Strongest FE Evidence

  • 759 Replies
  • 9716 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 23724
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #660 on: December 04, 2019, 04:39:47 AM »
Dr. C.Y. Lo has TWO PhD degrees: Physics and Mathematics.
The doctorate in Physics was obtained from MIT.
He was Dr. Philip Morrison's student (Dr. Morrison, Professor Emeritus at MIT).
His most famous paper is: C. Y. Lo, Einstein's Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234454208_Einstein's_Radiation_Formula_and_Modifications_to_the_Einstein_Equation
So what?

Quote from: sandokhan
There's no need to explain that until you have proven that it does happen under normal atmospheric conditions.
But there is, since you immediately claim this:
Not "until you have proven that" ships cities, etc are not hidden by the water "under normal atmospheric conditions.

I'll await your proof.

Bye!


*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #662 on: December 04, 2019, 05:08:53 AM »
I hope that you didn't miss this gem!
Quote from: Flat Earth Sultan, Flat Earth Occultist Sandokhan
Alternative Flat Earth Theory « Reply #105 on: December 14, 2011, 10:48:35 PM »
All these results confirm the information presented over a century ago in the Occult Chemistry:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf << Link broken >>
See also:
An Esoteric Theory of Everything, From The Science of Spirituality

Occult Chemistry, first chapter:
OCCULT CHEMISTRY: THE NATURE OF MATTER
This might prove enlightening ::): OCCULT CHEMISTRY, INVESTIGATIONS BY CLAIRVOYANT: MAGNIFICATION INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE ATOMS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE AND SOME COMPOUNDS


Classic  ;D

So taking his quote, showing what a graviton/magnetic monopole looks like


This is what the graviton/magnetic monopole looks like, both spins:




Then looking at Chapter 1 of OCCULT CHEMISTRY: THE NATURE OF MATTER Pg 13

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

We can see these monopoles are actually male and female anu, which were clairvoyantly extracted from a single hydrogen atom, after it had been settled (they are not monsters), between 1895 and 1933. No mean feat as mainstream science had to wait till 1981 to see a single atom never mind its male and female bits  :-*

THIS IS HIS STRONGEST EVIDENCE <---- Just going to leave that there and let it sink in
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #663 on: December 04, 2019, 05:25:02 AM »
Not "until you have proven that" ships cities, etc are not hidden by the water "under normal atmospheric conditions.

YOU ARE DODGING THE ISSUE: THE MAIN CLAIM YOU HAVE HERE.

NAMELY, THAT WATER STAYS CURVED.

If water does no stay curved, then we can go on to other things.

YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE!

Precision Tests of General Relativity in Space by John Mester Stanford University
      Verification of general relativity: tests in the Solar System by Kenneth Nordtvedt
      Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity by Vitalii L Ginzburg © 1979 American Institute of Physics. I do hope you note that it's an IOPSCIENCE paper.
      EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF  GENERAL RELATIVITY
And a nice talky one:
      Einstein Was Right! Scientists Confirm General Relativity Works With Distant Galaxy by Chelsea Gohd June 21, 2018 Science & Astronomy


Is this supposed to be joke on your part?

THE FIRST PAPER MENTIONS THE 1919 TEST AS A VALID PROOF.

Then, Pound-Rebka.

Then, believe it or not, LISA!


Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

Hafele–Keating experiment

How the data in the Hafele-Keating was faked/fabricated:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

GPS

GPS do not record/register the solar gravitational potential anticipated by TGR.

The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington from his observations during the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919.

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

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


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


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



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

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


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

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


The second paper mentions Very Long Baseline Interferometry.

THAT IS... LISA AGAIN!


The third paper cannot be accessed, that is the full paper. You need to provide the full pdf article. Presumably it makes references to the Pound-Rebka and the 1919/1922 experiments which have been debunked above.


The fourth paper is this:

A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342

Angular diameter distances are calculated from the redshifts (inferred from the wavelength shift of spectral lines owing to the expansion of the Universe)


The authors of the paper are assuming REDSHIFTS are caused by the expansion of the Universe.

Here is a similar paper, making the same claims:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1534

They are using the redshift distance relation!

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe


YOU HAVE NOTHING!

You are trying to deflect attention from the fact that you can't even explain the presence of a single gallon of water on the surface of a sphere, by referencing "tests of general relativity" articles. Your strategy won't work with me. I can debunk each and every one of them in minutes.





Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #664 on: December 04, 2019, 05:29:03 AM »
Here is a video that I think scorches his doctored lake pics.

Total demolition of the Pontchartrain FAKE video:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2016747#msg2016747


Commercial planes would have slammed into, or if not, been burned to a crisp by you 9-12km high, 600 meter wide sun. Hasn't happened.

No.

The Sun/Moon/BlackSun, all of the planets and stars, orbit above the Dome, that is, the local-ether model which provides the shield/barrier. Everything else, satellites/airplanes fly below the Dome.


I at no time "proved that the shape of the Sun must be discoidal"!

BUT YOU DID!

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


What total crap!

You can't even explain HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER WOULD STAY IN PLACE NEXT TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


The evidence of such interactions was captures by a NASA spacecraft, in orbit around Saturn some 886 miles from the sun on average.

No, that spacecraft does not register/record the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

Therefore anything put by Nasa in orbit is flying below the Dome, it cannot go beyond the formidable ether shield/barrier.

