FE says brainwashing

The correct value of the gravitational component of g at the equator is very close to 9.82292 m/s2.

You are getting your figures mixed up: obviously this is the first time you ever heard of the gravitational field intensity theory.

Assuming that g = π²m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value of g at the equator should be 9.83568 m/s2, whereas the measured value is far lower: 9.780524 m/s2.

NO! You cannot assume that g = π²m/s². You must measure g and π or π² has nothing to do with it!

No, I am not getting anything mixed up!
OK, let's use your 9.780524 m/s², matters little.
The equatorial radius of the Globe is 6.3781×10⁶ m, agree?
The earth rotates once, 360° or 2π rad, in 23.934470 hrs, or 1 sidereal day, agree?
Hence the angular velocity of earth, ω_e = 2π/(23.934470 x 3600) = 7.2921 x 10^-5 rad/s, agree?

So the centripetal acceleration, a_cent = ω_e²r = 0.033916 m/s².
Hence the gravitational component of g at the equator = 9.780524 + 0.033916 = 9.8144 m/s², a bit lower than before because I used your 9.780524 m/s².

By the way, just so that you know, I do not accept your Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction by David Pratt.

Yes.

Repeating the same baseless nonsense doesn't magically make it true.

The barometer pressure [non] contradiction

Is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The ether drift acts continuously on matter, this is called biochirality.

Notice how that doesn't address what I said at all?

We are talking about sealed plastic bottle, which has a certain amount of air inside it.
Air = gases = subquark strings.

So you are merely replacing air with something else, and then piling on loads of nonsense?
So how does it differ from real air pressure?

This is the correct explanation, one which obviously has evaded your analytical skills.

No, it is a collection of nonsense with absolutely nothing backing it up.
The closest you get to actually explaining it is just replacing air with your nonsense.
You can't even answer simple questions about what is in the bottle.

Perhaps this will be easier for you:
You are up at altitude.
You have 2 bottles.
You close one of the bottles.
You now come back down.
You close the other bottle.
What is different between them?

You must measure g and π or π2 has nothing to do with it!

Exactly.

"Traditionally, this field intensity is considered to be counteracted by the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation; the centrifugal acceleration is zero at the poles and reaches a maximum of 0.03392 m/s2 at the equator. One of the problems in the current understanding of gravity is that the difference between the gravitational acceleration at the poles and at the equator is greater than any centrifugal reaction can account for. This discrepancy is conventionally explained by the Earth being not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid, or rather a triaxial spheroid.

Assuming that g = π²m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value of g at the equator should be 9.83568 m/s2, whereas the measured value is far lower: 9.780524 m/s2. Modern technology permits more exact determinations of the measured values of net g at the poles and the equator, along with better determinations of the polar and equatorial radii. This makes it possible to accurately determine the angular velocity function (Ω) that is a constituent of the gravitational field intensity. It is pointed out that if we employ the values for net g at the poles (where no centrifugal reaction exists) along with the polar radii to determine the value of Ω, and then use this value together with the known equatorial radius to determine the gravitational field intensity at the equator, this will be found to be exactly π2m/s2, to the fourth digit!

This rules out geometric explanations for the actual value of net g at the equator, as the differences in terrestrial geometry are already taken into account. So something besides the centrifugal force or geometry must account for the counteraction of gravity at the equator by Δ = (π2 - 0.03392) - 9.780524 = 0.05516 m/s2."

What is different between them?

One has its air enclosed in a space, it is sealed, the other is not.

So, in that enclosed space, the bottle will slowly implode (no pressure at all involved) from the increasing absorption of aether within the plastic bottle.


Now, there is still another way to prove the existence of the dextrorotatory strings.

This is how modern science describes the magnetic field:



The lines run South to North.

But these constitute only HALF of the field lines of a magnet.

SPINTRONICS, the secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):

https://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf

Real-time photographs of the magnetic field revealing TWO STREAMS PARTICLES, South to North, BUT ALSO North to South:






There two flows of subquarks/magnetic monopoles: South-Center-North AND North-Center-South.

The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.

Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.

This flow is made up of TWO currents, of opposing spin, traveling in double torsion fashion: the dextrorotatory subquarks and the laevorotatory subquarks.

What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?








Not only North-South laevorotatory subquarks, but ALSO a South-North flow of dextrorotatory subquarks.


