The RE Community Has a New Enemy

  • 179 Replies
  • 4429 Views
*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #120 on: September 12, 2019, 04:05:44 AM »
Yes, I doubt many here doubt the mainstream parts. But when it gets to black sun and others people do tend to question.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #121 on: September 12, 2019, 04:09:40 AM »
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #122 on: September 12, 2019, 04:23:41 AM »
Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.
No, it doesn't.

That explains the chase for mythical dark matter...
Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.
Yeah, such a pity.

Failing to come to a complete understanding of the mythical "g."
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 05:09:28 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #123 on: September 12, 2019, 04:24:47 AM »
is sando a professor working on a thesis at some university?

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #124 on: September 12, 2019, 04:25:19 AM »
while ignoring that the authorities fully support Earth being round which you reject.

You can no longer "support" a RE hypothesis, once you have at your disposal the EXACT BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT FORMULA.

How do you justify the fact that the B-2 bomber just floats up there using only the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT as a power source of thrust and flight?

Why do none of your papers on the "BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" or the B-2 bomber supposedly "just floating up there using only the BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT" ever mention that it debunks the "RE hypothesis" or even that it debunks either Newtonian Gravitation or General Relativity?

Maybe you read a lot into these papers that is not really there?

Have you ever thought that the CIA might be expert at spreading disinformation to cover up high security projects? They've done it before.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #125 on: September 12, 2019, 04:40:15 AM »
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

And to prove your point to refer to authors investigating alternative methods of propulsion in space, wrap drives and interstellar travel. Good job.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

Stash

  • 3486
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #126 on: September 12, 2019, 12:29:00 PM »
Gravity happens to be the best and simplest model explaining observed natural phenomena such as things falling to the ground, planets orbiting the sun or black holes and it has proven predictive power.
No, it doesn't.

That explains the chase for mythical dark matter...
Until we have something better than gravity, we'll keep using gravity to explain things.
Yeah, such a pity.

Failing to come to a complete understanding of the mythical "g."
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.

Apparently you have never flown in a plane before. I can see why you haven't as the engineering behind every piece of equipment is predicated on this 'mythical g' as you call it. And why would you put your personal transportation safety at risk while mistrusting this myth? No sane person would. Best for you to stay on terra firma.

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #127 on: September 12, 2019, 03:08:16 PM »
If you have an alternative model to gravity that accounts for all the facts better than gravity, is simpler and has better predictive power, by all means go ahead and publish your work, then submit it to peer review.
Peer review is useless, as the "g" you worship so dearly is allegedly peer-reviewed and still doesn't explain jack squat.
Don't be ridiculous, the acceleration due to gravity, g, whatever the cause is easy to prove!

Simply drop a rock on your foot from 1 metre onto your foot and measure the time from your dropping the rock till your yells.
Then get your "mate" to drop the rock from 10 metres high onto your foot and measure the time from his/her dropping the rock till your screams in agony.

Then from your hospital bed get out your calculator and check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2.

To learn more you might read, Flat Earth Debate / Re: GRAVITY PROOF « Message by rabinoz on August 27, 2018, 08:56:40 AM ».

Your "peer-reviewed" is only relevant when you are looking for the cause of gravity.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #128 on: September 12, 2019, 09:59:56 PM »
check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

It works the same way on a flat earth.

What you, the RE, cannot explain is the value of g itself:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2080817#msg2080817 (three consecutive messages)

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2

But it has not.

What has been measured is the PRESSURE OF THE ETHER WAVES on the Cavendish experiment, that is all.


Again, you have been caught lying on a grand scale.


Here are more blatant lies on your part.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.


Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That is why Einstein had to fudge everything:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405

Here is the proof that the Einstein equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454


This fact has been explained already to you right here in this thread, yet here you are again, lying to your readers and making false claims.

Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?


*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #129 on: September 13, 2019, 12:39:00 AM »

Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.

Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That might be a valid critic to Einstein GR. However non of the physicists critic with GR are proposing aether waves pressure as alternative to GR. GR is incomplete, some physicist claim GR is wrong, but that doesn't automatically lead to aether wave pressure.

Showing issues with GR is not enough. You also need to show how your aether waves pressure fits all the facts better than GR. The only way you can do this is denying all the facts that don't fit your theory, such as all space missions. That's why nobody takes your theories seriously, they are just pseudoscience. 
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #130 on: September 13, 2019, 04:11:28 AM »
check is the times fit the equation,  time = (2 height)/g2.

It works the same way on a flat earth.

