I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again

  • 785 Replies
  • 13087 Views
*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #270 on: May 31, 2020, 09:58:09 PM »
On a spherical Earth one must deal with the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, that is why the relativists have accepted Lorentz' local-ether model.

So now we have this:

FLAT EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface.

SPHERICAL ORBITING EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down in outer space, since the Earth has long left its previous position and is orbiting the Sun at 30km/s. The aether mechanism does not attract, so furthermore on a spherical surface, the object will not fall back to the curved surface, but again right into outer space (parallel to the spherical Earth).

You the RE must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth.

« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 10:25:56 PM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #271 on: May 31, 2020, 10:40:30 PM »
On a spherical Earth one must deal with the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, that is why the relativists have accepted Lorentz' local-ether model.

Actually, no, we don't. As it's not missing. It depends upon your frame of reference. In a GPS satellite, it's not missing, just irrelevant - Satellite revolves around earth, it cares not for the earth revolving around the sun. If you are talking about earth as a reference frame, still not missing and measurable.

So now we have this:

FLAT EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface.

SPHERICAL ORBITING EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down in outer space, since the Earth has long left its previous position and is orbiting the Sun at 30km/s. The aether mechanism does not attract, so furthermore on a spherical surface, the object will not fall back to the curved surface, but again right into outer space (parallel to the spherical Earth).

You the RE must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth.

Actually, you must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the flat stationary Earth. "The absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface," is hardly an explanation, nor does it make any empirical sense. I mean what's the calculation for absorption? How much ether do I absorb? How much does an apple absorb? None of your claim makes sense without knowing how this 'absorption' works.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #272 on: May 31, 2020, 10:56:46 PM »
It depends upon your frame of reference. In a GPS satellite, it's not missing, just irrelevant

Let's put your word to the test.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

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

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

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


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


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

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.


Your statement has just been refuted and debunked: the orbital SAGNAC effect is missing.



LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Given the huge cost of the entire project, the best experts in the field (CalTech, ESA) were called upon to provide the necessary theoretical calculations for the total phase shift of the interferometer. To everyone's surprise, and for the first time since Sagnac and Michelson and Gale, it was found that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is much greater than the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The factor of proportionality is R/L (R = radius of rotation, L = length of the side of the interferometer).



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 computations carried out by Dr. R.K. Nayak (over ten papers published on the subject) and Dr. J.Y. Vinet (Member of the LISA International Science Team), and published by prestigious scientific journals and by ESA, show that the orbital Sagnac is 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac for LISA.


CALTECH acknowledges that the ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT is not being registered by GPS satellites.


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

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ is the U.S. Naval Observatory website


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 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)

Therefore the difference in path lengths for the ORBITAL SAGNAC is some 60 times greater than the difference in path lengths for the rotational Sagnac, according to these calculations.


You have to accept reality: CALTECH/NASA/ESA is telling you that THE ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS MISSING.


Actually, you must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the flat stationary Earth.

Cut the crap.

There is no need for an attractive mechanism on FLAT, STATIONARY surface of the Earth.

nor does it make any empirical sense. I mean what's the calculation for absorption? How much ether do I absorb? How much does an apple absorb? None of your claim makes sense without knowing how this 'absorption' works.

The displaced volume of ether and the density of the object determines the quantity of aether that is being absorbed. This has been explained clearly.

How the absorption works has been explained as well, all the way down to the antiboson level.

“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.

Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.

Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.

The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #273 on: May 31, 2020, 11:03:18 PM »
LISA Space Antenna



The LISA interferometer rotates both around its own axis and around the Sun as well, at the same time.

That is, the interferometer will be subjected to BOTH the rotational Sagnac (equivalent to the Coriolis effect) and the orbital Sagnac effects.

Why do you bring up LISA?

First of all, it's purpose is to orbit the Sun following Earth. Rotational Sagnac would be applicable considering it's frame of reference; orbiting the Sun and all.

Secondly, you bring up a NASA project that orbits the Sun along with the Earth. Are you now claiming the Earth revolves around the Sun?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #274 on: May 31, 2020, 11:36:53 PM »
On a spherical Earth one must deal with the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT,
No we don't.
Quote from: sandokhan
that is why the relativists have accepted Lorentz' local-ether model.
Please list all these "relativists" who have "accepted Lorentz' local-ether model.".
Otherwise your claims is pure Bunkum.

Quote from: sandokhan

So now we have this:

FLAT EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface.

SPHERICAL ORBITING EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down in outer space, since the Earth has long left its previous position and is orbiting the Sun at 30km/s.
Who claims crap like that?

Quote from: sandokhan
You the RE must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth.
What on earth are you taking about?
The topic is "how water sticks to a globe again" and the oceans are already on the "surface of the spherical orbiting Earth".
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 04:17:33 AM by rabinoz »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #275 on: June 01, 2020, 12:21:06 AM »
Your homework is lousy.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1 (date of publication, 2003)


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta (2005)

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.



https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf (2004)

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.


Who claims crap like that?

That is the current situation which you must face.

So now we have this:

FLAT EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface.

SPHERICAL ORBITING EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down in outer space, since the Earth has long left its previous position and is orbiting the Sun at 30km/s. The aether mechanism does not attract, so furthermore on a spherical surface, the object will not fall back to the curved surface, but again right into outer space (parallel to the spherical Earth).

You the RE must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth.

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #276 on: June 01, 2020, 01:19:58 AM »
FLAT EARTH: the absorbed aether is the weight of the object, which falls down on a stationary flat surface.

You the RE must provide the ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM which keeps the falling object next to the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth.

What's the calculation for absorption? How is ether measured? How much ether do I absorb? How much does an apple absorb? Can we weigh ether? Is my weight different than it is with or without ether absorption? Can I become saturated with ether?

So many questions and zero answers.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #277 on: June 01, 2020, 01:22:19 AM »
Your homework is lousy.
I've no idea who you're replying to with your lazy unidentified replies but I'm afraid you're the one whose "homework is lousy.".

Quote from: sandokhan
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1 (date of publication, 2003)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta (2005)
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.
No we can't "estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion" because LISA orbits the Sun and the GPS satellites orbit the "the Earth Centered Inertial or ECI frame".

Read:
Quote from: Neil Ashby, University of Colorado
Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The system is based on the principle of the constancy of c in a local inertial frame: the Earth Centered Inertial or ECI frame. Time dilation of moving clocks is significant for clocks in the satellites as well as clocks at rest on earth. The weak principle of equivalence finds expression in the presence of several sources of large gravitational frequency shifts. Also, because the earth and its satellites are in free fall, gravitational frequency shifts arising from the tidal potentials of the moon and sun are only a few parts in 1016 and can be neglected.
Or much more detail in:  Relativity in the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #278 on: June 01, 2020, 01:52:11 AM »
How much does an apple absorb? Can we weigh ether? Is my weight different than it is with or without ether absorption?

The denser the target, the more weight that object will experience. You take an apple and a similar volume of plutonium: since the dextrorotatory subquarks of the Pu are more densely packed, it will absorb more aether than an equivalent volume of an apple.

If your body or an object would be totally shielded from the dextrorotatory subquarks, it would weigh NOTHING AT ALL.

Can I become saturated with ether?

No.

The aether is absorbed at the Planck length level (see the paper on Teichmuller spaces), and is emitted through the laevorotatory subquarks.