The first stream of particles is the electromagnetic flux, the antigravitational string (laevorotatory subquarks).

The second stream of particles is the gravitational flux, dextrorotatory subquarks.

It is this second stream of particles which causes the sealed plastic bottle to implode as it is brought down from a higher altitude.

Whittaker provided the mathematical proof of the existence of these sets of bidirectional longitudinal waves (potential/ether).

Both strings form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL field.

The electrogravitational field has magnetic waves AND ALSO gravitational waves.

Classy guy, bringing yet more irrelevant and incorrect information

If what you have learned in the physics class is true, then please explain why the bathroom scale does not register a number right now. A scale 1 sq. ft. in size must register some 2,000 lbs (a column of air one square meter in cross section is said to weigh over 100,000 Newtons or 10.2 metric tonnes or 11.2 (short) tons at sea level).

Buoyancy lowers weight. Take a train car and evacuate the air. Then you will find your “2,000 pounds”.


And with that I completely destroy your argument.

The same principle applies.

In fact, you don't need a train tanker, you can use a soda can:

https://www.wired.com/2016/01/make-your-own-tanker-implosion-with-a-soda-can/

Take a look at these images:





The end result is the same.

In vacuum, once the air (gas subquarks) is pumped out, one is left with the pure potential, the ether drift with laevorotatory and dextrorotatory strings propagating in double torsion fashion.

Then, instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

The train tanker is IMPLODING, and not crushing under the influence of the "atmosphere pressure".

In vacuum, once the air (gas subquarks) is pumped out, one is left with the pure potential, the ether drift with laevorotatory and dextrorotatory strings propagating in double torsion fashion.

Then, instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

The train tanker is IMPLODING, and not crushing under the influence of the "atmosphere pressure".

I think you should do a little bit more research into some modern peer review.  Your above notion is completely unfounded and beyond incorrect.

"An Explanation of Dayton Miller’s
 Anomalous “Ether Drift” Result "

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf

"This paper presentsa complete explanation for his anomalous result by: a)
showing that his results are not statistically
significant, b) describing in detail how flaws in his a
nalysis procedure produced a false signal with
precisely the properties he expected, and c) presenting
a quantitative model of his systematic drift
that shows there is no real signal in his data."

My favorite part in the abstract:

"In short, this is every experimenter’s nightmare: he
was unknowingly looking at statistically insignificant pa
tterns in his systematic drift that
mimicked the appearance of a real signal."

Is this supposed to be a practical joke on your part?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg751624#msg751624 (Dayton Miller ether drift experiments, the response to Roberts, part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg945952#msg945952 (part II)

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Dr. Yuri Galaev ether drift experiments:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

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

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

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.


Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles by Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge), an extraordinary analysis of the discoveries listed in the Occult Chemistry:

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


Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.




https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998179#msg1998179 (more information)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1998110#msg1998110


Left-handed spin and right-handed spin subquarks:



Occult Chemistry, chapter I, Nature of Matter:

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

"In this ultimate state of physical matter two types of units, or Anu, have been observed; they are alike in everything save the direction of their whorls and of the force which pours through them. In the one case force pours in from the "outside," from fourth-dimensional space, the Astral plane, and passing through the Anu, pours into the physical world. In the second, it pours in from the physical world, and out through the Anu into the "outside" again, i.e., vanishes from the physical world."

Anu = subquark

Astral plane = aether

The apparent void which must be filled with substance of some kind, of inconceivable tenuity--Anu appear; if this be artificially stopped for a single Anu, the Anu disappears: there is nothing left. Presumably, were that flow checked but for an instant, the whole physical world would vanish as a cloud melts away in the empyrean.

This is reason why the train tanker simply imploded: the aether was absorbed in its entirety through the receptive vortices of the right-handed spin subquarks.

Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles by Dr. Stephen Phillips (UCLA, Cambridge), an extraordinary analysis of the discoveries listed in the Occult Chemistry:

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

I could just as easily cite Dobyn's refutation, in the same paper, of Phillip’s entire hypothesis:

"Aside from a few tantalizing bits of historical evidence, "Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles” consists almost in its entirety of unsupported, frequently self-contradictory, speculation."

I would say the same about all of your writings: Consists almost in its entirety of unsupported, frequently self-contradictory, speculation.