If you disagree, explain the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.


Its not proof of a flat earth.

It's proof that jet engines use the SCHAUBERGER-DEPALMA EFFECT.

You call yourself a Flat Earth Scientist. From what I have seen and experienced you are no more a scientist that my next-door neighbor's spaniel.
If you were a real scientist you would have responded in a direct manner when questioned about one of your claims. If you were a real scientist and not as its looking a total fraud you would have provided detailed evidence for you 600 diameter sun claim that could have been examined and tested by others to see how your claim stood up.  Instead, you choose to deflect claiming a video that was posted which is opposed to your views is a fraud, for no other reason that you don't agree with it. That's not the behavior of a scientist, it's more the behavior of a close-minded bigot. It sums up pretty much all you post, no more than a continuous flow of insubstantial hot air.
If you were a real scientist, as you claim, how about putting your money where your mouth is and present a detailed properly worked out coherent paper on that supports your claim that the sun is 600meters in diameter. Failure points to you being nothing more than a cut and paste, deride things you don't like fraud.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #665 on: December 04, 2019, 05:29:35 AM »
THIS IS HIS STRONGEST EVIDENCE

Sure, since you are going to have to explain these facts.

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



E1 = subquark ether level
E2 = quarks
E3 = mesons
E4 = baryons
E5 = atom itself

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



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

The exact number of these bubbles included in an ultimate physical atom is not readily ascertainable, but several different lines of calculation agree in indicating it as closely approximating to the almost incredible total of fourteen thousand millions.

Bubble of light = boson = photon = neutrino

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.

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.


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

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

A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

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

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115


It is to be noted that each of us has the innate ability to view matter at a quantum level (during dreams), the theosophists who wrote the Occult Chemistry and the Science of Seership were able to retain this proficiency during the day as well.

Subquark = UPA particle = Anu

"Named after the British physicist Peter Higgs, the Higgs particle was first described 55 years ago — that is, about five years before Higgs and five other physicists proposed its existence — by the Theosophist and clairvoyant Geoffrey Hodson (1886-1983) who possessed the same ability to view matter at a quantum level as did the authors of the Occult Chemistry."

"On January 26, 1959, G. Hodson remarked:

"The sight I have of these objects is, I think, improved from the earlier observations. They're surrounded by a field of spinning particles going round them. The one I've got hold of is like a spinning top — the old-fashioned spinning top, but imagine that with (spinning rapidly) a mist or field round it of at least half its own dimension, of particles spinning in the same direction much smaller than itself. The Anu is not only the heart-shaped corrugated form that I have described, it is the centre of a great deal of energy and activity and within it. Outside it, as I have said, there's this rushing flood of particles, the corrugations themselves are alive with energy and some of it is escaping — not all of it, but some of it, and this gives it a tremendously dynamic look. Inside, it's almost like a furnace, it is like a furnace (I don't mean in heat) of boiling activity — organised by the bye, yes, in some form of spiral fashion admittedly, but there's a great deal of activity of free, minuter particles."

These particles much smaller than UPAs that Hodson described as forming a "mist or field" that circulated a UPA are Higgs bosons.

On April 8, 1957, whilst examining the diamond in a ring, Hodson said:

"My first sight inside the diamond is of the funnels only, like a cluster of funnels, two sets. It is possible to see the two pyramids as if slightly separated so that the base of an upper one can be envisaged, visualised, almost seen, though cohesion is apparent and all eight funnels are radiating from a common centre. Now, I want to record again the experience of the whole phenomenon being pervaded by countless myriads of minutest conceivable, physically inconceivably minute points of light which I take to be free anu and which for some reason are not caught up in the system of atoms at all but remain unmoved by it and pervade it. These are everywhere. They pervade everything, like ... Strangely unaffected by the tremendous forces at work in the atom and rushes of energy, and so forth, they don't seem to get caught up in those or be affected much by them. If at all. They remain as a virgin atmosphere in which the phenomenon is taking place."

Frequently reported seeing clairvoyantly myriads of minute points of light pervading the space occupied by atoms that his vision had focussed upon, as well as everywhere around him, whether his eyes were open or shut. For example, Hodson said:

"I wonder if you or your colleagues would care to comment to me upon the commonest phenomenon that I see, all the time, unless I make an effort to shut it out, and now when I emerge from my clairvoyant investigation it fills the whole air, world and universe, and it consists of countless myriads of the smallest possible points you can imagine, the whole air is filled with it. It is all in extremely rapid movement. Sometimes it makes little lines of groups of them. Sometimes it is a kind of shimmer. But it is all granular. Whatever there is granular. Minutely granular, far inconceivably beyond anything, a pin's point would be enormously large in relationship to this, if one could see a pin's point. It's extremely minute. And they are everywhere. And they've always been, ever since etheric clairvoyance showed itself to me at all, always the world, the air, everything I look at is pervaded and surrounded by these countless myriads of minute points."

These were not "free anu," as he assumed (he never checked whether they really were UPAs by magnifying individual points of light). Nor were they just molecules in the air, for he categorically asserted that they appeared to his vision to be many orders of magnitude smaller than UPAs, which, as subquark states of superstrings, would be much more minute than even atomic nuclei, let alone atoms and molecules. Instead, his faculty of remote viewing the subatomic world was revealing the sea of Higgs bosons that fill space. Far from the core of a vortex, the density of the Higgs field is constant and the Higgs vacuum state is superconducting. It varies rapidly towards zero in the region of the core, where the Higgs field becomes a normal conductor. This was the "mist or field" composed of much smaller particles that he noticed revolving around the UPA, namely, the string-like, vortical excitations of the ambient, superconducting Higgs field in the vicinity of magnetic monopole sources of the colour flux that is squeezed into and channelled along the normally conducting core of these vortices.