What you, the RE, cannot explain is the value of g itself:
The approximate value of g, the acceleration due to gravity is easy to find!  Drop a weight and time its fall!

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2080817#msg2080817 (three consecutive messages)

Now the "big G" in the equation g = G x M/d2 is a bit (lot) harder to find buthas been measured hundreds of times bit directly measuring the force in Newtons famous equation Fg = (G m1 m2)/d2

But it has not.

What has been measured is the PRESSURE OF THE ETHER WAVES on the Cavendish experiment, that is all.
So you say, but I'm under no obligation to agree with you.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, you have been caught lying on a grand scale.
Disagreeing with you is not lying! So I "been caught lying on a grand scale". Get used to that simple fact.


Quote from: sandokhan
Here are more blatant lies on your part.

The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
To date, that has not only been peer-reviewed but verified countless times both near earth, within the solar system (eg the precession rate of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit) and in gravitational lensing due to distant galaxies.

No lies there because, whatever you say, "The current theory as to the cause of gravitation is as described in Einstein's Theory of General Relativity."

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein original equations apply only TO STATIC SITUATIONS.

They do not have A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION.

This is the reason why A. Gullstrand refused to give Einstein the Nobel prize for general relativity.
Disagreeing with you is not lying! And that has nothing to do with Einstein failing to be awarded the Nobel prize for general relativity

Quote from: sandokhan
Einstein's equations cannot be applied to Mercury's perihelion, or lensing, or to the bending of light.

That is why Einstein had to fudge everything:
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

You might disagree, but so what?

Quote from: sandokhan
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194405#msg2194405

Here is the proof that the Einstein equations DO NOT HAVE A BOUNDED DYNAMIC SOLUTION:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2196454#msg2196454

This fact has been explained already to you right here in this thread, yet here you are again, lying to your readers and making false claims.
I choose not to accept your "facts" as facts. Is that a crime now?

Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!

I have every bit as much right to my opinions as you have and that's all you are presenting, your personal opinions.

By the way, would you care to show everybody how you proved the sun to be about 600 m in diameter and abou the 15 k  above the earth?

*

Yes

  • 256
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #131 on: September 13, 2019, 09:53:59 AM »
Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!

You are asking me to defend flat earth by providing non religious, non conspiratorial and non alternative sources, and you know damn well that I can't do that

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #132 on: September 13, 2019, 02:22:18 PM »
Quote from: sandokhan
Question for the MODERATORS/ADMIN: why do we have to put up with this kind of paid shills' constant output of blatant lies?
I most certainly am not a "paid shill" and if you claim that without proof you are the blatant liar!

I wish ::) but no one that matters cares about a few flat earthers spreading their ignorance.

But there is concern that many modern educational systems have been more like the "indoctrination" that these flat earthers complain about.

Modern Flat Earthism and all the other conspiracy theories that abound are just symptoms of this.


An educational system should teach more of "how to learn" and how to evaluate information and simply present "facts".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #133 on: September 13, 2019, 09:50:20 PM »
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

But they cannot be applied to DYNAMIC SITUATIONS.

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging the fact that his equations do not have A DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION, i.e. no GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTION:



But this 'argument' of yours has ALREADY been addressed.

You are SPAMMING the upper forums!

*

Sunset

  • 717
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #134 on: September 13, 2019, 10:40:29 PM »
mountains of evidence

Completely wrong.

The spherical earth hypothesis is but the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

Lol!!!!!

Do you have a copyright on the above phrase, sandman? If not, I'd like to put it on a t-shirt...... and like the sandman, your long long long long posts, have succeeded in putting me to sleep many a time!

The aether is another name for space, or the substance which is found in a vacuum. It's the same substance that separates planets and separates atoms from electrons. It's alchemy. It's the first matter, from which all measurable quantifiable matter, or secondary matter, is spawned from. It is the intermediary substance between our physical plane of existence and then the etheric plane, followed by the astral realms, etc.

Why, sandman, are you using it to try and bamboozle people with mathematical equations that belong in a harry potter movie, to trick them into a flat earth fall? It doesn't make sense!


*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #135 on: September 13, 2019, 11:02:09 PM »
An educational system should teach more of "how to learn" and how to evaluate information and simply present "facts".
I wholeheartedly agree.

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #136 on: September 14, 2019, 01:03:00 AM »
Sorry, but Einstein's equations can certainly be applied to Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing and to the bending of light.

But they cannot be applied to DYNAMIC SITUATIONS.