Dr. Phillips was kind enough to actually include the response by Dobyns (you misspelled his name).

Then, on page 539 (page 50 of the pdf document) he answers back with formidabile arguments.

To conclude: Dobyns' critique contains misconceived arguments, misrepresentations
and lack of intellectual penetration. He thereby fails to rebut any
element of my claim that the micro-psi observations of Besant and Leadbeater
are genuine. Certainly, they have not persuaded me that anything in my article
is incorrect.


Dobyns is going to have to explain the following undeniable facts:

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

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

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.

Achievements of the Occult Chemistry treatise (subquark ether quantum physics):

Baryons, mesons, quarks and /subquarks/preons were described over 50 years before conventional science.

It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory.

It described the existence of positrons 30 years before they were detailed.

It reported the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs.

It presented the existence of isotopes 5 years before their discovery.


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 discovering  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 observations  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.

...Too long pure nonsense.

Water bottles vs air pressure.
Pv = nrt.
Formula withstands repeatable experiments.
The high altitude air occupied V1 under P1.
When brought down to sea lvl, the P1 no longer sustaining V1 and the flimsy container collapses down to new V2 under the ground lvl P2.
You over complicate with your gibberish.

Side note, have you gone swimming yet?

In vacuum, once the air (gas subquarks) is pumped out, one is left with the pure potential, the ether drift with laevorotatory and dextrorotatory strings propagating in double torsion fashion.

Then, instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

The train tanker is IMPLODING, and not crushing under the influence of the "atmosphere pressure".

Incorrect!
There is no need for all your gobbledegook about "dextrorotatory receptive vortices"  and "aether". The plastic bottle is crushed because the air pressure outside is greater than the air pressure inside.
Why do you make such a complicated mystery about such simple things? I guess it's simply so that you can pretend to know much more than ordinary people

Under typical conditions
at an altitude of 4300 m the air pressure is 59295 Pa (8.60 psi)
    an altitude of 2700 m the air pressure is 72845 Pa (10.57 psi)
    an altitude of 300 m the air pressure is 97272 Pa (14.18 psi) and
    at sea-level the air pressure is 97272 Pa (14.7 psi)
From: Mide ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, Air Pressure at Altitude Calculator
See, it's so simple!

Now, using your "your gobbledegook about 'dextrorotatory receptive vortices'  and aether' " show an expression that allows the calculation of the approximate pressure at any altitude. Something that let's us do what this does:

Air pressure above sea level can be calculated as
     p = 101325 (1 - 2.25577 x 10^-5 h)^5.25588
where
     101325 = normal temperature and pressure at sea level (Pa)
     p = air pressure (Pa)
     h = altitude above sea level (m)
Engineering ToolBox, Altitude above Sea Level and Air Pressure

And that is essentially what aircraft aneroid altimeters use to display "pressure altitude" so it obviously works.

It is just as well people like you do not have to work in the aircraft and similar industries.

You must measure g and π or π2 has nothing to do with it!
Exactly.

Good. Glad you have admitted you are wrong.
Now enough of this tangent and start explaining how balloons and scales work.

One has its air enclosed in a space, it is sealed, the other is not.

Nope. They both are.

Both bottles have air inside and outside. Both are sealed.
It is just that one was sealed at a high altitude (or low pressure) while the other was sealed at low altitude (or high pressure).
They both have air inside and out and according to you, that air is irrelevant as there is no air pressure.
So why is one bottle crushed while the other is fine?

The only explanation is to link the air inside with the pressure. But you say that is wrong.

Now, there is still another way to prove the existence of the dextrorotatory strings.

Not until you can even explain simple things.
Stop going off on tangents.

Especially when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about or how to read diagrams.

The same principle applies.
The end result is the same.
In vacuum, once the air [nonsense removed] is pumped out [more nonsense cut]

Once the air is removed you have only the air pressure outside trying to crush the bottle. You have no air inside trying to hold the bottle open. This causes the bottle to collapse.
This is entirely consistent with the accepted understanding of air pressure.

Meanwhile, if you repeat the experiment in a vacuum, then the bottle, initially filled with gas, is trying to explode (and will explode if it isn't strong enough).
But then suck the air out and it is fine, no crushing.

There is no reason to invoke any of your nonsense and nothing backing up any of your nonsense.