I've no idea who you're replying to

If you cannot recognize your own quotes, you really got a problem.

No we can't "estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion" because LISA orbits the Sun and the GPS satellites orbit the "the Earth Centered Inertial or ECI frame".

GPS satellites also orbit the Sun.

You tried this before, it won't work:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.msg2216611#msg2216611


Ashby's calculations are worthless as it pertains to the orbital Sagnac.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf (2004)

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.


*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #279 on: June 01, 2020, 02:37:31 AM »
I've no idea who you're replying to
If you cannot recognize your own quotes, you really got a problem.
Try again! You didn't reply to anyone:
Your homework is lousy.

Quote from: sandokhan
No we can't "estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion" because LISA orbits the Sun and the GPS satellites orbit the "the Earth Centered Inertial or ECI frame".
GPS satellites also orbit the Sun.
In other words you didn't read or understand what Neil Ashby's documents - got that.
The GPS satellites orbit the ECI which orbits the Sun - it makes a big difference.

Quote from: sandokhan
You tried this before, it won't work:

Ashby's calculations are worthless as it pertains to the orbital Sagnac.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf (2004)

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.
Irrelevant!
This refers to LISA, orbiting the Sun but not the GPS satellites orbiting an Earth Centered Reference Frame.

But I have to ask whether you believe what is written in:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1 (date of publication, 2003)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta (2005)

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #280 on: June 01, 2020, 02:56:09 AM »
The GPS satellites orbit the ECI which orbits the Sun - it makes a big difference.

You are trolling this thread.


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:

For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital
motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s
motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the
global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link,
and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.


https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

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

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

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


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


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

Published by the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, one of the most prestigious journals in the world today.

C.C. Su, "A Local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave," in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., vol. 45, no. 1, p. 637, Mar. 2000 (Minneapolis, Minnesota).

https://web.archive.org/web/20050217023926/https://www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/










Both the rotational and the orbital motions of the earth together with the orbital
motion of the target planet contribute to the Sagnac
effect. But the orbital motion of the sun has no effects
on the interplanetary propagation.
On the other hand, as
the unique propagation frame in GPS and intercontinental
links is a geocentric inertial frame, the rotational motion
of the earth contributes to the Sagnac effect. But the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun and that of the
sun have no effects on the earthbound propagation.
By
comparing GPS with interplanetary radar, it is seen that
there is a common Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation
and a common null effect of the orbital motion of the sun
on wave propagation. However, there is a discrepancy in
the Sagnac effect due to earth’s orbital motion.
Moreover,
by comparing GPS with the widely accepted interpretation
of the Michelson–Morley experiment, it is seen that
there is a common null effect of the orbital motions on
wave propagation, whereas there is a discrepancy in the
Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation.


Based on this characteristic of uniqueness and switchability of the propagation frame,
we propose in the following section the local-ether model
of wave propagation to solve the discrepancies in the in-
fluences of earth’s rotational and orbital motions on the
Sagnac effect
and to account for a wide variety of propagation
phenomena.


Anyway, the interplanetary Sagnac effect is due to
earth’s orbital motion around the sun as well as earth’s
rotation.
Further, for the interstellar propagation where
the source is located beyond the solar system, the orbital
motion of the sun contributes to the interstellar Sagnac
effect as well.

Evidently, as expected, the proposed local-ether model
accounts for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation and
the null effect of earth’s orbital motion in the earthbound
propagations in GPS and intercontinental microwave link
experiments. Meanwhile, in the interplanetary radar, it accounts
for the Sagnac effect due both to earth’s rotation
and to earth’s orbital motion around the sun.


Based on the local-ether model, the propagation is entirely
independent of the earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever and the velocity v for such an earthbound
experiment is referred to an ECI frame and hence
is due to earth’s rotation alone. In the original proposal,
the velocity v was supposed to incorporate earth’s orbital
motion around the sun. Thus, at least, v2/c2
=~ 10-8. Then the amplitude of the phase-difference variation
could be as large as π/3, when the wavelength is
0.6 µm and the path length is 10 m. However, as the velocity
v is the linear velocity due to earth’s rotation alone,
the round-trip Sagnac effect is as small as v2/c2∼ 10-12 which is merely 10-4 times that due to the orbital motion.



The Sagnac effect is a FIRST ORDER effect in v/c.

Even in the round-trip nature of the Sagnac effect, as it was applied in the Michelson-Morley experiment, thus becoming a second order effect within that context, we can see that the ORBITAL SAGNAC IS 10,000 TIMES GREATER than the rotational Sagnac effect.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #281 on: June 01, 2020, 04:19:48 AM »
It is absolutely valid to our discussion and it also answers your question.
So are you claiming the aether pushes matter by having physical virtual particles pop into existence which then interact with matter in the normal manner just like other matter and causes matter to move, and that places 2 physical objects near one another reduces the abundance of particles and thus the force? That the force is proportional to the cross sectional area with no dependence on density? That it is an extremely short range force and merely jumping from Earth would mean gravity could not pull you back down?
If not, IT IS IRRELEVANT!

Does it explain how aether/ether moves matter?
If not, then it doesn't answer my question and again IS IRRELEVANT!

Now stop your spam and provide a mechanism.

These ether waves DO MOVE MATTER.
HOW???
That is what you have repeatedly avoided explaining.
Stop just asserting that they magically do and provide a mechanism of HOW they move matter.

There is no need for highlighting in red or using bold. If you just stopped spamming irrelavent nonsense it would be extremely easy to see the relevant sections.

The displaced aether
So now it is displaced, not absorbed?
Yet again you have contradicted yourself.

The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset.
Then, the surrounding "virtual particle flux" or aether pressure pushes the plates together from the outside!
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.
Nothing in there is connected to your prior claims other than both using "aether", but that is only because you just labelled it as aether.
All of that applies to acting on a bulk object.
That would produce a force based upon the area, not the mass (or density times volume like you claim).

In order to have it produce a force based upon each individual particle, it would need to be interacting at those scales and thus would need to fill the gaps between those particles. That means that it wouldn't produce an overall effect on the larger object.
Instead to have it act on the larger object, it needs to be excluded at its scale, which means a force based upon its area, not volume.

But still no underlying mechanism.
Now you have your aether magically excluded, and then causing virtual particles to appear, without any explanation of why and these particles then pushing the object.
So rather than provided an answer, you just raise more questions:
How does matter displace the aether?
How does the aether produce virtual particles?
How do these virtual particles move matter?
And how does this produce a force proportional to mass.

Whatever nonsense you invent for a FE to explain why things fall works equally well on a RE to explain why things fall, and thus works equally well at explaining why objects stay on Earth.
Cut the crap.
YOU HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM!
My aether mechanism is correct only for a flat surface of the Earth.
I'm not the one continually spouting crap. That would be you.
You have provided nothing that would indicate your magic would only work for a FE, other than your baseless claim that it is so.
You have failed to provide any argument against your magic on the RE.
Instead, like always you just deflect.

Why can't your magic aether work on a RE to keep water held in place?

Again, not just pathetic assertions. Actually explain why the RE needs an attractive mechanism separate from your magic, while FE is perfectly fine with your magic.