Here, therefore, is unambiguous evidence that a well-known clairvoyant was able to notice vortical motion around the basic units of matter of numerous, smaller particles filling all space as a "field" five years before physicists proposed this type of particle and decades before string theorists discovered vortex solutions in the Higgs field in their analysis of the confinement of quarks by the string model version of QCD."





"The processional motion (wobble) of hydrogen triangles was described in 1924 (The Theosophist, vol. 45) during a study of the hydroxyl group (atoms of hydrogen and oxygen bonded together) in the water molecule: It was said: "Each triangle rotates flat, and whilst rotating. sways a little up and down, as the lid of a pot rotates before it finally settles down" (Occult Chemistry, 3rd ed., p. 206). This is a description of Larmor precession, for the hydrogen triangles are protons endowed with a spin and a magnetic dipole moment (i.e., they are like a bar magnet, which aligns itself to a magnetic field). The remarkable significance of this is that Besant & Leadbeater described the spin precession of a proton in a magnetic field a year before George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit introduced the concept of 'electron spin,' which posits an intrinsic rotational angular momentum for this particle. The observation was made therefore before the proton was realised to possess a spin as well! Neither Besant & Leadbeater nor physicists could have known in 1924 that some electrically charged subatomic particles have an intrinsic spin that endows them with an intrinsic magnetic moment, causing them to wobble in a magnetic field. Here is clear and undeniable evidence of the objective nature of their micro-psi visions.

It was described earlier how the MPA of a second species of the inert gas neon with a number weight of 22.33 was described in 1908 by Besant & Leadbeater, about four years before the experimental physicist Francis Aston separated the neon-20 and neon-22 isotopes with his new mass spectrograph, although at the time he thought wrongly that he had discovered a new element. Aston, of course, got the scientific credit, winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1922. But, despite their error in assuming that they had paranormally observed atoms, Besant & Leadbeater were the first people to discover that neon had two forms, even publishing a number weight of 22.33 that was appropriate for the Ne-22 isotope."



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #666 on: December 04, 2019, 05:31:17 AM »


https://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."



Results for so-called "lattice QCD" calculations of the energy density of the flux tubes connecting three quarks were discussed in 2003 at the International Conference on Color Confinement and Hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics. They are shown below. The Y-shaped profile of the colour-coded density contours of the flux lines with quarks at their ends is strikingly similar to a diagram of a hydrogen triplet that appears in the 1908 edition of Occult Chemistry, in which Y-shaped lines of force "of a magnetic nature" terminate on UPAs.

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/occult-chemistry-07.html



"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic  nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.

During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!

Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.

Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investiga­tions, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.

The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.

At this point it is worth clearly distinguish­ing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.

The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.

As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.

Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.

The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spec­trograph!

From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Fran­cium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."

Walter Russell, one of Tesla's best friends, created a new periodic table of elements, taking into account the ELEMENTS FORMED BY THE E2, E3 AND E4 subquark configurations (see previous message). That is, there are plenty of other elements before Hydrogen.

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/russell_1.gif

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/russell_2.gif

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #667 on: December 04, 2019, 05:34:51 AM »
Not "until you have proven that" ships cities, etc are not hidden by the water "under normal atmospheric conditions.

YOU ARE DODGING THE ISSUE: THE MAIN CLAIM YOU HAVE HERE.

NAMELY, THAT WATER STAYS CURVED.

If water does no stay curved, then we can go on to other things.

YOU MUST EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN PLACE ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE!

Precision Tests of General Relativity in Space by John Mester Stanford University
      Verification of general relativity: tests in the Solar System by Kenneth Nordtvedt
      Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity by Vitalii L Ginzburg © 1979 American Institute of Physics. I do hope you note that it's an IOPSCIENCE paper.
      EXPERIMENTAL TESTS OF  GENERAL RELATIVITY
And a nice talky one:
      Einstein Was Right! Scientists Confirm General Relativity Works With Distant Galaxy by Chelsea Gohd June 21, 2018 Science & Astronomy


Is this supposed to be joke on your part?

THE FIRST PAPER MENTIONS THE 1919 TEST AS A VALID PROOF.

Then, Pound-Rebka.

Then, believe it or not, LISA!


Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

Hafele–Keating experiment

How the data in the Hafele-Keating was faked/fabricated:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/h%26kpaper.htm

GPS

GPS do not record/register the solar gravitational potential anticipated by TGR.

The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Stanley Eddington from his observations during the Solar eclipse of 29 May 1919.

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

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


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


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



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

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


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

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


The second paper mentions Very Long Baseline Interferometry.

THAT IS... LISA AGAIN!


The third paper cannot be accessed, that is the full paper. You need to provide the full pdf article. Presumably it makes references to the Pound-Rebka and the 1919/1922 experiments which have been debunked above.


The fourth paper is this:

A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342

Angular diameter distances are calculated from the redshifts (inferred from the wavelength shift of spectral lines owing to the expansion of the Universe)


The authors of the paper are assuming REDSHIFTS are caused by the expansion of the Universe.