If what you are saying is true, the air should have nothing to do with it.

Good work sandman!

101325 = normal temperature and pressure at sea level (Pa)

Right.

Now, explain why 101,325 can be expressed in terms of π:

100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π²/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.

For modern atmospheric physics has this to say on the subject:

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Let us switch to the technical atmosphere.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m


Both bottles have air inside and outside. Both are sealed.

That is not what you said in the previous message:

Perhaps this will be easier for you:
You are up at altitude.
You have 2 bottles.
You close one of the bottles.
You now come back down.
You close the other bottle.
What is different between them?

Now, you are describing an entirely different situation.

One plastic bottle is sealed at a high altitude, and is gradually being brought down.

The other bottle stays at the low altitude, but is also sealed.

Nothing to do with atmospheric pressure.

At the higher altitude, the molecules of air are more rarefied (less density). As the bottle is being brought down to a lower altitude, the density/effect of the dextrorotatory waves will increase, the rate of absorption of aether will increase, the bottle will implode.

At the lower altitude, perhaps right next to the surface of the Earth, the density of the air inside the bottle will be much higher (than the density of air for the bottle at the higher altitude), so that the rate of absorption will be lower (even though the effect of the dextrorotatory waves at a lower altitude is greater than that at a higher altitude).

In the first case, the rarefied gas is closer to the first state of ether, a higher absorption rate, which increases, as the bottle is brought to a lower altitude.

In the second case, the much higher density of the molecules means that the rate of absorption is much reduced, the bottle will not implode.

It has everything to do with the balance between the amount of aether absorbed by the right handed spin subquarks, the amount of aether emitted by the left handed spin subquarks.

If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately; instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

Meanwhile, if you repeat the experiment in a vacuum, then the bottle, initially filled with gas, is trying to explode (and will explode if it isn't strong enough).
But then suck the air out and it is fine, no crushing.

You sound very confused.

Now, explain why 101,325 can be expressed in terms of π:

Because it is a number.
Like all numbers it can be expressed in terms of other numbers.
If you understood math and how numbers work, you would know this.

But again, the match isn't perfect.
It doesn't even match when expressed to 4 digits.

Both bottles have air inside and outside. Both are sealed.
That is not what you said in the previous message:

Yes it was.
Let me emphasise the key part you are missing.

[snip]
You close one of the bottles.
You now come back down.
You close the other bottle.
What is different between them?

So no, both bottles are closed.
So you have 2 bottles, under the same conditions (same altitude, same temperature, same environment) both sealed, both with air inside.
Why are they so different? Why is one crushed but no the other?

If air pressure doesn't matter, then the difference in air pressure shouldn't matter so it shouldn't matter where they get sealed.
So why is one crushed and not the other?

At the higher altitude, the molecules of air are more rarefied (less density).

This is appealing to atmospheric pressure.
You have rejected this and thus it has no place in your argument.

If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately;

Yes, as there will no longer be air pressure inside the bottle to hold it open and instead it will be crushed.
Again, this is appealing to air pressure, something you reject. It has no place in your argument.

Also note that if done in a vacuum, the bottle can be empty, yet not get crushed.

You sound very confused.

Says the one grasping at whatever straws they can, rejecting air pressure and then appealing to it.

101325 = normal temperature and pressure at sea level (Pa)
Now, explain why 101,325 can be expressed in terms of π:
100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

Which rounds to 0.9869

π²/10 = 0.98696044

Which rounds to 0.9870

A four digit perfect match.

Which is NOT a four digit match.

It can't. It's not even a three digit match.  Get used to it!

And you still willing address the fact that comparing a pure number (π²/10) with a pressure (in Pascals).
What is magic about Pascals the, SI unit of pressure? What if the atmospheric pressure were measured in Poundals Per Square Inch (pdl/in²)?

Poundal Per Square Inch (pdl/in²) is a unit in the category of Pressure. It is also known as poundals per square inch, poundal/square inch. This unit is commonly used in the UK, US unit systems.

Your impure coincidence would not would!

Let us switch to the technical atmosphere.

Why? The "technical atmosphere" was never a measure of atmosphere. Is was only a convenient but imprecise unit of pressure.

Technical atmosphere

          A unit of pressure equal to one kilogram-force per square centimeter. Symbol, at. One technical atmosphere is approximately 0.967841 standard atmosphere or exactly 98.0665 kilopascals.