That paper does not have the mechanism you need.
It explains exactly how ether moves matter
Repeating the same lie agian and again as if it hasn't been refuted countless times wont help your case.
It leaves it as aether pressure moving matter.
It doesn't provide a mechanism of how, or how that results in a force proportional to mass instead of area.

So no, it doesn't provide your mechanism.

You don't have nothing, you have less than nothing due to you repeatedly contradicting yourself, and continually spamming off topic garbage.

If you want to discuss the Sagnac effect, take it to one of the prior threads on it which you fled due to your inability to rationally defend your claims.

In this thread you need to explain why your aether magic doesn't work for a RE, and provide a mechanism for it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #282 on: June 01, 2020, 06:02:39 AM »
The GPS satellites orbit the ECI which orbits the Sun - it makes a big difference.
You are trolling this thread.
No, that is you by continually posting off-topic material like the GPS system and LISA.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf
Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications:
For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well. This local-ether model
has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link, and the interplanetary radar.

The peer reviewers at the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications agree that the orbital Sagnac is larger than the rotational Sagnac, that it is missing, and that a local-ether model has to be adopted in order to account for this fact.
And C.-C. Su happens to be an opponent of the GTR which is necessary to understand the GPS system.

And YOU do not believe what C.-C. Su wrote anyway, do you?
Quote from: C.-C. Su
Thereby, for earthbound or interplanetary waves, the propagation is referred uniquely to a geocentric or a heliocentric inertial frame, respectively. Thus earth’s rotation contributes to the Sagnac effect which in turn is associated with the modification of the propagation length and time due to the movement of the propagation path during wave propagation. For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well.

This local-ether model has been adopted to account for the Sagnac effect due to earth’s motions in a wide variety of propagation phenomena, particularly the global positioning system (GPS), the intercontinental microwave link, and the interplanetary radar.

And note this little bit: "For the interplanetary propagation, earth’s orbital motion contributes to the Sagnac effect as well."

Quote from: sandokhan
https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf
This is an IOP article.
The author recognizes the earth's orbital Sagnac is missing whereas the earth's rotational Sagnac is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.
No, he does NOT! Read what he actually writes!

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

Apply a bit of logic to what Ching-Chuan Su said. He said "Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital motion is really necessary."

But, "the present high-precision GPS" does work with the precision predicted and therefore Ching-Chuan Su id saying that "the omitted correction due to orbital motion is" NOT "really necessary".

Learn to read what you references really do say and not what you want them to say.

And I'll ignore the rest of your totally off-topic post, thank you!

Must go, bye bye.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #283 on: June 01, 2020, 06:41:28 AM »
Guys sandokhan has som many proofs of aether in his AFET
Yet amazingly he never wants to start a thread on his evidence for the existence of aether in the debate or general section of the forums and instead only brings it up when he can't defend his claims.
Almost like he wants it kept in a place free from attack, where he can spout whatever nonsense he wants without being challenged, all so he can pretend it could never be refuted.

Like I said, proof of the existence of aether is irrelevant.
So far all he has done is invented an idea of how gravity works to produce the same formula of F=GMm/r^2, which would work just as well on a FE as a RE (in fact better as it still produces the same problems with normal gravity for a FE). This means no problem for a RE.

The only thing it could actually be attacking is the mechanism behind gravity, where he rejects mainstream explanations of curved spacetime and isntead appeals to magic aether which is in no way better.

But with how much he loves aether and hates science he wants to tie aether into so many different things that he ends up with a pile of self-contradictory nonsense where the aether can penetrate matter but it can't, where it is excluded to produce a force of pressure where the force is proportional to the area, but instead it is absorbed by matter, with the amount absorbed giving rise to weight.

And that is another reason why his "proof of aether" is irrelevant. His aether is so ill defined it could literally be anything.
Until he has a rigid definition of what his aether is and does it is impossible to prove or disprove it.
It would be like trying to prove or disprove "ajkdhfgsdui".

But again, still no actual explanation of how his aether works, and other than how ill defined it is, that is the key difference he is claiming, where he rejects gravity, because it doesn't have a mechanism for how matter bends spacetime and follows space time, but claims he has a mechanism for his gravity, even though he can't explain how matter aether moves matter.

The closest he has come so far is by appealing to virtual particles (nothing like his original claims)

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #284 on: June 01, 2020, 07:21:22 AM »
Pointing that rabinozz ignored him?

Sando gets ingored because he spams 1000000pg of nonsense.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #285 on: June 01, 2020, 08:28:14 AM »
So are you claiming the aether pushes matter by having physical virtual particles pop into existence

Subquarks from the electron-positron lattice can be removed (Carl Anderson experiments from 1932), but that is not what is going on here.

That the force is proportional to the cross sectional area with no dependence on density?

The aether has already been absorbed by the plates, that is not what we are talking about here.

The density of the aether and ether has been reduced between the two plates, then the pressure of the exterior waves will push the two plates together.

Exactly what you asked for.

That is what you have repeatedly avoided explaining.

But I have explained the mechanism using copious references as well.

But you are too busy writing bombastic rants which are no match for real science.

So now it is displaced, not absorbed?

Do I have to explain this as to child?

The aether has already been absorbed by the plates. They are fine. If you bring them very close together then both the aether and the ether will be rarified, giving a chance for the more dense exterior waves to push them together.

Very easy to understand.

but that is only because you just labelled it as aether.
All of that applies to acting on a bulk object.
That would produce a force based upon the area, not the mass (or density times volume like you claim).


See above.

In order to have it produce a force based upon each individual particle, it would need to be interacting at those scales and thus would need to fill the gaps between those particles. That means that it wouldn't produce an overall effect on the larger object.
Instead to have it act on the larger object, it needs to be excluded at its scale, which means a force based upon its area, not volume.


No.

The weight of the plates is already taken care of. Now, as the plates are brought together, there density of aether/ether between them will decrease, the outside pressure will bring them together.

But still no underlying mechanism.
Now you have your aether magically excluded, and then causing virtual particles to appear, without any explanation of why and these particles then pushing the object.


The mechanism is very clear, as for the virtual particles, see above.

How does matter displace the aether?

Matter absorbs and emits aether by connecting to subquark strings.

How does the aether produce virtual particles?

Subquarks from the electron-positron lattice can be removed (Carl Anderson experiments from 1932).

How do these virtual particles move matter?
And how does this produce a force proportional to mass.


Weight is what matters, not mass.

There are no "virtual particles": what we have is the electron-positron lattice, which can move objects, as in the Lamoreaux experiment.

You have provided nothing that would indicate your magic would only work for a FE, other than your baseless claim that it is so.

If you want it to work for RE, you need an attractive mechanism as well.

Actually explain why the RE needs an attractive mechanism separate from your magic, while FE is perfectly fine with your magic.

The spherical Earth is orbiting the Sun. The aether mechanism gives you weight. To have the object remain next to a curved surface you need attractive gravity as well.

It leaves it as aether pressure moving matter.
It doesn't provide a mechanism of how, or how that results in a force proportional to mass instead of area.


Put on your glasses and read.

Dr. Ellis:

This ether is in general "more than a mere inert medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves; it is a restless, flowing continuum whose internal, relative motions manifest themselves to us as gravity. Mass particles appear as sources or sinks of this flowing ether."

The absorption of aether causes the density of aether to decrease (between two objects, as an example), the pressure of the ether waves will cause these objects to move toward each other.