Here is a similar paper, making the same claims:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1534

They are using the redshift distance relation!

The Picture that Won’t Go Away

"Only in the rarest instances has a single picture altered the direction of a scientific discipline. But in the case of the galaxy NGC 7319 and the "misplaced" quasar in front of it, the message is inescapable: its presence threatened to shatter one of the most cherished themes of mainstream astronomy, the Big Bang.

The rationale for the Big Bang rests substantially on an interpretation of a well-known phenomenon called “redshift”. The term refers to the shift of light from distant galaxies toward red on the light spectrum.

Many years ago, astronomers decided that redshifted objects must be moving away from the observer, stretching out their lightwaves. This “Doppler interpretation” of redshift enabled astronomers, based on the degree of redshift, to calculate both the distances and velocities of the objects. From these calculations, certain conclusions were inescapable. If all redshifted objects are moving farther away, the universe must be expanding. If the universe is expanding, the expansion must have had a starting point—an unimaginable explosion producing a universe of galaxies receding in every direction from the observer.

Then came the Hubble photograph, taken on October 3, 2003. The picture showed a galaxy (NGC 7319) known for its dense clouds that obstruct all objects behind its core. In front of the galaxy's core is a strongly redshifted quasar. In fact, under the prevailing assumptions, the redshift of the quasar would put it more than 90 times farther away from us than the big galaxy behind it."



A higher magnification image of the quasar shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar:




http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp


The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215.pdf


Published in the Astrophysical Journal

Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences

"The quasar was found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8 arc sec from its centre. According to the Hubble law the galaxy NGC 7319, with a redshift of 0.022, is at a distance of about 360 million light-years. Therefore these objects could not be physically connected to each other if this was true."


At the meeting of the American Astronomical Society held in Texas in 2004, Professor Margaret Burbidge presented a paper that she had co-authored with Arp and several other leading astronomers, including her husband [subsequently published in the Astrophysical Journal]. It detailed the discovery of a high redshift quasar close to a low redshift galaxy. This time, though, the alignment was different in every significant way.

This time, no one could argue. You see, the high redshift [more distant] quasar lay in front of the [less distant redshift] galaxy NGC 7319! There was no longer occasion to debate the veracity of [Arp’s] matter bridge [connecting galaxies with quasars]. The quasar was in the foreground [the galaxy in the background]. In that impressive gathering of astronomy’s who’s who, you could have heard a pin drop. It was a deafening silence.”

“The significance of this discovery is huge. We have direct, irrefutable, empirical evidence that the Hubble law stands on feet of clay, that the observational justification of an expanding Universe is fatally flawed.”

Hilton Ratcliffe


YOU HAVE NOTHING!

You are trying to deflect attention from the fact that you can't even explain the presence of a single gallon of water on the surface of a sphere, by referencing "tests of general relativity" articles. Your strategy won't work with me. I can debunk each and every one of them in minutes.

Gravity as you well know has plenty of evidence to support it, unlike your 600-meter diameter sun claim on which there is no supporting evidence. Rather than questioning why the oceans stay where they are, for which there is a pretty good answer to, how about backing up your own claim that the sun is 600 meters in diameter, which by anyone's reckoning is a pretty bold claim to make. You say you are a scientist, prove it by doing what any real scientist would do, back up their claims with evidence.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #668 on: December 04, 2019, 05:37:04 AM »


https://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."



Results for so-called "lattice QCD" calculations of the energy density of the flux tubes connecting three quarks were discussed in 2003 at the International Conference on Color Confinement and Hadrons in Quantum Chromodynamics. They are shown below. The Y-shaped profile of the colour-coded density contours of the flux lines with quarks at their ends is strikingly similar to a diagram of a hydrogen triplet that appears in the 1908 edition of Occult Chemistry, in which Y-shaped lines of force "of a magnetic nature" terminate on UPAs.

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/occult-chemistry-07.html



"One of the central and crucial observations made by Besant and Leadbeater was that a hydrogen atom was composed of 18 subatomic particles which they christened as ‘Ultimate physical atoms’ or UPAs. Likewise they reported that the atoms of other elements also comprised of identical types of UPAs whose numbers increased in multiples of 18. Note that much of all this was done well before Rutherfords discovery of the atomic  nucleus in 1911, in other words before the dawn of the ‘nuclear era’!. In the early 20s came the highly successful Bohr-Schrodinger model of the atom, according to which a hydrogen atom comprised of a single proton around which orbited a single electron.

During the mid 70's, a theoretical physicist from Cambridge University in England, by the name of Stephen Phillips who was carrying out PH.D. studies in 'particle physics' at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), came across a copy of a book titled the 'Physics of the secret doctrine' by Kingsland wherein there was a diagram of the hydrogen atom as seen and recorded by Besant and Leadbeater. Physicists will recall that in 1963 a breakthrough in understanding elementary particles and nuclear structure came about through the postulation of a class of subnuclear particles called 'Quarks' independently by Gell‑Mann and Zweig. When Phillips saw Besant's diagram of the hydrogen atom he was astounded beyond belief as he realized that these clairvoyants had given out the 'quark' and indeed the 'subquark' structure of the nucleus as early as in 1895!

