sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

  • 250 Replies
  • 45910 Views
?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« on: September 09, 2013, 07:22:00 PM »
Occasionally, sandokahn states that the components of air do not seem to obey the law of gravity, because the different air elements do not sort themselves out by their specific gravities. I think that's not entirely mis-stated. What do you think of this notion?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2013, 07:48:54 PM »
Hot air balloons do a pretty good job of sorting themselves out.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2013, 07:58:04 PM »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2013, 08:04:52 PM »
Is there a non-Einstein version of Brownian motion theory? When I hear "Einstein" my brain instantly turns off.

But my rapid glance suggests to me the following: that the individual and very lightweight particles are influenced by their respective energy charges, and so keep stirring and never sort out. Is that about right?

Not even over time?

Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2013, 08:14:16 PM »
Is there a non-Einstein version of Brownian motion theory? When I hear "Einstein" my brain instantly turns off.
Maybe.
Quote
But my rapid glance suggests to me the following: that the individual and very lightweight particles are influenced by their respective energy charges, and so keep stirring and never sort out. Is that about right?
Pretty much.
Quote
Not even over time?
No for small particles. Bigger particles, usually over 1 micron, will settle out.
Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

Junker

  • 3736
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2013, 08:14:35 PM »
Learn it.

Only posting a link is considered low-content.  You know this.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2013, 08:17:32 PM »
Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.

Why don't the particles lose energy as they bump into each other? I would guess that as they lose energy, they would then become more susceptible to the effects of gravity, as it is theorized, such that then they would settle out according to their specific masses (if that's the way to put it).

I think the sun imparting energy to them is a perfectly good way to sustain your theory. The photons collide with the particles in the air, and they use that energy to keep on bouncing into each other.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2013, 08:39:11 PM »
Learn it.

Only posting a link is considered low-content.  You know this.
I care how much?

Quote
Does energy from the sun prevent the error of arguing for perpetual motion?
No. If a particle is not at absolute zero it has energy.

Why don't the particles lose energy as they bump into each other?
Where would it go? Particles do transfer energy to each other. That is why a hair dryer feels hot.

Quote
I would guess that as they lose energy, they would then become more susceptible to the effects of gravity, as it is theorized, such that then they would settle out according to their specific masses (if that's the way to put it).
Doesn't work that way for small particles.
Quote
I think the sun imparting energy to them is a perfectly good way to sustain your theory. The photons collide with the particles in the air, and they use that energy to keep on bouncing into each other.
The sun can energies particles but it doesn't have anything to do with it. Air doesn't separate at night.

As rusty said, sometimes air can separate. CO2 pooling kills people and babies every once in awhile. But that is a closed system under certain circumstances. Temperature changes can make air density gradients. But air by itself will never separate. 
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2013, 07:39:55 PM »
Oh! Here is a thread where sandokahn outlines the general idea, which I noticed because rottingroom just replied to it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55855.0.html

Sandokahn observes that when winds subside the elements do not separate out. I'll just post his remarks here, because discussion should be here and not in the info repository.

Quote from: sandokahn
GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE DO NOT OBEY AN ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATIONAL LAW

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.”  Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

Then rottingroom referred to the Ideal Gas Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2013, 07:43:42 PM »
In this post, sandokahn gives some significance for the issue of gravity's effect on air (at least, I think this is the significance):

Quote from: sandokahn
I have shown that gravity is not attractive, therefore we are left with just two choices: a rotational type of gravity, and gravity caused by pressure. It is obvious that the force which is currently thought to be attractive gravity, is actually of a pressure type; but the force which keeps the planets/stars on their orbit is rotational, therefore there must a screen/dome between the earth and the planets (a large scale version of the Tesla Shield).
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2013, 08:11:02 PM »
sandokahn never proves anything. It has already been explained.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 01:57:56 AM »
Air molecules bumping into each other are pretty much elastic, otherwise a well sealed and insulated gas bottle would eventually be filled with liquid, all the gas would slow down and settle out. You would end up with a liquid and a vacuum. This doesn't happen without some outside effort.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

odes

  • 293
  • Everything else is a fairy tale!
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2013, 05:57:27 PM »
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html

Example:

Quote from: sandokahn
Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.
Quote from: Rushy
No bawwing is necessary.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2013, 06:08:40 PM »
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html

Example:

Quote from: sandokahn
Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.
If you ignore physics then, yes, ozone would go straight to the ground. If you don't ignore physics then, not it wouldn't and ozone can be at ground level and is a problem to people's health.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2013, 07:38:21 PM »
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html

Example:

Quote from: sandokahn
Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.