Here is Einstein himself acknowledging the fact that his equations do not have A DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION, i.e. no GRAVITATIONAL WAVE SOLUTION:

I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.
More recently, however, solutions for the complete GR tensor equation.

I already showed you this:
Quote from: sandokhan
You cannot have gravitational waves (a solution to the general relativity equations) without that antigravitational term.
Einstein's GR does allow a gravitational wave solution though Einstein himself only found a gravitational wave solution to the linearised version.
Read:THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
          Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
          Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes


Quote from: sandokhan
But this 'argument' of yours has ALREADY been addressed.
So? Why would your addressing the matter end all discussion? Do you regard yourself as the last word on GR, etc?

Quote from: sandokhan
You are SPAMMING the upper forums!
That's your opinion but in reality I'm simply answering your repeated claims that I do not agree with. Why would that be "SPAMMING the upper forums"?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #137 on: September 14, 2019, 03:03:38 AM »
This is beyond belief.

I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.

rabinoz CANNOT FACE reality.

Einstein says exactly THE OPPOSITE:



His linearized equations COULD NOT deliver the gravitational wave solution.

Yet rabinoz states the opposite of what Einstein stated back in 1936.


How is this for cognitive dissonance?


I already showed you this:

But I already debunked that reference, not once but twice!

rabinoz cannot face the stark reality of scientific proofs, so he is SPAMMING this forum yet again.

THIS IS DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202720#msg2202720

The same reference, the same response.

How do you deal with someone who refuses to face the facts?

Why do we, the FE, have to deal with this sort of cognitive dissonance in full display?

Since I have just proven that rabinoz SPAMMED this forum for a third time in row, just today, the necessary ban has to be implemented by the mods.

*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #138 on: September 14, 2019, 03:09:37 AM »
Isn’t all that purely academic? It is interesting, but as long as it is of no practical use, its worth in settling FE vs RE is non-existent?

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #139 on: September 14, 2019, 04:10:28 AM »
This is beyond belief.
I agree that Einstein himself could only solve for gravitational waves in the linearised versions of of his GR.
rabinoz CANNOT FACE reality.

Einstein says exactly THE OPPOSITE:


His linearized equations COULD NOT deliver the gravitational wave solution.
You might want to read a little more on the topic before you make claims like that! There is far more to this issue than you try to make out with your little snippet of a quote with no reference.
Quote from: Galina Weinstein, 15/2/16
Einstein and Gravitational Waves 1936-1938
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In 1936 Leopold Infeld arrived in Princeton to replace Rosen as Einstein's new assistant. In his autobiography Infeld describes his first meeting with Einstein, at which Einstein explained to him his proof of the non-existence of gravity waves. Einstein began to talk about his latest and still unpublished paper concerning the work done with his assistant Rosen during the preceding year.
It was on the problem of gravitational waves. Infeld explains the basic idea in simple words in the following way (Infeld 1941, 260-261): general relativity is a field theory, and it does for the problem of gravitation what Maxwell's theory had done for the problem of electromagnetic phenomena. For this reason, gravitational waves can be deduced from general relativity just as the existence of electromagnetic waves can be deduced from Maxwell's theory. In their motion the stars send out gravitational waves, spreading in time through space, just as oscillating electrons send out electromagnetic waves. It is a common feature of all field theories that the influence of one object on another spreads through space with a great but finite velocity in the form of waves.

Einstein always believed that a more thorough examination could only confirm this result, revealing some finer features of the gravitational waves. However, in the previous two years – before Infeld's arrival at Princeton in 1936 – Einstein began to doubt the existence of the gravitational waves. When making an approximate investigation of the problem he found that gravitational waves seemed to exist. But a deeper analysis brought him to the conclusion that completely contradicted the previous conclusion. Einstein thought that if this result that gravitational waves did not exist was true, it would be of a fundamental nature, because in this
case, unlike previous beliefs, a filed theory (general relativity) could not then be closely connected with the existence of waves.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The next day Infeld went to Einstein and told him that he (Infeld) had found a mistake in the calculation, and that he believed that gravitational waves do exist. Einstein replied that he too had found a mistake in his paper with Rosen that had been submitted to The Physical Review. It was less trivial than Infeld's mistake in the two pages where he had tried to prove that gravitational waves do not exist, and more difficult to detect. Einstein had come to the same conclusion as Infeld's, namely that gravitational waves do in fact exist; and with Robertson's help (still not knowing it was Robertson who had reviewed and remarked on Einstein's submission to The Physical Review) he finally corrected his Einstein-Rosen submission paper (Weinstein 2015, 261-264).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote from: sandokhan
Yet rabinoz states the opposite of what Einstein stated back in 1936.
Sure, I had not have researched the matter deeply enough before now, but it appears that in the end it the end Einstein did accept that his GR did support gravitational waves.