Here is confirmation coming from another mainstream journal on physics:

Dr. Ellis:

The inertial mass of the particle modeled by the drainhole.  A "Higgsian" way of expressing this idea is to say that the drainhole 'acquires' (inertial) mass from the scalar field.



https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.678

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9069/0be66e03f535dd3b47aeb76ea36bfc3d1909.pdf

Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force
Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and H. E. Puthoff
Phys. Rev. A 49, 678

Newtonian gravity could be interpreted as a van der Waals type of force induced by the electromagnetic fluctuations of the vacuum, the so-called zero-point fluctuations or zero-point field (ZPF). In that analysis ordinary neutral matter is treated as a collection of electromagnetically interacting polarizable particles made of charged point-mass subparticles (partons).

The parton has a charge e equal in magnitude to the electronic charge (a more general viewpoint given the fractional charges of quarks and the possible existence of further structure at the very high energies under discussion).


Parton = dextrorotatory subquark

Zero point energy = scalar field


Bernhard Haisch
Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laborator
Max-Planck-Institut fur Extraterrestrische Physik

Alfonso Rueda
Department of Electrical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach

H. E. Puthoff
Institute of Advanced Studies at Austin


Further proof that the mass of the electron must be non-electromagnetic.

http://library.uc.edu.kh/userfiles/pdf/42.What%20is%20the%20electron.pdf (pgs. 126-154)

This is discussed in the next section, where it is shown to represent about 0.1% of the total electron energy. But this leaves 99.9% unaccounted-for. There must be a non-electromagnetic mass—a new state of matter that is not observed in our familiar macroscopic world. We label it here as mechanical matter, just to give it a name. This mechanical matter is required to have several distinctive properties, which we enumerate here: (1) It forms 99.9% of the mass of the electron.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2020, 08:30:03 AM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #286 on: June 01, 2020, 02:19:55 PM »
How much does an apple absorb? Can we weigh ether? Is my weight different than it is with or without ether absorption?

The denser the target, the more weight that object will experience. You take an apple and a similar volume of plutonium: since the dextrorotatory subquarks of the Pu are more densely packed, it will absorb more aether than an equivalent volume of an apple.

If your body or an object would be totally shielded from the dextrorotatory subquarks, it would weigh NOTHING AT ALL.

Can I become saturated with ether?

No.

The aether is absorbed at the Planck length level (see the paper on Teichmuller spaces), and is emitted through the laevorotatory subquarks.

How much ether is absorbed by a 1 kilo apple versus a 1 kilo slab of Plutonium? How much of an apple's weight is the apple and how much is the ether?

I've no idea who you're replying to

If you cannot recognize your own quotes, you really got a problem.

No we can't "estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion" because LISA orbits the Sun and the GPS satellites orbit the "the Earth Centered Inertial or ECI frame".

GPS satellites also orbit the Sun.

You tried this before, it won't work:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83931.msg2216611#msg2216611

Ashby's calculations are worthless as it pertains to the orbital Sagnac.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310017.pdf (2004)

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.

GPS' frame of reference is the earth, not the Sun. Are you claiming that the earth orbits around the sun?

And again, Why do you bring up LISA?

First of all, it's purpose is to orbit the Sun following Earth. Rotational Sagnac would be applicable considering it's frame of reference; orbiting the Sun and all.

Secondly, you bring up a NASA project that orbits the Sun along with the Earth. Are you now claiming the Earth spins and orbits around the Sun?

Lastly, from the paper you cited:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f606/87008dd7b3e872c67770eaa9ada9128bbf8b.pdf

"Further, the Sagnac effect due to the movement of the optical path with earth’s rotation is also taken into account to analyze the phase difference in the interferometry."

So again, your claim is that the earth rotates?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #287 on: June 01, 2020, 02:24:28 PM »
I just did.

1014 laevorotatory subquarks will be produced by Dr. Pais' tokamak. In turn, these left handed subquarks will form a field around the tokamak, together with the electrons (dextrorotatory subquarks). This is where the loss of weight comes from, and additionally, where the huge increase in power originates from.

This electron-positron lattice will stop the gravitational waves from penetrating the object (Gersenshtein effect), thus less aether will be available for the body to absorb.

A total confirmation of my aether/ether mechanism.

Actually, your citations make you a Relativist:

"At birth, these positrons have highly relativistic energies and either experience runaway acceleration or are thermalized under the action of radiation emission and collisional friction before being annihilated."

No mention of aether/ether, just adherence to Relativity. Welcome to the Relativity Club.

In page 7, stash said this. He didn't explain phenomenon, just pointed at few lines and than said "it makes you relativist". Form my neutral side of wiev that sounds like genious deflection.

Guys sandokhan has som many proofs of aether in his AFET

It's not a deflection, it's a callout. A call out to the fact that Sandy perpetually cites random papers that are either in support of relativity, earth's rotation, earth's orbit around the sun or all of the above. So it's hard to understand where he is really coming from as his sources make him into a Heliocentric globe earth relativist.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #288 on: June 01, 2020, 02:58:50 PM »
So are you claiming the aether pushes matter by having physical virtual particles pop into existence
Subquarks from the electron-positron lattice can be removed (Carl Anderson experiments from 1932), but that is not what is going on here.
It is also nothing like what I asked.

The aether has already been absorbed by the plates, that is not what we are talking about here.
As that is what you claimed gave the plates weight, that should be what is being discussed.
So now you admit it is a fundamentally different phenomenon and thus in no way relevant.

Either in both cases it is absorbed by the plate and the force is based upon that, or in both cases it is displaced and the force is based upon that, or they are different effects and one is in no way relevant to the discussion of the other.

The density of the aether and ether has been reduced between the two plates, then the pressure of the exterior waves will push the two plates together.
Exactly what you asked for.
No, I asked for HOW the aether pushes matter. How it interacts with matter to move it.
That is just saying it is less dense between the plates and thus pushes the matter.
That is no better than your failure with Cavendish. You have the aether between the balls get rarer (i.e. less dense) and thus the aether pushes them togetehr.
Still no explanation of how.

But I have explained the mechanism using copious references as well.
You mean you have repeatedly avoided it and repeatedly contradicted yourself.

The closest explanation you have come to is claiming that virtual particles will pop into existence and push matter and that the amount which pops into existence will depend on the density of the aether.
But that doesn't explain how the particles pop into existence, and doesn't explain why it is a force based upon mass rather than area, and in some cases, what gives it its directionality.

But you are too busy writing bombastic rants which are no match for real science.
Projecting again I see.
But I would say it is more bombastic spam to deflect your inability to provide a mechanism.

Do I have to explain this as to child?
No, you need to explain it as to a rational, intelligent adult with a memory far greater than that of a gold fish, who will remember what you have said previously and note a contradiction between it, and who will not accept pathetic distraction and deflection as an answer. (And one who actually understands the references you are misusing).

The weight of the plates is already taken care of.
So again, you admit it is a different mechanism.
So anything else related to it is irrelevant to the discussion.
What you need to do is explain HOW it has weight. HOW the plates are pulled down towards Earth (or pushed down if you want to say it is pushed, the difference is semantic).
How does the aether interact with matter to move it to produce what is known as weight.