You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 07:51:17 PM »
Here is a related debate, with sandokahn, in case someone is following the dots.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55865.0.html

Example:

Quote from: sandokahn
Had attractive gravity been a real phenomenon, ozone would descend immediately as its own specific weight (trioxygen) is greater than of oxygen.

I think sandokahn has identified, or pointed to, some important paradoxes.

You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Ozone at ground level is a problem. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/ozone-pollution.htm
 Hydroxide ion amount in water is very low.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 08:00:20 PM »
The ozone concentration will exist where it is formed, and where it can persist. Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere, and can persist there, so there is a layer. If it lowers, it will dissipate, if it climbs it is destroyed by radiation.
Ozone can be formed in the lower atmosphere, but it will dissipate at a high rate compared to the Ozone layer.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #17 on: September 13, 2013, 01:07:34 AM »
Once, long ago, someone wrote this:

Its "shelf life" is very short, and the only way for it to exist in any

measurable quantity is for it to be constantly produced.


My response:

BUT IN FACT the atomic oxygen IMMEDIATELY REACTS WITH other oxygen molecules, to form ozone again.

The overall effect of the ozone-oxygen cycle is to convert penetrating UV radiation into heat, WITHOUT ANY NET LOSS OF OZONE.

Thus, the ozone layer is kept in a stable balance. And, moreover, in the stratosphere, the ozone layer concentrations are about 2 to 8 parts per million, which is much higher than in the lower atmosphere

Now, we get back to what I told you before.

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the mixing effect of the wind. The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights. Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

With attractive gravity, OZONE WOULD DESCEND IMMEDIATELY AS ITS SPECIFIC WEIGHT IS GREATER THAN THAT OF OXYGEN.

You have no answers to this undeniable fact: ozone is constatly produced, and does not obey any attractive gravity law.


IF THERE IS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THEN GASES MUST SEPARATE INTO LAYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR SPECIFIC WEIGHTS.

Then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that pockets of noxious gas are in the air, the scientists replied:

There are no pockets of noxious gas. No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


Brownian motion paradox

Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth.

There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions. But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.


CLOUD TRAJECTORIES PARADOXES


From Galileo was wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

More details here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1143
(boundary layer, angular momentum)


RESTORING FORCES PARADOX

http://web.archive.org/web/20120726102954/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm


Foucault's Pendulum explained:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374


Geocentric Coriolis force:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747


G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #18 on: September 13, 2013, 01:10:24 AM »
The Earth does not rotate around its own axis.

There is no such thing as the axial precession phenomenon (gradual shift of the supposed axis of orientation).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1488947.html#msg1488947

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD (the summary is from a writer who commented on the work done by G. Nosovsky, I also included commentaries from the chapter on new chronology penned by Nosovsky himself).


Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today’s copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar’s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:


“The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day – it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar – the XIV century – Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon – Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn’t happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion”

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Book’s 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger’s dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 – (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger’s dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn’t see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council’s dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar’s age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger’s time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that “all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now.” When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldn’t be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circle—you can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia – according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council – could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we’re to follow the consensual chronological version, we’ll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaliger’s version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized “scientific”, with all major corrections forbidden.


Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times – in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.


We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.


But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.


Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).


The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.


THE MOST PRECISE AND PERFECT DEMONSTRATION: no axial precession whatsoever, not now, not ever in the past.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #19 on: September 13, 2013, 01:15:37 AM »
INEXISTENCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, thus a clear confirmation of the Gases in the Atmosphere Paradox:

Dr. Bruce DePalma:

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm

Throwing Experiments

DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2013, 01:36:04 AM »
Let us return to the clouds antigravitational effect paradox.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.


This is the common phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in science. The Russians are performing a weather experiment which should fail according to accepted theory. So the scientist complains that he has seen no concrete evidence published in a refereed journal. But the complaint reduces to a matter of belief. Scientists do not believe electrical power is input to weather systems. Referees who believe atmospheric electricity is an effect, rather than a cause of weather, would almost certainly find grounds for rejecting funding for, or publication of, such an experiment. The same applies to the publication of reports from credible eyewitnesses. For decades airline pilots witnessed strange lightning above storms but were discouraged from reporting it. The objection is unfair and unscientific. Advances come from challenging established beliefs.