Read this again,  please:
Quote from: Galina Weinstein, 15/2/16
Einstein and Gravitational Waves 1936-1938
The next day Infeld went to Einstein and told him that he (Infeld) had found a mistake in the calculation, and that he believed that gravitational waves do exist. Einstein replied that he too had found a mistake in his paper with Rosen that had been submitted to The Physical Review. It was less trivial than Infeld's mistake in the two pages where he had tried to prove that gravitational waves do not exist, and more difficult to detect. Einstein had come to the same conclusion as Infeld's, namely that gravitational waves do in fact exist.

Now, maybe you could find the time to read this!
THE MATHEMATICS OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES:
Part One: How the Green Light Was Given for Gravitational Wave Search by C. Denson Hill and Paweł Nurowski p 686
Part Two: Gravitational Waves and Their Mathematics by Lydia Bieri, David Garfinkle, and Nicolás Yunes p 693


Quote from: sandokhan
How do you deal with someone who refuses to face the facts?
Look in a mirror and learn that you do not know everything.

Quote from: sandokhan
Why do we, the FE, have to deal with this sort of cognitive dissonance in full display?

Since I have just proven that rabinoz SPAMMED this forum for a third time in row, just today, the necessary ban has to be implemented by the mods.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #140 on: September 14, 2019, 04:26:53 AM »
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.

This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.

The FACT that Einstein's linearized equations do not have a DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION is scientifically proven.

Here we go again.

In 1917 T. Levi-Civita PROVED that Einstein's original equations are invalid.

A paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090902090420/http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Levi-Civita.pdf

THE INVALIDATION OF THE CHRISTODOULOU-KLAINERMAN SOLUTION TO THE EINSTEIN EQUATIONS:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2194825#msg2194825


The Necessary Existence of Gravitational Waves and the Repulsive Gravitation

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

Christodoulou and Klainerman [30] actually have never completed the construction of any dynamic solutions [31].


Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education in MIT Open Courses in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/432f/4c2f76f6ea7235981e9a0131973e9d0aabe2.pdf

Christodoulou & Klainerman [9] were unaware of that their set of solutions may have only static physical solutions [70-72]. Obviously, Christodoulou was still not aware of this when he received his half Shaw Prize in 2011.


The Repulsive Gravitation and Errors of Einstein

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6057/f99c6fcb7ffdb7584749aeb345b97a7e8a79.pdf

It turns out also the claim of Christodoulou and Klainerman [35] on their construction of dynamic solutions is also due to elementary mathematical errors [36] that they overlooked the need to prove the set of dynamic solutions is non-empty.
Although Christodoulou got his Ph. D. degree from Princeton University, it should be noted that his thesis adviser is J. A. Wheeler, who has been known to make crucial mathematical errors at the undergraduate level [19] in their well-known book "Gravitation".


Linearization of the Einstein Equation and The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize in Physics

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28d8/db055f7258cd6151cde8964ca573e27e287b.pdf



QUESTION FOR THE ADMIN/MODS: how many times do we have to go through this before it dawns on rabinoz that he is wrong? He is unable to accept proofs which shatter his little universe, so he is turning this forum, through spamming, into a nightmare.


*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #141 on: September 14, 2019, 04:44:21 AM »
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.

This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.

I am not spamming but replying to your posts with quite reasoned answers.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #142 on: September 14, 2019, 04:56:12 AM »
But you ARE spamming.

Here is the proof.

This is the first time rabinoz made use of this reference:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202712#msg2202712

I was able immediately to debunk (not deny, or obfuscate) his statement, using FOUR different references which show that the Christodolou-Kleinerman solution is false.


Any sensible, sane person would leave at that.

Not rabinoz.

Here he is, spamming this forum, again:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202733#msg2202733

Let us remember, he was just told that his reference is invalid.

So I had to respond again to his spam:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202747#msg2202747

I even used A FIFTH reference to back up my message.


This was four days ago.

Just today, rabinoz  USES THE VERY SAME REFERENCE in a debate:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83134.msg2202747#msg2202747


If you are unable to reconcile yourself to scientific proofs, then there is nothing that the FES can do for you here.

You REPEATED the same reference four times: how is this not spamming? When you received a proper rebuttal the very first time.