And as you have admitted it is a different mechanism, that means I will ignore any further discussion on it as irrelevant distraction from your inability to provide a mechanism.
If you want it to work for RE, you need an attractive mechanism as well.
Why?
Why does reality need an attractive mechanism but your FE is perfectly fine with your magic?

Why is it not fine to just have "weight" which moves objects towards the largest mass in the vicinity, so the water on Earth would be moved towards due to its weight.

Yet again, you have failed to justify your claims and instead just repeated the same baseless assertion.

And your claims are fundamentally related to your complete lack of mechanism.
In order to justify this you need to explain how the aether causes matter to move and what gives it its directionality.

Otherwise you have a force which makes objects move towards Earth and RE is fine.

The aether mechanism gives you weight.
i.e. it would cause objects in the vicinity of Earth to accelerate towards Earth or remain on Earth's surface, i.e. no problems for RE which don't also apply to FE.

Put on your glasses and read.
Perhaps you should try that, and then turn on your brain and think.
The closest that paper gets to explaining the mechanism is saying it is pressure which causes objects to move towards each other. There is no explanation of how, i.e. no mechanism of HOW aether moves matter.
So "putting on my glasses and reading" will not help you at all.
By actually reading I can see that it DOESN'T provide an answer.

Now again, no BS on the Casmir effect which you have admitted is a fundamentally different phenomenon.

Explain the mechanism behind aether interacting with an object which causes it to have weight and fall to Earth.
In this be sure to explain exactly what interaction is occurring between the aether and matter and how that causes the matter to move, and specifically to move towards Earth.

You haven't even attempted to do that. Until you do, you will continue to just have magic, without a mechanism, that works for the RE better than it does for the FE. Especially when you try to keep it aligned with reality to some extent and produce a force equivalent to F=GMm/r^2

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #289 on: June 01, 2020, 09:47:50 PM »
How much ether is absorbed by a 1 kilo apple versus a 1 kilo slab of Plutonium? How much of an apple's weight is the apple and how much is the ether?

Since the dextrorotatory subquarks (gravitons/electrons) of Pu are much more densely packed, it will absorb much more aether than the corresponding volume of an apple.

Baryons, quarks, mesons are not affected by gravitons, so we can state that only the 18 subquark model (9 for a proton, 9 for an electron) has weight as it absorbs aether. As soon as the implosion of the atom takes place (the fragmentation of the 18 subquark geometrical figure into two separate groups of 9 subquarks) you get antigravity. So the weight of the apple comes entirely from the amount of aether is absorbing.


It is also nothing like what I asked.

You asked for a specific example of how ether moves matter, and also to explain this phenomenon. When I did provide the example, you say no, it's nothing like what I asked.

As that is what you claimed gave the plates weight, that should be what is being discussed.
So now you admit it is a fundamentally different phenomenon and thus in no way relevant.


Once you have the weight, two objects placed in very close proximity will move toward each other because of the rarefied density of aether/ether between them.

No, I asked for HOW the aether pushes matter. How it interacts with matter to move it.
That is just saying it is less dense between the plates and thus pushes the matter.


Aether/ether pushes matter exactly as Newton described the process: you get rarefied aether between the objects/bodies, the outside tide of ether will push them together.

That is no better than your failure with Cavendish.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) performed the Cavendish experiment in full vacuum. No failure whatsoever.

Steve reasoned that if he created a narrow-enough region of empty space like the area between the two ships, then some of the shimmering zero-point energy would not fit inside it.
The energy of empty space outside the narrow region would be stronger and force it to shrink.
That force would be the signature of negative energy, and Steve set out to create it in his lab.
It was an idea that would consume him for more than a decade.


Inside this vacuum chamber are two small metal plates sitting less than the width of a human hair apart from one another.
To get them that close and not touch, the metal has to be perfectly flat, down almost to the atomic level.
The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.


Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.
Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


Exactly what you asked for: how aether/ether moves matter.


The closest explanation you have come to is claiming that virtual particles will pop into existence and push matter and that the amount which pops into existence will depend on the density of the aether.
But that doesn't explain how the particles pop into existence, and doesn't explain why it is a force based upon mass rather than area, and in some cases, what gives it its directionality.


No. The ether subquarks are already there and provide the continuous streams: you can extract/release the subquarks from that lattice as did Carl Anderson in 1932. It is a force based on the volume displaced from the ether.

So again, you admit it is a different mechanism.
So anything else related to it is irrelevant to the discussion.
What you need to do is explain HOW it has weight. HOW the plates are pulled down towards Earth (or pushed down if you want to say it is pushed, the difference is semantic).
How does the aether interact with matter to move it to produce what is known as weight.


No. The very same interaction takes place: the interplay of aether/ether with the subquarks of the objets. Weight is given by the amount of aether which has been absorbed: an apple will weigh less than the corresponding volume of Pu because its subquarks are less densely packed. Once you have the weight, there is no pulling toward the Earth whatsoever: the plates (if they are released from some height) will fall naturally toward the ground as they absorb aether. Aether is being absorbed by the dextrorotatory subquarks (gravitons) in the object, these gravitons have strings of antibosons which rotate very rapidly, the antibosons consist mainly of aether (they can become bosons which provide light if activated).

Why does reality need an attractive mechanism but your FE is perfectly fine with your magic?

Why is it not fine to just have "weight" which moves objects towards the largest mass in the vicinity, so the water on Earth would be moved towards due to its weight.


The aether mechanism does not provide an attractive structure. The object simply falls down and does not move toward the nearest mass. No relationship whatsoever to the mass of the Earth.

You need an attractive mechanism for the spherical orbiting Earth to explain how objects remain on the surface given the 30 km/s speed and also given the curved surface.

You take an object, based only on FE aether mechanism, and released it from a height of 10km on a spherical orbiting Earth: in less than a second it will fall in outer space since the Earth has already covered 30 km within the frame of a single second. Let us now suppose the spherical Earth is stationary: when you release the object it will fall again into outer space parallel to the spherical Earth, it will not be attracted toward the Earth at all.

i.e. it would cause objects in the vicinity of Earth to accelerate towards Earth or remain on Earth's surface, i.e. no problems for RE which don't also apply to FE.

See above.

The closest that paper gets to explaining the mechanism is saying it is pressure which causes objects to move towards each other. There is no explanation of how, i.e. no mechanism of HOW aether moves matter.


No. The paper provides the equations necessary for the existence of the aether drainhole and describes how mass (weight) will be created given the receptive vortices which absorb aether. Exactly what you asked for.

Now again, no BS on the Casmir effect which you have admitted is a fundamentally different phenomenon.

The very same phenomenon at work.

"Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.



In zero-point energy theory, it is now believed that the Casimir force works in exactly the same way. This force is created when the distance between the plates becomes so narrow that no "virtual particles" or aetheric energies are able to fit between them.

So, there is no "sucking" going on at all; in fact it is a complete absence of energy that exists between the plates, aetheric or otherwise. And so, a form of "aether vacuum" is formed between the two plates, where no aether can flow inside the crack. Then, the surrounding "virtual particle flux" or aether pressure pushes the plates together from the outside!

In Dr. Puthoff‘s model, this pressure is believed to be caused by the “virtual particles ” themselves, as they will continually emerge from the zero-point energy long enough to exert a constant force upon the plates, thus pushing them together. Either way, it all comes back to a fundamentally aetheric design, and no other model seems to adequately explain why this incredibly powerful Casimir effect would occur.