It is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the Biefield-Brown Effect, where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometers above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT EXPLAINS HOW millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometers above the earth by electrical means.

BUT THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT DEFIES THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY, JUST LIKE THE SPINNING BALL IN THE DEPALMA EXPERIMENT.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html


T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Biefeld-Brown Effect

A normal electromagnetic wave is JUST A RIPPLE in the sea of ether waves, NOT a true ether wave.

Hertz discovered just these types of temporary ripples: it is exactly what Tesla told him and brought to his attention in Germany.

Your present understanding of radio wave theory is based SOLELY ON THE HERTZIAN RIPPLES.

THE ORIGINAL MAXWELL equations confirm everything posted here: scalar waves are ether waves - electromagnetic waves are just temporary hertzian ripples in the sea of ether waves.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

" ... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!


Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

Tesla: true wireless vs. e/m waves

 "... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.
 
   "... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "


Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.


Tesla demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2013, 03:12:24 AM »
PROJECT MONTGOLFIER

"In 1955 and 1956 Townsend Brown made two trips to Paris where he conducted tests of his electrokinetic apparatus and electrogravitic vacuum chamber tests in collaboration with the French aeronautical company Société National de Construction Aeronautiques du Sud Ouest (S.N.C.A.S.O.) .  He was invited there by Jacques Cornillon, the company’s U.S. technical representative.  The project was named Project Montgolfier in honor of the two French brother inventors who performed early aircraft flights.   The project continued for several years until the company changed ownership resulting in a final report which was written up in 1959.

Details of the Project Montgolfier experiments remained a closely guarded secret for many years until Jacques Cornillon courageously decided to make them public prior to his death in July 2008.   Brown’s proposal, the project’s top secret final report, and an assortment of revealing diagrams and photos are posted on the Cornillon website at:

Project Montgolfier:  http://projetmontgolfier.info/]http://projetmontgolfier.info/

The flying disc carousel experiment that the Montgolfier Project conducted in 1955 used 2-1/2 foot diameter discs (75 cm dia.) hung from 4 meter tethers suspended from the ends of a 3 meter arm.  Based on the description given, this seems to have been almost the same flying disc test that Brown gave to the Navy at Pearl Harbor a year or two earlier.


Left: Brown holding a flying disc tested in Project Montgolfier. Right: Close-up of disc showing outboard leading-edge wire. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)


Left: Carrousel test rig. Right: Disc in flight. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

Brown had finished his collaboration with S.N.C.A.S.O. in 1956.  From a letter that Mr. Cornillon later wrote to a colleague, we learn that in October 1957 Brown was in the process of test flying 10 foot diameter discs energized at a voltage of 300 kV!  Here we see that Brown had followed the plan he had first set out in his 1952 Project Winterhaven proposal which was to eventually test fly a ten foot diameter disc powered by 500 kV (70% more voltage than he used in his 1957 test flight).   Hence we see that by this early date Brown had progressed beyond the toy model stage to flying small scale aircraft.  To reach this stage he must have been receiving substantial funding from either the military or from a major corporation.  More about Project Winterhaven and Brown’s research may be found in the book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

In addition the Project Montgolfier team constructed a very large vacuum chamber for performing vacuum tests of smaller discs at a pressure of 5 X 10-5 mm Hg; see below.


Left: Vacuum chamber vessel (1.4 m diameter) for conducting electrogravitic tests. Right: Vessel opened to show test rotor rig within. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

Reading the section describing the vacuum chamber results, we learn that when the discs are operated at atmospheric pressure they move in the direction of the leading edge wire regardless of outboard wire polarity.  This indicates that in normal atmospheric conditions the discs are propelled forward primarily by unbalanced electrostatic forces due to the prevailing nonlinear field configuration (which causes thrust in the direction of the low field intensity ion cloud regardless of the ion polarity).  On the other hand, the report says that under high vacuum conditions the discs always moved in the direction of the positive pole, regardless of the polarity on the outboard wire.  This indicates that in the absence of the unbalanced forces exerted by ion clouds, the discs moved mainly on the basis of the electrogravitic field effect, always toward the positive (negative G) direction.

