of the box are no longer required.

See that he admits that he has not done any “troublesome calculations” on his box, just assuming it produces no effect.


Basically, Cavendish said that because he showed a motion, and because there was no other known explanation for it, it must be gravity. Newer variations on Cavendish do the same. They show a motion, tell us it is not wind (showing us the metal and glass casing to prove it), tell us there is no other explanation for it, so that it must be gravity. They therefore apply the gravitational equation to it, and spit all the old numbers out as supposed proof of something.

But it is proof of nothing. Cavendish didn’t even bother to include the weight of his walls.


The same applies to Walker and the new experiments. They are incredibly sloppy about mass in an experiment that concerns mass, and yet they always seem to get reliable results. Does no one else find this the least bit strange? All they have to do is block the wind and the experiment provides all the right motions. They can switch it from clockwise to counterclockwise without concern: they still get attraction. They don’t have to worry if one wall is bigger than the other, or if there are magnetic fields in the area, or if they have cameras or ladders in the way, or if they are not square to the wall, or if they are nearer the floor or the ceiling. All these things that you would think might matter in an experiment concerning mass don’t seem to matter. Very curious.

You should find it very mystifying that all these scientists not only ignore huge masses only two feet away, masses that may or not be balanced, they also ignore the need to say why they can ignore these masses. In other words, they ignore these facts, then ignore their own ignorance of these facts, and none of it seems to matter. We are such blessed creatures, apparently, that we can stumble on the correct answer every time, without even being fully conscious.


THEN THE AUTHOR PROCEEDS TO CALCULATE THE INFLUENCE OF THE E/M FIELDS SURROUNING THE EXPERIMENT AND FINDS OUT THAT THEY GREATLY AFFECT THE FINAL RESULT.


But I have just claimed that the E/M field is the dominant field by far at this level of size and that this field is always repulsive. How do I explain this contradiction? The explanation is that we are not seeing or measuring a force between the balls, as has always been assumed. We are not measuring or seeing gravity, in the main. The larger ball or object is mainly a blocker. It is a masking agent. We are not seeing an attraction; we are seeing the blocking of a repulsion.


Our large ball simply gets in the way of photons being emitted by the walls. Since the smaller ball is no longer being repulsed from that direction, it moves it that direction, appearing to be attracted by the larger ball. It is that simple.


This means that Cavendish succeeded by a compensation of errors. The big ball is blocking almost exactly the amount that is missing from the equations, due to the loss of its own gravitational acceleration. Any Cavendish-like machine with large balls that are fixed would be expected to have the same compensation of errors.


This probably explains the variation in all contemporary measurements of gravity, too, including the most recent. Because the researchers are ignorant of the fields present, and the actual actions of their machines, all of their conclusions are skewed.