Bearing this in mind, we are continuing to see how the background aetheric energy plays a role in the world that we can observe. The Casimir effect reveals to us exactly how much pressure the aether is truly exerting on us. And yet, since Dr. Puthoff and most other theorists believe that it always "cancels out" to zero, we can never detect any major changes in the world around us."

Dr. Puthoff describes as "virtual" particles the tide of the ether streams. They do not emerge from the zero point energy: they are already there providing the pressure. They can/could be released as did Carl Anderson in 1932. To put them back into the lattice necessitates a tremendous amount of energy, exactly what Tesla did in 1908: the shock wave was a manifestation of the subquarks which were introduced into the ether lattice.

*

Stash

  • 4993
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #290 on: June 02, 2020, 01:13:16 AM »
How much ether is absorbed by a 1 kilo apple versus a 1 kilo slab of Plutonium? How much of an apple's weight is the apple and how much is the ether?

Since the dextrorotatory subquarks (gravitons/electrons) of Pu are much more densely packed, it will absorb much more aether than the corresponding volume of an apple.

Baryons, quarks, mesons are not affected by gravitons, so we can state that only the 18 subquark model (9 for a proton, 9 for an electron) has weight as it absorbs aether. As soon as the implosion of the atom takes place (the fragmentation of the 18 subquark geometrical figure into two separate groups of 9 subquarks) you get antigravity. So the weight of the apple comes entirely from the amount of aether is absorbing.

So the weight of the apple comes entirely from the amount of aether is absorbing.

So what's the calculation for how much the 1 kilo apple absorbs?

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #291 on: June 02, 2020, 01:23:05 AM »
You asked for a specific example of how ether moves matter
No, I asked for a mechanism, an explanation of HOW aether moves matter.
Not an example of where you claim aether moves matter, especially not one where you claim it is due to a fundamentally different mecnahism.

Once you have the weight
We haven't gotten to that point yet. You are still to explain why objects have weight.
Or are you just using "weight" to mean mass? and thus an object having "weight" wouldn't necessarily mean it falls?

Aether/ether pushes matter exactly as Newton described the process
Except he didn't describe the mechanism. it is still just handwavy aether magically pushes matter.

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University) performed the Cavendish experiment in full vacuum. No failure whatsoever.
Not his failure, YOUR failure.
You have yet again failed to provide the kind of mechanism you demand for gravity.
But as you have admitted it is a fundamentally different mechanism, there is no need to discuss it further.

No. The very same interaction takes place: the interplay of aether/ether with the subquarks of the objets. Weight is given by the amount of aether which has been absorbed
This means it is a fundamentally different interaction.
Here you are claiming it is due to absorbing aether giving it weight (and later you indicate that is the extent of your mechanism, with no explanation for the directionality), yet for the Casmir effect you claim it is due to displacing aether causing virtual particles to be excluded from the region between the 2 plates and push the plates together.
Other than saying aether in both, there is no connection and they are completely different interactions.

The object simply falls down and does not move toward the nearest mass.
So what you are saying is that you have literally no mechanism at all and things just magically go down due to pure magic.

This is part of why I had repeatedly asked you for a mechanism, and an explanation of the directionality.
You have none.
You just have it magically doing down for no reason at all.

Guess what?
That works just as well with it magically going towards Earth instead.
So it still works just as well (in fact better) for the RE.

And until you provide a mechanism which explains how the aether interacts with matter to move it and what gives it its directionality (or recant all your nonsense) I don't need to provide anything.

You take an object, based only on FE aether mechanism, and released it from a height of 10km on a spherical orbiting Earth: in less than a second it will fall in outer space since the Earth has already covered 30 km within the frame of a single second. Let us now suppose the spherical Earth is stationary: when you release the object it will fall again into outer space parallel to the spherical Earth, it will not be attracted toward the Earth at all.
Lets take a more honest approach shall we?
You take an object, based only on magic aether mechanism, and released it from a height of 10km on a spherical orbiting Earth.
Prior to being released, it was already moving with Earth's orbital velocity. So when you release it, it will conserve its momentum and continue to move at those 30 km/s, and thus fall to Earth. That 30 km/s orbital speed is irrelevant.
What your analysis applies to is throwing an object at 30 km/s relative to Earth.

So now with the orbital velocity ignored we just need to focus on the motion relative to Earth. So the object is released and falls towards the surface of Earth.
Yet again, NO PROBLEM FOR RE!

Yet again, until you provide a mechanism which explains how the aether interacts with matter to move it and what gives it its directionality all you have is pure magic with mechanism at all, which works just as well, if not better, for the RE.

No. The paper provides the equations ... Exactly what you asked for.
Equations are not a mechanism (remember, Newton had equations that explained how things fall, you reject that as not a mechanism), that is NOT what I asked for.
Yet again it is you deflecting from your complete inability to provide a mechanism and lying about what I asked for.

Now again, care to actually provide a mechanism?
What I have been asking for since over 200 posts ago?
Something you are yet to provide?
Explain how aether interacts with matter to move matter.
Explain why it pushes objects released from Earth down towards the surface of Earth.

No "it absorbs aether so it has weight and thus magically falls down", but an actual mechanism describing what interactions are occurring and how the aether moves matter by these interactions and what gives it its directionality.

Until you provide such a mechanism, you have nothing and there is no problem for the RE.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #292 on: June 02, 2020, 01:31:05 AM »
So what's the calculation for how much the 1 kilo apple absorbs?

There has been very little work devoted to this problem, the only reference that I know of is an obscure article from 1981:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191024060322/http://keelynet.com/gravity/grav7.txt


To paraphrase Donald Trump, how many times can you ask the same question?

Everything you want to know regarding the issues raised in your last message have ALREADY been answered:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2254659#msg2254659

Lets take a more honest approach shall we?
You take an object, based only on magic aether mechanism, and released it from a height of 10km on a spherical orbiting Earth.
Prior to being released, it was already moving with Earth's orbital velocity. So when you release it, it will conserve its momentum and continue to move at those 30 km/s, and thus fall to Earth. That 30 km/s orbital speed is irrelevant.
What your analysis applies to is throwing an object at 30 km/s relative to Earth.

So now with the orbital velocity ignored we just need to focus on the motion relative to Earth. So the object is released and falls towards the surface of Earth.
Yet again, NO PROBLEM FOR RE!


Have you been smoking something?

It will not conserve anything if there is NO ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM TO START WITH.

You got nothing.

In that fraction of a second the object will be left behind, while Earth continues on its orbit at 30 km/s.


Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #293 on: June 02, 2020, 01:47:42 AM »
So what's the calculation for how much the 1 kilo apple absorbs?
There has been very little work devoted to this problem, the only reference that I know of is an obscure article from 1981:
So what you are saying is that even though you claim to have such a perfect and simple mechanism, you have no idea?

And what does your source say?
"proportional  to  the square of the mass."
not density and volume, but mass, exactly what you reject.

And of course, instead of siding with you at all, it has nothing like your claims.
You claim it is from absorbing aether, but instead this has it absorbing and re-radiating energy from the aether.
So it has nothing to do with calculating how much aether is absorbed.

To paraphrase Donald Trump, how many times can you ask the same question?
As many times as needed until you either answer it or admit you have no answer.

The real question is how many times can you deflect from answering the same question?