          According to the current national standard in the United States, the technical atmosphere is not to be used. Kilopascals should be used instead.

          In 1971, the European Economic Community directed that use of this unit cease by 31 December 1977.

It has been used for an easy but rough comparison of pressures with atmospheric pressure.

As a matter of fact at an altitude of 275 m the typical atmospheric pressure is very close you one technical atmosphere.
This shows how ludicrous your "magic number theories" are. Choose a suitable unit and change a certain parameter a prove anything.

You guys realize youre trying to debate with this sando guy who has +200 self reply posts to his own theory.
He vomits "information"/ nonsense.

It seems you still don't understand what is going on.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.

https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

Now, the ratio of these magnitudes equals, to four decimal places, exactly π².

By the way, you must be really desperate and scared to round off 0.9869233 to 0.9869: it is 0.987 still a perfect three decimal places match to the other quantity.


Like all numbers it can be expressed in terms of other numbers.

It doesn't work like that.

Modern atmospheric physics:

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Yet, out of this string of accidents, we obtain a four digit perfect match between the value of the standard atmosphere and the magnitude of the g acceleration, and between the sacred cubit and the value of the standard atmosphere.


As if this wasn't enough, we have the technical atmosphere; it was in widespread use before 1971.

Why?

Because the unit of measure is exactly one kilogram-force per square centimeter, and its value equals the accepted g acceleration figure, 9.80665.

Then, the RE have a huge problem.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m


We are supposed to believe that, given the complete random and aleatory chemical composition/mass of the atmosphere over the eons, now the ratio of the two standard atmosphere accepted values will equal π²/10, and that the conversion of 980.665 mbar (technical atmosphere) to the height of the column of water will equal exactly 10 meters.

Not a chance.


You close one of the bottles.
You now come back down.
You close the other bottle.
What is different between them?

The situation is now this: you close one of the plastic bottles at a high altitude, the other is open, you come back down, and now you close the other bottle.

The very same explanation applies.

At the higher altitude, the molecules of air are more rarefied (less density). As the bottle is being brought down to a lower altitude, the density/effect of the dextrorotatory waves will increase, the rate of absorption of aether will increase, the bottle will implode.

At the lower altitude, perhaps right next to the surface of the Earth, the density of the air inside the bottle which was brought down UNSEALED will be much higher (than the density of air for the bottle at the higher altitude), so that the rate of absorption will be lower (even though the effect of the dextrorotatory waves at a lower altitude is greater than that at a higher altitude).

In the first case, the rarefied gas is closer to the first state of ether, a higher absorption rate, which increases, as the bottle is brought to a lower altitude.

In the second case, the much higher density of the molecules means that the rate of absorption is much reduced, the bottle will not implode.

It has everything to do with the balance between the amount of aether absorbed by the right handed spin subquarks, the amount of aether emitted by the left handed spin subquarks.


This is appealing to atmospheric pressure.

You seem to be addicted to atmospheric pressure and forget that there are other, much better explanations for this phenomenon.

The density of air DECREASES with increasing altitude because of the effect of the antigravitational/laevorotatory waves upon the molecules of the gases.

Yes, as there will no longer be air pressure inside the bottle to hold it open and instead it will be crushed.

Not at all.

If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately; instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

In vacuum, once the air (gas subquarks) is pumped out, one is left with the pure potential, the ether drift with laevorotatory and dextrorotatory strings propagating in double torsion fashion.

Then, instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

The train tanker is IMPLODING, and not crushing under the influence of the "atmosphere pressure".


rejecting air pressure and then appealing to it.

Not me: I have used only the effect of the potential ether waves.

You, on the other hand, are still to explain the barometer pressure contradiction which proves immediately that atmospheric pressure is not subject to the law of attractive gravitation.

It seems you still don't understand what is going on.

No, it seems I understand quite clearly and am skipping over your irrelevant nonsense to cut to the chase.

You need to explain how balloons and bottles and the like work, without appealing to air pressure, something you have repeatedly failed to do.

The situation is now this: you close one of the plastic bottles at a high altitude, the other is open, you come back down, and now you close the other bottle.
The very same explanation applies.

And that explanation uses air pressure, as such it applies for the current understanding of physics, not your nonsense.