Phillips was so fascinated and overwhelmed by the exhaustive studies of Besant and Leadbeater, that he immediately embarked on a detailed analysis and interpretation of their findings, culminating in the publication of his 250 page book titled 'Extra sensory perception of quarks' in 1980.

Early on during their 'micro‑psi' investiga­tions, Besant and Leadbeater observed that different specimens of the same element were composed of identical microscopic objects which they christened as 'Micro Psi Atoms' or MPAs. They presumed that MPAs were atoms of the particular element under study, in their normal state, undisturbed by the act of random selection and psychokinetic (PK) perturbation.

The MPAs of elements as they appeared to them during 'micro psi visualization' comprised of symmetrically arranged groups of particles or 'points of light’ bound together in such rapid complex orbital motion that they presented initially only a blurred unfocussed image. But with practice and using a'special form of will‑power' they could slow down their motion sufficiently enough to observe the details. Throughout the investigations Leadbeater specialized in the study of the geometrical arrangement of the constituents of the MPAs and in identifying and counting their number whilst Annie Besant examined the configuration of the 'lines of force' linking and holding together groups of particles. These investigators could tune the magnifying power of their micro‑psi vision over a wide range and thereby resolve the images of particles into clusters of 'points of light', each of which were discerned to be discrete three dimensional objects. As the structure and configuration of each of these ultimate objects were identical, independent of the element under study, they surmised that these were the fundamental building blocks of all matter, and called them as 'Ultimate Physical Atoms’ or UPAs.

At this point it is worth clearly distinguish­ing between MPAs and UPAs. Besant and Leadbeater presumably identified MPAs with 'What physicists now refer to as the 'nucleus' of the atom, although in 1895 when they first commenced their investigations Rutherford had not yet discovered the atomic nucleus. There were as many MPAs as there are elements. UPAs on the other hand are the sub nuclear particles of which all nuclear matter is made of. As observed by Besant and Leadbeater there is essentially only one type of UPA, but this occurs either as a 'male' (or positive) version or a 'female' (or negative) version, which are mirror images of each other.

The clairvoyant investigators found that the MPAs of different elements had different shapes. Interestingly, barring a few exceptions, the shape of an MPA was correlated with the position of the element in the 'periodic table' of elements. (The reader may refer to any elementary text book on atomic physics or physical chemistry to know more about the Periodic Table of Elements if they wish). Thus the MPAs of all elements belonging to a particular group of the periodic table and consequently possessing similar chemical properties have similar shapes. The seven shapes into which the MPAs were categorised are titled by them as: 'spike', 'dumb‑bell', 'tetrahedron', 'cube', 'octahedron', 'bar' and 'star'. The geometrical symmetry of the MPAs simplified Leadbeater's task of counting the number of UPAs in an MPA, considering that the heavier elements had several thousands of UPAs in their MPAs. By 1907 when the first edition of 'Occult chemistry' was published Besant and Leadbeater had examined nearly 60 elements and altogether by the end of their monumental research work spanning 38 years they had recorded for posterity the details of 111 MPAs.

As already mentioned Besant and Leadbeater counted 18 UPA particles in the Micro Physical Atoms (MPA) of Hydrogen gas. A striking feature of their observations was that the number of UPAs increased approximately in multiples of 18 as the atomic weight of the element increased. By the turn of the last century science had progressed sufficiently enough that the atomic weights of most of the elements of the periodic table had been determined on a scale normalized to unity for hydrogen. When Besant and Leadbeater found that for several elements the number of UPAs in an MPA was an integral multiple of 18, they divided the number of UPAs counted by them by 18 to obtain an estimate of the 'atomic weight' of the elements. The 1919 edition of 'Occult chemistry' compares the micro‑psi atomic weight so obtained (specified to the second decimal place!) with the scientific atomic weight, and points out the remarkable agreement between the two.

Besant and Leadbeater began studying the atoms of elements systematically in increasing order of atomic weight starting from Hydrogen. When they reached neon (element no. 10) they were rather puzzled to observe that there were two varieties of neon MPAs having slightly different number of UPAs each, namely 360 and 402. They called these as Neon and 'Meta‑Neon' and recorded their micro‑psi atomic weights as 20.00 and 22.33 by dividing the number of UPAs in the MPA by 18. Similar behaviour was noted in the MPAs of Argon, Krypton, Xenon and even Platinum.

The scientifically minded readers may have guessed by now that Besant and Leadbeater had essentially stumbled upon the phenomenon referred to by atomic science as 'isotopes', five years before Aston's discovery of the same in 1912 using his newly invented instrument known as mass spec­trograph!

From the observed shapes of the MPAs and deduced micro‑psi atomic weights, these investigators were able to place the element under study properly in the periodic table of elements. In most cases, when the identity of the element was known to them already, the above method confirmed that their observations were accurate. In a few cases however the elements they investigated were not listed in the periodic table and in fact there were unfilled gaps in the table in the relevant locations. Thus these clairvoyant researchers accidentally discovered five elements which were unknown to science at the time of their work. These elements which have since been identified by science are: Promethium ('Illenium'), Astatine ('element no 85'), Fran­cium ('element no 87), Protoactinium ('element no 91') and Technetium ('Masuroium'). The names in brackets are the names assigned by Besant and Leadbeater in their original publication. It is thus obvious that these clairvoyants were surprisingly accurate in their estimates of atomic weights and the proper Placement of the elements studied, in the periodic chart."