These vacuum chamber experiments were a decisive milestone in that they demonstrated beyond a doubt that electrogravitic propulsion was a real physical phenomenon.  The report concludes saying: “It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that a concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.” (i.e., presumably in the presence of a high-K dielectric.)"

« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 01:12:11 AM by sandokhan »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2013, 05:19:55 AM »
sandokhan,

Mmmm, pasta. Why do you say so much? The OP is just about one specific issue concerning a topic you've brought up before concerning Ozone. FE'rs will complain to newcomers of this forum not to ask so many questions in a thread and instead make a new topic for each issue. That way a proper discussion can take place. When someone wants to respond to you, it's just too much all over the place. It's just some honest criticism. The things you bring up are interesting but the manner in which it's brought up is perhaps a bit spastic.


Quote from: sandokhan
A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS. The small droplets of water WHICH DO MAKE UP A CLOUD, will have 0.01 mm in diameter.
The tiny particles of water are very densely packed, and may even combine to form larger water molecules, which ARE denser than the surrounding air.

Indeed they coalesce. These droplets are not .01 mm as you have stated. The liquid or solid particles have a diameter mostly smaller than 1 μm or so.

Quote from: sandokhan
IT IS RIGHT AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE YOU DODGED: Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation. For quite a while, that cloud will hold those droplets of water, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, that is what are talking about here.

Clouds and mist are aerosols. An aerosol is a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air or another gas and a colloid is a substance microscopically dispersed throughout another substance. As droplets are carried by the updrafts and downdrafts in a cloud, they collide and coalesce to form larger droplets. When the droplets become too large to be sustained on the air currents, they begin to fall as rain.

Quote from: sandokhan
In order to explain this on a round earth, with attractive gravity, WE SHOULD HAVE AN UPWARD MOTION PRODUCED BY A CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE CLOUD. Let us take a look at the weight of some clouds.

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.

I have made the word dispersed above bold because it is significant here. You seem to mentally accumulate this entire cloud as some massive object that is all at once affected by gravity when it is instead the dispersed droplets that are in question here. As coalescence occurs the drops become bigger and heavier and what happens is exactly what is expected.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2013, 06:08:26 AM »
Sandokahn. You discover extraordinary things, giving them some fantastic names....
May I play too?
This is an amazing anti-gravity device:



It floats in the air, without any kind of engine, for hours. Moreover, it can transport -or may I say teleport- up to 2 intrepid volunteers.  With favorable conditions, it can cover distances over several millions of millimeters, climb to the stratosphere, and is capable of flight durations of more than 2 days.

This kind of device, defying gravity is often called glider, less sexy name, but very common.
It floats DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, using CONSTANT STREAM OF WIND, RIGHT UNDERNEATH CLOUDS.
But maybe it's a hidden Tesla device ?
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 06:13:43 AM by Antonio »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2013, 06:25:32 AM »
And look at this too for that matter. Metal is heavier than water and yet it float!



A cloud or water vapour is to air as a ship is to water.
I think, therefore I am

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2013, 09:38:37 AM »
I am sorry, but this thread is not the place to dump an essay on all of science. I will only respond to the relevant statements that I had time to read in less than 10 minutes:

Atomic oxygen becomes Ozone?
Sure, but where is the atomic oxygen in my reactions?
You wont find Ozone lower because of water:
O3 + OH- -> O2 - + HO2
HO2 -> O2- + H+
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2013, 01:58:33 AM »
Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

For someone who wrote that in order to reach the MAXIMUM amount of pressure, the same pressure has to get lower and  lower, you should be more considerate when offering advices here (to anybody).

As usual no homework from you...at all.

Go to any official science website: cloud droplets have 0.01 mm in diameter (some even mention a figure of 0.02 mm).

My bibliographical references are the very best that can be found.

However, your COPYPASTA is useless.

You went to the wikipedia site where you found this: The liquid or solid particles have diameter mostly smaller than 1 μm or so.

For your information, wikipedia articles are used rarely by PhD or even MS level scientists.

Aerosols' (as an example, sulfates, sea salt or ammonium salts) influence on clouds is called the “indirect effect”, and is a large source of uncertainty in projections of climate change.

Aerosols interact with clouds.

The quote you laxly accepted from the wikipedia source IS WRONG: do your homework, before having the nerve to post here - aerosols interact with clouds, and are not clouds; aerosol particles' diameter is smaller than cloud droplets' diameter, but my message stated the words "cloud droplets" very clearly.