You are claiming air pressure doesn't exist so the amount of air has nothing to do with it.
If you want to appeal to the amount of gas inside you are appealing to air pressure.

You seem to be addicted to atmospheric pressure and forget that there are other, much better explanations for this phenomenon.

No better explanation has been provided by anyone.
Air pressure is the explanation most supported by evidence and the one which makes the most sense.

If the air is removed from the plastic bottle, it will implode immediately

Only with air (or another fluid) outside which in turn exerts pressure on the container crushing it.

Not me: I have used only the effect of the potential ether waves.

You are continually appealing to the air inside. That is appealing to air pressure.
If you were going to use something else, you would have no need to appeal to the air inside. But then you would be unable to explain the phenomenon.

Perhaps another question for you to admit your failure:
What do you think air is made of?
What distinguishes it from other forms of matter such as liquids and solids, noting that you can liquify air.

You, on the other hand, are still

Dismissing your pathetic tangents. Grow up and deal with the topic at hand.

It seems you still don't understand what is going on.

The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is directly related to the sacred cubit.
https://www.bipm.org/jsp/en/ViewCGPMResolution.jsp?CGPM=10&RES=4
1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

No! "The value chosen in 1954 by the 10th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures (CGPM) for the standard atmosphere is" in no way "directly related to the sacred cubit."
Your apparent match to is purely coincidental! The CGPM chose 101325 Pa simply because it is a good average atmospheric pressure.
You might recall that a standard atmosphere has been long regarded as 760 mmHg. That is equivalent to 101.32501 kPa or 101325 Pa.

This 101325 Pa is not a new number imposed on anybody and it is the 14.7 psi commonly used in USA.

In 1982, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recommended that for the purposes of specifying the physical properties of substances, “standard pressure” should be precisely 100 kPa (1 bar) = 100,000 Pa.
http://goldbook.iupac.org/html/S/S05921.html

standard pressure
Chosen value of pressure denoted by  p ⦵ or  p °. In 1982 IUPAC recommended the value  10⁵ Pa, but prior to 1982 the value  101 325 Pa (= 1 atm) was usually used.

The does not say that 10⁵ Pa is the actual atmospheric pressure it is just a round figure close to the average atmospheric pressure.

Now, the ratio of these magnitudes equals, to four decimal places, exactly π².

No it is not even close to "exactly π²" though coincidentally (100,000/101325) is approximately π²/10.

By the way, you must be really desperate and scared to round off 0.9869233 to 0.9869: it is 0.987 still a perfect three decimal places match to the other quantity.

Garbage! You have been insisting:
"It  is a perfect four digit match" and three digits only match perfectly if you round further but I'll concede it is a three digit match.

Any match is purely coincidental. Get used to it! Coincidences like this are not that rare.

Now face the facts! Atmospheric pressure has nothing whatever to do with any sort of π!
Atmospheric pressure is determined predominantly by the total mass of the atmosphere - more air more pressure.

By the way those Egyptians must thought that the earth was a perfect sphere because if it were then one Sacred Cubit = 2/π metres.
Note that my dimensions are fine - both are lengths. It is perfectly explainable and is neither a coincidence nor "magic".
Of course we find that the match is not perfect because we now know that the earth is not a perfect sphere.

Your apparent match to is purely coincidental! The CGPM chose 101325 Pa simply because it is a good average atmospheric pressure.

Right.

However, it so happens that modern science has to make this basic assumption:

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

Then, we have this most remarkable "coincidence".

100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π²/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.

760 mmHg

47 x 2/π = 29.921129

29.921129 sacred inches = 759.9966842 mm

Since you like to round off these numbers, we get a perfect 760 mm.

Any match is purely coincidental.

A four digit match cannot be purely coincidental.

Neither can the following very simple calculation.

One technical atmosphere: the unit of measure is exactly one kilogram-force per square centimeter, and its value equals the accepted g acceleration figure, 9.80665.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m


We are supposed to believe that, given the complete random and aleatory chemical composition/mass of the atmosphere over the eons, now the ratio of the two standard atmosphere accepted values will equal π²/10, and that the conversion of 980.665 mbar (technical atmosphere) to the height of the column of water will equal exactly 10 meters.

Not a chance.

Here is another coincidence.

1013250 dynes per square centimetre (101325 Pa).