Everything you want to know regarding the issues raised in your last message have ALREADY been answered:
No, they haven't.
If they had I wouldn't be asking yet again.
I ask again because you still haven't provided it.
You still have no mechanism of how the aether interacts with matter to push it, including providing the directionality.

Instead all you have is aether is absorbed by matter which magically means it has weight which magically means it falls.

No explanation of the underlying mechanism or the origin of the directionality at all.

Now stop with the deflection and either provide a mechanism or admit you can't.

Have you been smoking something?
No, have you?
Is that why you always spout such nonsense?

It will not conserve anything if there is NO ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM TO START WITH.
No, an attractive mechanism wouldn't change it.
It will conserve it simply by existing.

Again, this is an extremely simple experiment you can easily try yourself.
On a steadily moving train or bus, drop something.
Does it fly to the back and smash against the wall?
No. Instead, its momentum is conserved.


So no, YOU HAVE NOTHING, in fact, you have less than nothing.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 06:16:28 AM by JackBlack »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #294 on: June 02, 2020, 02:57:10 AM »
So what you are saying is that even though you claim to have such a perfect and simple mechanism, you have no idea?

Cut the crap.

The mechanism is perfect, the rate at which aether is absorbed necessitates experiments which have never been carried out. So the author of that paper simply assumes that it is proportional to the square of the mass. Certainly it must be related to the weight, but again, the universities will never carry out such experiments.

If they had I wouldn't be asking yet again.
I ask again because you still haven't provided it.


No, you are still asking because you cannot accept defeat, nor can you escape your cognitive dissonance affliction.

All of your questions have been answered here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=85986.msg2254659#msg2254659


You must have been smoking something all morning in order to come up with this drivel:

No, an attractive mechanism would change it.
It will conserve it simply by existing.

Again, this is an extremely simple experiment you can easily try yourself.
On a steadily moving train or bus, drop something.
Does it fly to the back and smash against the wall?
No. Instead, its momentum is conserved.


This is the formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically launched projectile:



g = GM/r2 Newton told us: this equation is totally based on the concept of attractive gravity.

If the object is launched from the surface of a spherical orbiting Earth, it will disappear instantly from sight, without an attractive mechanism, since the Earth has covered 30 km already. You will never see it again. If M = 0, then using Newton's formula, g = 0, and there is no deflection, i.e. the Earth is stationary.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 03:40:09 AM by sandokhan »

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #295 on: June 02, 2020, 06:19:56 AM »
The mechanism is perfect
If the mechanism is so perfect, you would be able to tell us exactly how much aether is absorbed.
The fact that you don't know that means your mechanism isn't perfect.

Just like the fact that you can't explain the directionality means your mechanism isn't perfect.

So how about you cut the crap and stop pretending your mechanism is perfect, and stop pretending you have a mechanism?

No, you are still asking because you cannot accept defeat, nor can you escape your cognitive dissonance affliction.
And more pathetic projection.
You are the one who has completely failed in this thread, just like so many threads before it.
Rather than answer simple questions you repeatedly spam nonsense and deflect.
It is all you seem to be capable of.

You are yet to answer my questions.
You are yet to provide an actual mechanism clearly describing the interaction which occurs between aether and matter which results in matter having weight and moving, including the origin of the directionality.

Instead all you have is the aether magically being absorbed, that causing the mass to magically fall.

No explanation of the mechanism of how the aether is absorbed. No mechanism of how this imparts motion. And no mechanism to explain the directionality of the motion.

And still no reason why it wouldn't work just as well or better on a RE. In order to pretend there is a problem for RE you need to reject inertia/conservation of momentum.

So you have less than nothing.

This is the formula for the lateral deflection of a vertically launched projectile:

A formula based upon the rotation of Earth and gravity.
But notice that the Earth's orbital velocity doesn't factor into it?

Again, rather than actually address what I have said (as that would require admitting you are completely wrong or outright rejecting reality in a manner which is extremely simple to test) you instead deflect.

If the object is launched from the surface of a spherical orbiting Earth, it will disappear instantly from sight, ... since the Earth has covered 30 km already. You will never see it again.
Just like if you drop an object inside a fast, steadily moving bus or train or plane, the object will appear to fly straight to the back of the vehicle, smashing into the wall, killing anyone on the way due to the incredible speeds invovled.

Oh wait, that never happens.
Instead, the object conserves its momentum and appears to just fall straight to the floor, regardless of speed.

Again, ignoring conservation of momentum shows just how desperate you are, and just how false your claims are.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6206
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #296 on: June 02, 2020, 07:08:41 AM »
If the mechanism is so perfect, you would be able to tell us exactly how much aether is absorbed.
The fact that you don't know that means your mechanism isn't perfect.


Actually, there is a reference, and a very important one, translated from German.

https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1004.2901/

B. Riemann stated in 1853 that "gravitational aether sinks toward massive objects where it is absorbed, at a rate proportional to their mass, and is then emitted into another spatial dimension".

Rabsorption = k x p x V, where p = y/g (since, by definition, ether/aether theory does not make use of the mass concept)

And more pathetic projection.
You are the one who has completely failed in this thread, just like so many threads before it.


You are making a fool of yourself, as usual.

Everything you asked for, each and every conceivable explanation, was promptly given.

It is nobody's fault but yours that you are totally unable to accept defeat.

Actually, I have won each and every thread in which I was involved.

You are yet to answer my questions.
You are yet to provide an actual mechanism clearly describing the interaction which occurs between aether and matter which results in matter having weight and moving, including the origin of the directionality.

Instead all you have is the aether magically being absorbed, that causing the mass to magically fall.


Every question has been answered.

Exactly how aether/ether moves matter, exactly how weight is attained, using the best references available, which were published in mainstream journals.

A formula based upon the rotation of Earth and gravity.
But notice that the Earth's orbital velocity doesn't factor into it?


Cut the crap.

Provide the attractive mechanism.

You got none.

Here is the formula for the lateral deflection using the velocity of the object and the angular velocity of rotation; the equation is derived appealing to the hypothesized law of attractive gravity, thus the author does not have to use the 30km/s orbital speed into the equation, without the law of attractive gravity no formula could be derived:

https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/501/HW_Chapter_7.pdf

x = 4Ωwo3cos φ/3g2

Now, it is even worse: since g = GM/r2, and M = 0, you g = 0, and the deflection is infinite.

So when you release it, it will conserve its momentum and continue to move at those 30 km/s, and thus fall to Earth.

Cut the crap.

Without the attractive mechanism, it will fall into outer space since (parallel to the Earth); if you want it to fall back to Earth, YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THE MISSING ATTRACTIVE MECHANISM.


Just like if you drop an object inside a fast, steadily moving bus or train or plane, the object will appear to fly straight to the back of the vehicle, smashing into the wall, killing anyone on the way due to the incredible speeds invovled.

Oh wait, that never happens.
Instead, the object conserves its momentum and appears to just fall straight to the floor, regardless of speed.


Have you lost your mind?

YOU ARE APPEALING TO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, A MECHANISM FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION.

How is the train kept on the surface of the spherical orbiting Earth?

How is the object kept on the same surface?

By which gravitational law?

Provide the attractive mechanism.