Walter Russell, one of Tesla's best friends, created a new periodic table of elements, taking into account the ELEMENTS FORMED BY THE E2, E3 AND E4 subquark configurations (see previous message). That is, there are plenty of other elements before Hydrogen.

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/russell_1.gif

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/russell_2.gif

I don't think any of the above goes /does anything to support your 600-meter diameter sun claim. You made the claim, how about proving it or admitting you are a fraud.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 05:42:41 AM by Timeisup »

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #669 on: December 04, 2019, 05:41:09 AM »
Misquotes, partial quotes, doctored images, occult chemistry, clairvoyants and scam publishing sites are your best evidence.

At least i know why you wont do the maths now, I think we all know you are a fraud.

Peace
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #670 on: December 04, 2019, 05:50:17 AM »
Just while we are on the topic of whether or not Mr. Sandokhan is a scientist, we may wish to look at the definition given by the Science Council;

A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
A scientist can be further defined by:
how they go about this, for instance by use of statistics (Statisticians) or data (Data scientists)
what they’re seeking understanding of, for instance the elements in the universe (Chemists, Geologists etc), or the stars in the sky (Astronomers)
where they apply their science, for instance in the food industry (Food Scientist)
However all scientists are united by their relentless curiosity and systematic approach to assuaging it.

If Mr. Sandokhan were a scientist he should have gathered information and research data pertinent to his claim that he can present. He should also have conducted experiments to test his claim and be able to share these with us. If he has not done any of these, how can he claim to be a scientist?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #671 on: December 04, 2019, 05:56:30 AM »
Gravity as you well know has plenty of evidence to support it,

Not attractive gravity.

You, the RE, have been unable to explain the central tenet of your claim.

You, the RE, cannot explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

unlike your 600-meter diameter sun claim

Proven directly by your pal's proofs.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Rather than questioning why the oceans stay where they are

That is the central tenet of your hypothesis.

Leave the oceans for now: EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN THE PLACE ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


occult chemistry, clairvoyants

Explain these facts.

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.

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.

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://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."


You can't even explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #672 on: December 04, 2019, 06:00:52 AM »
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

Sure.

Here is my global natural logarithm formula, the first of its kind:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

Here is the algorithm for the zeros of the zeta function:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082601#msg2082601

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #673 on: December 04, 2019, 06:08:23 AM »
Gravity as you well know has plenty of evidence to support it,

Not attractive gravity.

You, the RE, have been unable to explain the central tenet of your claim.

You, the RE, cannot explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

unlike your 600-meter diameter sun claim

Proven directly by your pal's proofs.

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


Rather than questioning why the oceans stay where they are

That is the central tenet of your hypothesis.

Leave the oceans for now: EXPLAIN HOW A SINGLE GALLON OF WATER STAYS IN THE PLACE ON THE OUTER SURFACE OF A SPHERE.


occult chemistry, clairvoyants

Explain these facts.

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.

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.

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://phys.org/news/2011-07-unseen.html

"The image on the left, above, provided by the RIKEN scientific research institute in Japan depicts the six quarks making up the H dibaryon. The three coloured spheres denote the three colour states of a quark, labelled red, green & blue.

The image on the right can be interpreted as the deuteron (the nucleus of the stable isotope of hydrogen), created prior to observation by the micro-psi selection of a hydrogen molecule, which resulted in its two protons fusing together to form a deuteron after one of them changed into a neutron."

Using Jülich's accelerator COSY, German researchers confirmed in 2011 the possibility of dibaryons by discovering strong evidence for the existence of a short-lived resonance composed of six quarks.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140606102043.htm

http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/deuterium.html

"The description of Adyarium was published in 1932, which was the year when James Chadwick discovered the neutron and Heisenburg proposed that it is present in atomic nuclei. It would be another 32 years before physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the theory of quarks. The fact that Besant & Leadbeater reported Adyarium to break up into six positive triplets and six negative triplets, i.e., six up quarks and six d quarks — precisely what the quark model predicts for the composition of the two protons and two neutrons in two deuterons — is incontrovertible evidence that quarks were remote-viewed."


You can't even explain how a single gallon of water stays in place on the outer surface of a sphere.

You now claim the Earth is not orbiting the sun!...where is your evidence for this...its gets worse. You try and back up one claim by presenting another claim. This is not what a scientist would do. Where is your data on which you make your claim about the 600-meter diameter sun? Let's start with that.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #674 on: December 04, 2019, 06:10:14 AM »
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

Sure.

Here is my global natural logarithm formula, the first of its kind:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

Here is the algorithm for the zeros of the zeta function:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082601#msg2082601

Am I supposed to be impressed? I'd be more impressed if you presented your research data and evidence on which your 600-meter diameter sun claim is based

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #675 on: December 04, 2019, 06:12:29 AM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

I have already answered your previous questions, so now you are spamming.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #676 on: December 04, 2019, 06:27:00 AM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.



hahahahaha

You can twist and turn all you like chap, cant deflect away from the outstanding questions and your inability with math
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #677 on: December 04, 2019, 06:37:43 AM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.



hahahahaha

You can twist and turn all you like chap, cant deflect away from the outstanding questions and your inability with math

Oh the irony.

*

Sunset

  • 757
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #678 on: December 04, 2019, 06:57:24 AM »
So, Sandokhan, let's say for argument's sake, you fell out of an aeroplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute. What's the force that pulls you to the ground, if it isn't gravity?