4 x 101,325 = 405,300

405,300^1/2 = 636.63176

2/π = one sacred cubit = 0.636619772

101,325 = (2000/π)²/4 + 6sc

Then, the value of the height of column of water, corresponding to 101,325 Pascals can be expressed directly in terms of sacred cubits.

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.

Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum



(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

The first video supplied by Gravitec in 2003:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363 (vacuum test #1, Biefeld-Brown effect part I, contains the experiments performed by T. Brown in oil)





One of the best videos which exemplifies the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html


http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the standpoint of ZPF field

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute confirm that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real.


Direct experimental proof that the ether propagates through vacuum, causing the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect.


Dr. Paul Alfred Biefeld was appointed the first director of the new Swazey Observatory at Denison University in Granville, Ohio, when it opened in 1911, and simultaneously assumed the post of Chairman of the University’s equally new Department of Astronomy. Prior to his arrival in Granville, Biefeld had received his B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin in 1894 and — following the trail of Robert Millikan and other Americans to Europe — went to Switzerland and received his doctorate from the Polytechnic University in Zurich in 1900.

“Yes,” Biefeld told the Denison campus newspaper, “when Einstein would forget to go to a class, he would come and borrow my notes to get caught up on what he had missed."

Dr. Biefeld had been interested in the subject of gravitation for many years. This interest probably coincided with [Einstein’s] interest in the "Unified Field Theory". Biefeld believed in the possibility of some connection with gravitation. As he expressed it - "I am constantly on the 'look-out' for something that might represent an 'electrodynamic-gravitational' coupling. "

According to Brown the pivotal exchange, took place when Brown asked Biefeld, “If a coupling did exist, what (physical) instrumentality might it resemble?" Biefeld “thought for a few minutes and then answered without equivocation, "the capacitor.”

Your apparent match to is purely coincidental! The CGPM chose 101325 Pa simply because it is a good average atmospheric pressure.

Yes, "CGPM chose 101325 Pa simply because it is a good average atmospheric pressure" end of story!

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.

Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum

No it does not and it's irrelevant.

The same principle applies.

In fact, you don't need a train tanker, you can use a soda can:

https://www.wired.com/2016/01/make-your-own-tanker-implosion-with-a-soda-can/

Yes.

Take a look at these images:





The end result is the same.

Yes, pressure is well understood. Nothing strange.

In vacuum, once the air (gas subquarks) is pumped out, one is left with the pure potential, the ether drift with laevorotatory and dextrorotatory strings propagating in double torsion fashion.

In a partial vacuum you are left with a partical vacuum. So low pressure. Pressure gauges will read this. See my videos.

Then, instantaneously, the dextrorotatory receptive vortices will absorb any aether left in the tanker/soda can/plastic bottle, causing a complete implosion of the object.

No. The container give way. You can see this by other containers that are made to support the force of outside air won't give way.

The train tanker is IMPLODING, and not crushing under the influence of the "atmosphere pressure".

No. See suction cups in a vacuum.

Then, we have this most remarkable "coincidence".

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about this coincidence at all.
You have 2 numbers matching to a low extent after some mathematical manipulation.

If they wanted a perfect match to pi^2, don't you think they would have made the standard atmosphere something more like:
98696 Pa?
But they didn't. Instead they made it larger than that.
But even then, the "perfect match" would be:
101321.
But again, they didn't choose that.

There is no magical perfect match, and your pathetic match needs to first manipulate the numbers.
So stop with your pathetic lies and instead focus on what you are repeatedly failing to do:
Explain how balloons and bottles work, without resorting to air pressure.

One technical atmosphere: the unit of measure is exactly one kilogram-force per square centimeter, and its value equals the accepted g acceleration figure, 9.80665.

Really? Who would have thought. One technical atmosphere, calculated as kg*g/cm^2, is the same as g (note: g in formula is the gravitational acceleration of earth)?
What a massive coincidence, especially considering there are no factors at all, and instead just units?
It would take either a complete moron or someone with no sense of integrity or honesty to claim that that is anything special.
It was literally defined to be that, to make conversion between pressure and mass easy.

Note that this doesn't even match the actual atmospheric pressure, so any arguments focusing on that are blatant lies.

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.
Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum

This does not provide the proof you are looking for.
You have an asymmetric capacitor in a metal enclosure, with some gas still there.
That in no way proves aether exists.