You have none.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 08:40:40 AM by sandokhan »

Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #297 on: June 02, 2020, 03:34:40 PM »
If the mechanism is so perfect, you would be able to tell us exactly how much aether is absorbed.
The fact that you don't know that means your mechanism isn't perfect.

Actually, there is a reference, and a very important one, translated from German.
So more deflection, further showing your mechanism is far from perfect.
And yet again contradicting your claim that it isn't mass.

by definition, ether/aether theory does not make use of the mass concept
That is just your baseless claim to reject reality.
All the available evidence indicates that whatever nonsense you want to use to replace gravity uses mass.

You are making a fool of yourself, as usual.
You mean by repeatedly pointing out that your alternative to gravity still works just as well if not better for the RE and thus you haven't shown any problem at all?
You mean by repeatedly showing how you are contradicting yourself and deflecting?
How you are yet to provide a mechanism?
How you need to reject such a simple observation from reality to pretend there is a problem for the RE?

That sure sounds like you are the fool. Unless you are saying you are a troll and I am a fool for engaging with you?

Everything you asked for, each and every conceivable explanation, was promptly given.
Stop lying,
You have repeatedly avoided providing what I asked for. You still haven't explained the mechanism that makes objects fall.
Instead all you have is aether is magically absorbed which magically gives the object weight so it magically falls down.
No explanation of how the aether moves matter nor how it gives it its directionality.

Yet again, instead of answering the questions by providing a mechanism and explaining the directionality, you just repeat the same pathetic claim.
Claiming that you have answered doesn't magically mean you have.
Repeating the same lie again and again will not magically make it true.


the equation is derived appealing to the hypothesized law of attractive gravity
No, it is made by using the very real and proven beyond any sane doubt rotation of Earth and fact that objects fall.
It doesn't matter what BS you want to invoke to explain why things fall.

Without the attractive mechanism, it will fall into outer space since (parallel to the Earth);
Again, until you provide the explanation for the directionality, it can fall anyway it wants, including towards Earth.
Until you provide your explanation for the directionality it is just as valid to say it will fall towards Earth, so still no problem for the RE.
Nothing else needs to be explained by RE, until you explain your nonsense.

Just like if you drop an object inside a fast, steadily moving bus or train or plane, the object will appear to fly straight to the back of the vehicle, smashing into the wall, killing anyone on the way due to the incredible speeds invovled.
Oh wait, that never happens.
Instead, the object conserves its momentum and appears to just fall straight to the floor, regardless of speed.

Have you lost your mind?
No. Have you?
Are you rejecting an extremely simple to observe and test fact of nature?
If not, you need to accept conservation of momentum.

Otherwise, according to you, the only way to have conservation of momentum is an attractive mechanism, so you need to provide the attractive mechanism that keeps whatever object you are dropping moving with the train/plane/bus.
But of course, rather than address this very simple observation you need to deflect and bring up a completely irrelevant attractive mechanism that has nothing to do with conservation of momentum.

Now stop deflecting.
Appealing to the orbital velocity is pure garbage due to conservation of momentum. This is an indisputable fact of nature, clearly observed when you drop an object in a smoothly moving vehicle. The object doesn't magically fly back towards the rear of the vehicle. Instead its momentum is conserved and as long as the vehicle doesn't accelerate, in the reference frame of the vehicle the object appears to fall down.
As such Earth's orbital velocity is irrelevant.

So that means it is just down to objects falling towards a RE vs falling towards a FE.
But as you have literally no justification nor explanation for any directionality (even saying it has nothing to do with Earth), you have no basis to claim this magic will cause objects to fall towards a FE but alongside a RE.
So there is no basis to reject this making objects fall towards a RE.
So there is still no problem for a RE.

So yet again, you have less than nothing.

You reject gravity as explained by mainstream science, all so you can pretend there is a problem for a RE, while failing to show any problem for a RE, even with your magic; and repeatedly contradicting yourself.

Again, in order to demonstrate a problem for the RE, you need to provide an actual explanation for your magic.
You need to explain what the interaction is that occurs between aether and matter, explain how that causes the object to move, and what gives it its directionality (and in order for it to not work on a RE as well, you can't use Earth for the directionality).

So again, going to provide a mechanism explaining the directionality and how it moves matter? Or will you continue with the pathetic deflection?

*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #298 on: June 02, 2020, 08:07:33 PM »
Provide the attractive mechanism.
There is no need to provide an "attractive mechanism" because Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation were derived from meticulous experimentation and observation by both Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton. Hence
Isaac Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, does not need an explanation of an "attractive mechanism" any more than does Coulomb's Law, .

Of course over 200 years later Einstein's General Theory of Relativity extended Isaac Newton's Law to cover speeds and conditions not envisioned by Isaac Newton.

In addition Einstein showed that gravitation was not an attractive force but an inertial force - if YOU cannot accept that, tough!

Now, can you show accurate experimental evidence backing up you aether hypotheses as an explanation of gravitation.

If you do not have such accurate experimental evidence you have nothing but an unsupported hypothesis.

Come back when you have such evidence!

*

rabinoz

  • 26408
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I guess we're debating how water sticks to a globe again
« Reply #299 on: June 02, 2020, 08:31:14 PM »
If the mechanism is so perfect, you would be able to tell us exactly how much aether is absorbed.
The fact that you don't know that means your mechanism isn't perfect.


Actually, there is a reference, and a very important one, translated from German.
https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1004.2901/
Did you even read:
Quote
Reviving Gravity’s Aether in Einstein’s Universe by Niayesh Afshordi
ABSTRACT
Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes gravity as the interaction of particles with space-time geometry, as opposed to interacting with a physical fluid, as in the old gravitational aether theories. Moreover, any theoretical physicist would tell you that, despite its counter-intuitive structure, general relativity is one of the simplest, most beautiful, and successful theories in physics, that has withstood a diverse battery of precision tests over the past century. So, is there any motivation to relax its fundamental principle, and re-introduce a gravitational aether? Here, I give a short and non-technical account of why quantum gravity and cosmological constant problems provide this motivation.
Niayesh Afshordi never questions the accuracy or validity of either Newton's or Einstein's gravitation.
He is simply seeking to unify Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and Quantum theory:
Quote
But is there any reason to think that general relativity is not the fundamental theory of gravity?

The main motivation for this comes from quantum mechanics, the other hugely successful physical theory of the 20th century: both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been incredibly successful in describing macroscopic and microscopic phenomena respectively. However, any attempt to apply the rules of quantum mechanics to general relativity seems to lead to divergences that impair the predictive power of the theory. The effective theory of gravity breaks down when the macroscopic and microscopic worlds meet and a huge amount of energy is packed into small scales.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III CONCLUSIONS
Unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great physical theories of the twentieth century, has fascinated and puzzled theoretical physicists for many decades. As bizarre as it may sound, recycling discarded ideas of the 19th century might provide a way forward!

While gravitational aether is far from the only possibility for solving the problems of quantum gravity, the theoretical arguments and motivations for its reincarnation are simple and sound, and the coincidence of its predictions with cosmological observations is very suggestive. Many questions still remain, and need to be answered in order to have a viable physical theory on par with general relativity:
I see no trace of support in that for your "aether" explanations of gravity which you claim cannot work on a spherical Earth.

Niayesh Afshordi has no such limitation and is looking to a unified theory of gravitation and Quantum theory than spans the whole Universe - not your little toy "Universe".