*

sokarul

  • 16173
  • Discount Chemist
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #143 on: September 14, 2019, 05:00:44 AM »

No.




The two are nothing alike.
You ran away from this. Do you see how gravity is nothing like a force?

Des this mean you will stop spamming gravity is ether pressure now?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #144 on: September 14, 2019, 05:18:08 AM »
See, this is what happens with someone who uses this FE forum as a vehicle for indoctrination.
This is the FOURTH INSTANCE OF SPAMMING from rabinoz today.
The FACT that Einstein's linearized equations do not have a DYNAMIC BOUNDED SOLUTION is scientifically proven.
Here we go again.

I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

General Relativity has been well proven in the hundred years or so since it was first presented.

And as long as you believe this sort of thing I've nothing to fear from your (lack of) logic!
a couple of photos are enough to prove that the sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the earth

You claimed that "a couple of photos are enough to prove that the sun is 600 m in diameter and 15 km above the earth".

Well, "put your money where you must is" and prove it here for everybody to see!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4806
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #145 on: September 14, 2019, 07:16:56 AM »
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.


Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #146 on: September 14, 2019, 07:36:50 AM »
15km up is not that far.
Should be easily provable since the RE space starts at 80km and according to you, sando, and chikypajamas, rockets need atmosphere to work.

*

rvlvr

  • 1441
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #147 on: September 14, 2019, 07:40:12 AM »
Sandokhan, what are the implications of the stuff you push? How does it prove flat Earth (if that is the model you are going for)?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 08:04:13 AM by rvlvr »

*

rabinoz

  • 22887
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #148 on: September 14, 2019, 02:13:28 PM »
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.
Do you really expect people to read all of this sort of the thing, especially when you have posted almost exactly the same things (and they've been answered) numerous times before?
This one was to JackBlack, but you just brushed of his derivation.
Let's put your word to the test.

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

Now, what the frell is this?

The author of this unscientific piece of garbage cannot distinguish between two opposite directions.

We no longer have a Sagnac interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center: the interferometer is located away from the center of rotation, as such each and every direction MUST HAVE THE CORRECT SIGN.

This guy has the same sign for opposite directions:

l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)

and

-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)

Catastrophically wrong!!!

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The proper signs, in accordance with the direction, are in place.

What jackblack did is to substract the phase differences for TWO SEPARATE OPEN SEGMENTS, and not for the TWO LOOPS (as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect).

He assigned the wrong signs, moreover, he did not complete the counterclockwise and the clockwise addition of the components of the phase differences.

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

Here is the correct analysis:

Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


jackblack assigned the SAME SIGN, even though he just said a few lines earlier, that they are in fact in opposite direction.


Where are your loops???

You are still comparing two OPEN SEGMENTS: defying the very definition of the Sagnac effect.

Path 1 - A>B, D>C.
Path 2 - C>D, B>A


Completely wrong!

The paths are very clear:

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -
A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

Yes, ignoring the sign which I don't particular care about at this time

You CANNOT ignore the sign, since by your own admission you have light beams travelling in opposite directions.

You are literally saying it takes negative time to do something.

No negative times at all.

Just two loops, continuous paths, as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.



Point A is located at the detector
Point B is in the bottom right corner
Point C is in the upper right corner
Point D is in the upper left corner

Here is the most important part of the derivation of the full/global Sagnac effect for an interferometer located away from the center of rotation.

A > B > C > D > A is a continuous counterclockwise path, a negative sign -

A > D > C > B > A is a continuous clockwise path, a positive sign +

The Sagnac phase difference for the clockwise path has a positive sign.

The Sagnac phase difference for the counterclockwise has a negative sign.


Sagnac phase components for the A > D > C > B > A path (clockwise path):

l1/(c - v1)

-l2/(c + v2)

Sagnac phase components for the A > B > C > D > A path (counterclockwise path):

l2/(c - v2)

-l1/(c + v1)


For the single continuous clockwise path we add the components:

l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)

For the single continuous counterclockwise path we add the components:

l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)


The net phase difference will be (let us remember that the counterclockwise phase difference has a negative sign attached to it, that is why the substraction of the phase differences becomes an addition):

{l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} - (-){l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)} = {l1/(c - v1) - l2/(c + v2)} + {l2/(c - v2) - l1/(c + v1)}

Rearranging terms:

l1/(c - v1) - l1/(c + v1) + {l2/(c - v2) - l2/(c + v2)} =

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2


BY CONTRAST, here is what you did:

Now instead of adding and subtracting based upon direction, we will add the terms of the same colour, corresponding to the one beam rotating around the interferometer and then find the difference.
dt=l1/(c - v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l1/(c + v1)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1/(c - v1)-l1/(c + v1)+l2/(c + v2)-l2/(c - v2)
=l1(c + v1-c + v1)/(c2 - v12)+l2(c - v2-c - v2)/(c2 - v22)
=2*l1v1/(c2 - v12)-2*l2v2/(c2 - v22)

We have the following terms, both have the same direction, that means one of them corresponds to the red in the inner segment and one to orange on the outer segment. I will colour code them for clarity:
l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c - v2)

Then, we have the remaining terms, in the opposite direction, likewise meaning one is for orange one is for red, noting that red travelled along l1 in the previous one so now it must travel along l2 in this one:
l1/(c + v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Then, if they ARE in opposite direction, they must have the OPPOSITE SIGN.

You used the SAME sign for opposite directions.

Moreover, you compared two open segments, and not the two loops of the Sagnac interferometer.

l1/(c - v1)
l2/(c + v2)

Again, there are 4 legs, not 2. This means you should actually have 4 components.
If you assume arm 2 and 4 to be insignificant (which is technically wrong for a rectangle, as they need to be radial to have no effect, but then again you don't even have a constant v for a rectangle either), then you end up with arm 1, where the light is propagating with the motion of the apparatus, a time of (again, just accepting the formula you provided rather than double checking it):
l1/(c - v1)
which is larger than if it is at rest.

Then for the time in arm 3 you get:
l3/(c + v3)
which is smaller than if the arm is at rest.
You need to add these 2 POSITIVE times to get a reference time for the loop (as well as 2 lots for arm 2 and 4).


You seem to need medical attention jackblack.

Of course the times will be larger and smaller, since you are dealing with DIFFERENT VELOCITIES, c - v1 - v2 and c + v1 + v2.

Positive times? Everyone is laughing at you.

You used the wrong signs.

You compared two open segments, in full defiance of the definition of the Sagnac effect.

I added correctly the terms for the two loops.

Do you understand the definition of the Sagnac effect?

Let me remind you of it:

https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a loop.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

What you, jackblack, have done, is to compare two open segments of the interferometer, and not the two loops as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

l1/(c - v1) + l2/(c + v2)

You have the wrong sign!!!

These beams are in opposite direction: one has a positive sign l1/(c - v1), the other has a negative sign -l2/(c + v2).

But again, we don't use your nonsense negative times.

There are NO negative signs.

Just TWO LOOPS: one counterclockwise, one clockwise.

Exactly as required by the defintion of the Sagnac effect.


EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT MY FORMULA IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT:



The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro

Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)

The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.

The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:

+2πR1L1Ω/λc

The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:

-2πR2L2Ω/λc

These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.

The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc

2(v1l1 + v2l2)/c2

Exactly the formula obtained by Professor Yeh:

φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc = 4π(V1L1 + V2L2)/λc

Since Δφ = 2πc/λ x Δt, Δt = 2(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/c2 = 2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2

CORRECT SAGNAC FORMULA:

2(V1L1 + V2L2)/c2



YOU ARE NOT USING THE DEFINITION OF THE SAGNAC EFFECT: TWO COUNTERPROPAGATING LOOPS.

You are comparing two sides, WITHOUT ANY LOOPS.

As such, your analysis is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, and not at all the SAGNAC EFFECT.
###########################################################################################
And a great meny of your posts are of a similar length and some people do have other things to do.

Quote from: sandokhan
I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?
"All 24 pages of it" then dismissed it completely

Quote from: sandokhan
The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.
I look at so many of your references and find that they simply do not support your claims and all you do is cherry-pick words and phrases out of them and ignore the major intention of the papers.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: The RE Community Has a New Enemy
« Reply #149 on: September 14, 2019, 02:28:10 PM »
I am under no obligation to go into detail on all the copy-pasta that you post.

A sure sign of rudeness toward this forum and your readers.

I did read your reference, all 24 pages of it.

Furthermore, if you do not read what is being presented to you, then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?

The FES is likewise under no obligation to put up with your constant spamming, where you post a certain reference time and time again, ignoring the fact that you were debunked right from the beginning.

You are telling everyone that you just can't bothered, your precious little universe would be shattered by the references you refuse to read.

To be fair flat earth was debunked more than 2000 years ago and here you are.
You must gather your party before venturing forth