And now you are just running off down yet another tangent rather than answering simple questions.

Regardless of if the vacuum consists of ether, who cares, why should the air have anything to do with it.
You are still relying upon air pressure to stop the bottle from being crushed.
If that air pressure exists inside the bottle when air is present, it will also exist outside the bottle when air is present and thus can crush the bottle without appealing to your nonsense.

Now, are you going to answer my question this time:
What makes gasses different from liquids and solids, considering you can convert them between each other?
(although I do realise this line of question may turn out to be completely pointless as you reject mechanics and how forces work)

IUPAC and CGPM chose only two values: 101,325 Pa and 100,000 Pa.

Not 101,321 or 98,696.

If you have problems with this, you can write to them and complain.

Then, using those two values, the RE have a huge problem.

100,000/101,325 = 0.9869233

π²/10 = 0.98696044

A four digit perfect match.

The same RE also make this claim:

"Geology has been viewed as a collection of events derived from insignificant causes, a string of accidents."

You cannot have a four digit match out of accidents, it won't happen.

But there is more.

980.665 mbar = 98.0665 kPa technical atm = 28.959136 inHg = 32.8093 ft of water = 10.00027464 m

Only a moron could believe that these calculations have a random chance of being such a perfect match.

I did NOT use the kg*g/cm^2, ONLY the direct conversion to inHg and ft/m of water.

One technical atmosphere: the unit of measure is exactly one kilogram-force per square centimeter, and its value equals the accepted g acceleration figure, 9.80665.

We are supposed to believe that, given the complete random and aleatory chemical composition/mass of the atmosphere over the eons, now the ratio of the two standard atmosphere accepted values will equal π2/10, and that the conversion of 980.665 mbar (technical atmosphere) to the height of the column of water will equal exactly 10 meters.

Not a chance.


The vacuum has ether: direct proofs using videos.

Biefeld-Brown Effect

Dr. Paul Biefeld used to do Einstein's homework while they were studying at the  Polytechnic University in Zurich in 1900.

Experimental proof that the vacuum consists of ether.



(vacuum test performed by Gravitec, increasing the voltage from 15kv to 18 kv, clear movement/thrust of the capacitor can be seen; near the end the power is switched off, and then turned on again, and we can the visible thrust of the capacitor for a second time)

The first video supplied by Gravitec in 2003:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1852363#msg1852363 (vacuum test #1, Biefeld-Brown effect part I, contains the experiments performed by T. Brown in oil)





One of the best videos which exemplifies the Biefeld-Brown effect in vacuum:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050216062907/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~reginald/liftvac.html


http://lifters.online.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm (includes all necessary technical information and the video itself)


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV.


Dr. Takaaki Musha
Advanced Space Propulsion Investigation Committee (ASPIC)
Research Engineer on Naval Systems, Technical Research & Development Institute
Honda R&D Institute, Biefeld-Brown effect experiments

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the standpoint of ZPF field

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.


https://web.archive.org/web/20120710005059/http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Experiments carried out at the HONDA R&D Institute confirm that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real.

Direct experimental proof that the ether propagates through vacuum, causing the antigravitational Biefeld-Brown effect.

No gas left in the experiments: they were performed in vacuum.

Calculations indicate that ionic wind is at least three orders of magnitude too small to explain the magnitude of the observed force on the capacitor (in open air experiments).

Also the experiments carried out at the Honda R&D eliminated the possibility of ionic winds.

Not 101,321 or 98,696.
If you have problems with this, you can write to them and complain.

You are the one that should be complaining as that is what you need for your near perfect match. Without them, you don't have one.
So thanks for admitting that the perfect is not the value chosen and thus anything more you say claiming such a coincidence or match is nothing more than pure garbage.

The vacuum has ether: direct proofs using videos.
Biefeld-Brown Effect

Reposting the same BS doesn't magically make it proof.

And yet again you fail to address simple questions, almost like you know that answering them will expose you to be completely wrong.
What's the matter, are you afraid?
Provide an explanation for how the balloon and bottle works without appealing to air. Any attempt to appeal to air is just an attempt to appeal to air pressure.
Alternatively, tell us what distinguishes gasses from liquids and solids?
As another option, do you accept liquids have pressure, and accept the common explanation for that?