A one word answer will do fine, or a one sentence answer if you can manage it.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #679 on: December 04, 2019, 07:14:21 AM »
As soon as you hit the ground you would immediately stop worrying about what the force was that got you there!

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #680 on: December 04, 2019, 07:15:13 AM »
A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.

Sure.

Here is my global natural logarithm formula, the first of its kind:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

Here is the algorithm for the zeros of the zeta function:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2082601#msg2082601

Am I supposed to be impressed? I'd be more impressed if you presented your research data and evidence on which your 600-meter diameter sun claim is based

Don't be impressed its just number play it doesn't go anywhere
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #681 on: December 04, 2019, 07:16:53 AM »
More bad news for the RE.

Earlier today a certain reference was posted here, but the link did not include the full article.

Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity by Vitalii L Ginzburg © 1979 American Institute of Physics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221190#msg2221190

I was able to find the summary of the experimental evidence thought by Dr. Ginzburg to be valid:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=w-Fq466p2GMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=ginzburg+general+relativity+experiments&source=bl&ots=CNYj6r3ynN&sig=ACfU3U12NuaJW4UliiTueIkKXWskVrMOpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJnc3loJzmAhUq-yoKHTytBbI4ChDoATAFegQICxAC#v=onepage&q=ginzburg%20general%20relativity%20experiments&f=false

1919 experiment
Pound-Rebka
Binary pulsars

Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

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

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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf

*

sokarul

  • 16405
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #682 on: December 04, 2019, 07:40:19 AM »
Why does calcium emit a wavelength of 422 nm?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Zaphod

  • 131
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #683 on: December 04, 2019, 08:37:26 AM »

Boeing and Airbus and Rolls-Royce and everyone else BUILD THEIR ENGINES using the SCHAUBERGER MODEL/TEMPLATE.

No one else could make it work.

But he could, for the first time, using DOUBLE TORSION ETHER WAVES. That is why jet airplanes use much less fuel than we are told.



That's pure comedy gold Sandy.

I know I've only been flying large commercial jets for 30 years now, but you'd think I'd have heard of that. I mean, when I order the fuel to go to say, off the top of my head , Toronto, then sign for it so the fuelling company get paid, then do the calculations to ensure that we've got enough and there hasn't been an embarrasing pounds/kilos mix up etc and that we've got the correct total aircraft weight so we can work out the take-off performance and calculate the correct engine thrust...you'd think somewhere along the line the whole "weights and measures" system would pick up on the fact that airliners burn less fuel than advertised.

And FFS jet engines simply use the same "suck-squeeze-bang-blow" as internal combustion engines, not di-lithium crystal fucking flux capacitors.

You really need to get out more. Maybe actually like go to Niagara-on-the-Lake and look at the top half of the Toronto skyline across the water. Or go to a beach where there are cliffs behind and and see how much farther you can see as you climb.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #684 on: December 04, 2019, 09:00:44 AM »
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

I have already answered your previous questions, so now you are spamming.

You have the audacity to claim to have answered two monumental statements one being the sun is only 600 meters in diameter and the other that the earth does not orbit the sun by virtue of a couple of lines in a previous post!
To back up such claims any real scientist would have to present hundreds/ of pages of detailed research along with evidence that would enable others to replicate and confirm their findings.
You have done absolutely none of this and just show yourself to be a complete fraud who hides behind irrelevant cut and paste mathematics and random inclusions of scientific extracts, none of which are your own. When I did my PhD on a subject nowhere near as monumental as claiming the sun to be 600 meters in diameter,  I spent 4 years working on it and produced a document of around 75,000 words, from what I can remember. If I had taken your two-line approach, I would have been laughed at.
You are more than ready to discredit real scientists while at the same time unable to back up your ridiculous claims, and then accusing me of spamming. You have some nerve sir. You claim you are a scientist so why don't you act like one and present your research and evidence on you 600-meter diameter sun for starters. As they say, put up or shut up.
Though I am not a scientist I have over the years know and worked with many real scientists and know the painstaking way they go about their work. You strike me as a delusional fraud of the first order.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #685 on: December 04, 2019, 09:05:11 AM »
More bad news for the RE.

Earlier today a certain reference was posted here, but the link did not include the full article.

Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity by Vitalii L Ginzburg © 1979 American Institute of Physics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221190#msg2221190

I was able to find the summary of the experimental evidence thought by Dr. Ginzburg to be valid:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=w-Fq466p2GMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=ginzburg+general+relativity+experiments&source=bl&ots=CNYj6r3ynN&sig=ACfU3U12NuaJW4UliiTueIkKXWskVrMOpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJnc3loJzmAhUq-yoKHTytBbI4ChDoATAFegQICxAC#v=onepage&q=ginzburg%20general%20relativity%20experiments&f=false

1919 experiment
Pound-Rebka
Binary pulsars

Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html

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

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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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

P. Morrison of MIT had gone to Princeton University to question J. A. Taylor on their justification in calculating the gravitational radiation of the binary pulsars. As expected, Taylor was unable to give a valid justification.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fc3d/acc6c279bbee452fd190067f1a50e0825414.pdf

Still no answer to the 600 meter in diameter sun, yet more avoidance. You will go to any lengths and put up as many smoke screens to avoid taking some responsibility and stepping up to the mark. Just admit you haven't a clue and that you're no more a scientist as a fly in the air.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #686 on: December 04, 2019, 09:25:30 AM »
More bad news for the RE.

Earlier today a certain reference was posted here, but the link did not include the full article.

Experimental verification of the general theory of relativity by Vitalii L Ginzburg © 1979 American Institute of Physics.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84051.msg2221190#msg2221190

I was able to find the summary of the experimental evidence thought by Dr. Ginzburg to be valid:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=w-Fq466p2GMC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=ginzburg+general+relativity+experiments&source=bl&ots=CNYj6r3ynN&sig=ACfU3U12NuaJW4UliiTueIkKXWskVrMOpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJnc3loJzmAhUq-yoKHTytBbI4ChDoATAFegQICxAC#v=onepage&q=ginzburg%20general%20relativity%20experiments&f=false

1919 experiment
Pound-Rebka
Binary pulsars

Pound–Rebka experiment

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

I don't think you have a single clue on what this experiment is?

I would ask you what potential variation there could be in a wave length less than 10 picometers over just under 23 metres in distance?

But you don't answer questions. 
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4867
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #687 on: December 04, 2019, 09:33:35 AM »
Though I am not a scientist

That much is obvious, in addition you are troling this thread.

and the other that the earth does not orbit the sun by virtue of a couple of lines in a previous post!

That is all it takes to prove that GPS satellites do not register the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT.

You might as well call frauds the physicists over at CalTech, not to mention ESA.

How many times does an answer need to be run by you before it dawns on you?


Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


Are you able, scientifically, to understand what I have just posted?

Here are the direct quotes:







https://web.archive.org/web/20161019095630/http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

SSB = solar system barycenter

Published in the Physical Review D


https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf

Within this frame, which we can assume to be Solar System Barycentric (SSB), the differences between back-forth delay times that occur are in fact thousands of kilometers, very much larger than has been previously recognized by us or others. The problem is not rotation per se, but rather aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame.

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

The ORBITAL SAGNAC calculated at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory amounts to an admitted difference in path lengths of 1,000 kilometers.

The difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac is 14.4 kilometers:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0306125.pdf (Dr. Daniel Shaddock, Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

https://gwic.ligo.org/thesisprize/2011/yu_thesis.pdf (pg. 63)


As for the discoidal Sun, here is your pal proving exactly this point:

Of course, the surface gravity of the Sun is roughly 274 m/s2!

And here is another way to check that 274 m/s2 value for the Sun's surface gravity.

Average distance from earth to Sun: 149,597,870,000 m.
Radius of Sun: 695,510,000 m
Sidereal year: 31,558,150 secs
Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s
Hence Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun = (1.99099 x 10-7)2 x (149,597,870,000) = 0.005930 m/s2.

But the (Sun's gravity at the Earth) = (Earth's centripetal Acceleration about Sun) =  0.005930 m/s2.
Now the gravity due to the Sun decreases as 1/(distance from the sun)2.
The Earth is 149,597,870,000 m from the Sun's centre and the Sun's surface is 695,510,000 m from the Sun's centre.

Therefore the Sun's gravity at its surface = 0.005930 x (149,597,870,000/695,510,000)2 = 274.35 m/s2 - QED.

So that agrees quite well with the surface g of the Sun as calculated from its mass, radius and the Universal Gravitational Constant - funny that!

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Then, we are left with the centrifugal acceleration: ac = 0.0063 m/s2.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion.

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.

Therefore, the value of 274 m/s2 RESTS ENTIRELY ON THIS STATEMENT:

Hence Earth's orbital Angular Velocity = 2 x π / (Sidereal year) = 1.99099E-07 rad/s

If the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, a(sun) DOES NOT equal 274.35m/s2: IN FACT IT IS EQUAL TO ZERO.

Since the GPS satellites ARE NOT registering/recording the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC, that means that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.


This is the third time, today, where I have answered those specific questions.

If you are unable to follow scientific papers, or to understand them, use the CN. Here you are spamming this thread.



*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #688 on: December 04, 2019, 09:40:46 AM »
This is the third time, today, where I have answered those specific questions.

If you are unable to follow scientific papers, or to understand them, use the CN. Here you are spamming this thread.

Thing is nobody asked that question, spamming the forums is not answering questions.

Your knowledge of physics is lacking might be an idea to stick to the Occult and clairvoyance.

Or try and answer the dozens of questions that have been asked of you, and stop running away from your own math.
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

Re: Strongest FE Evidence
« Reply #689 on: December 04, 2019, 12:29:48 PM »
You are yet to provide one.
Again, what causes the emission of bosons from Jupiter?
Without that you have no mechanism.

I have provided the proofs of the existence
Again, can you read English?
I am not asking for proof of these, I am asking for a mechanism.

Plenty of proof for gravity exists, but you reject it because you don't like the mechanism presented.

Hence I am giving you the same treatment.
Provide the mechanism.

No mountains of spam, just provide the mechanism of how Jupiter emits these bosons.
Until you do, you have no mechanism and thus are no better off than the REers with gravity.
In fact you are far worse off as gravity is much simpler and doesn't require so much nonsense.


The observation clearly indicates it is curved.
The observation indicates that Kenosha, WI is hidden
Again, stop with the pathetic distractions.
Explain why the lower sections of Toronto are hidden by the water?

Until you do, the photos you provided remain quite strong evidence against a FE.