The explanation accepted by official science cannot be true (that droplets simply "stick" to warmer air), and is constantly challenged by students everywhere.


Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.

Let us go directly to the official textbook on ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE.


Cloud droplets are also about 1000 times heavier than evaporated water, so they are much heavier than air.

You have no knowledge of cloud atmospheric physicis, do you?

You wrote:

You seem to mentally accumulate this entire cloud as some massive object that is all at once affected by gravity when it is instead the dispersed droplets that are in question here.

Let us go again to the textbook on atmospheric physics.

The water in a cloud can have a mass of several million tons.

It is a massive object AFFECTED AT ONCE AND CONSTANTLY BY THE SUPPOSED EFFECT OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

That is why those scientists who no longer accept the official viewpoint write something like this:

It is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the Biefield-Brown Effect, where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometers above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.


Here is what someone else wrote:

The winds explanation and the small size of the cloud's water droplets are used. But this does not seem to be adequate, as is stated in the the quote below. The analogy of clouds to dust motes seems woefully inadequate...why do not dust motes congregate into clouds?

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.”  This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.”

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?


Another concerned scientist writes:

But that doesn't explain why water molecules condensed into liquid form 1000 times denser than the air directly below them, manage to suspend themselves against gravity. The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case. And neither does the moist air less dense than dry air argument (although that doesn't work for clouds either because we are talking about condensed water in liquid form not the gaseous vapour form).

Fog can appear on frozen lakes so I doubt covection is operating in that case. We are talking about droplets that are 1000 times the density and weight of the very slow moving warm air below moving upward. There shouldn't be any physical process to overide the gravity pulling on those droplets.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.

I find it hard to accept that 1000 times denser and heavier water droplets are able to be suspended by air molecules. They may counteract the pull of gravity for a short while for but the weight should overwhelm this buffeting pretty quick. For it to last even a short while the air molecules would need to be flowing mainly upwards but this certainly isn't true within a milimeter of the surface of the earth. There is a reason the gravity is counteracted and its not convection or updraft. I only state that I believe the reason to have an electrical nature.

I am certain that electricity plays a far larger role generally in the atmosphere than the mainstream is aware of or is willing to admit.

Another writer states:

Floating clouds that defy gravity are a direct observational contradiction to the pseudoscientific cult of gravitation.

ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float effortlessly above the ground:

So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 02:01:57 AM by sandokhan »

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2013, 02:06:10 AM »
Are you posing as a meteorologist again?

ONLY the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain HOW clouds weighing billions of tons manage to float effortlessly above the ground:

So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.

I think we can all agree that clouds experience extreme electrostatic forces, hence lightning. I thought you wanted to prove that gravity doesn't exist, because water is suspended in the air and is heavier. If static electricity holds it up, then gravity is saved. Yay!
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2013, 02:37:39 AM »
Attractive gravity does not exist.

Terrestrial gravity is a force due to the PRESSURE exerted by telluric currents.

The classical experiments carried out by Nipher, Brown, DePalma, Tesla, Kozyrev prove this fact very clearly.

Maxwell's original set of equations show that terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism are one and the same force: double helix theory of the magnetic field (telluric currents).


The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building.
 
The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.



Attractive gravity =  a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven


?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2013, 02:54:49 AM »
Attractive gravity does not exist.

Terrestrial gravity is a force due to the PRESSURE exerted by telluric currents.

The classical experiments carried out by Nipher, Brown, DePalma, Tesla, Kozyrev prove this fact very clearly.

Maxwell's original set of equations show that terrestrial gravity, electricity and magnetism are one and the same force: double helix theory of the magnetic field (telluric currents).


The defiance of gravity by water and cloud building.
 
The ground and the ionosphere induce secondary charge-layers in the atmosphere. In such a secondary layer cloud-building takes place. Generation of electricity in clouds is due not to the friction of neutral clouds on mountain ridges, or to the friction of neutral clouds among themselves, or to the friction of droplets by the gravitational pull on them, but to the fact that droplets rise already charged toward the charged layer of the atmosphere, and clouds are further subjected to induction by the ground and the ionosphere. This explains also the segregation of the charges in the upper and lower levels of the clouds.



Attractive gravity =  a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven
I have never heard of these Telluric currents. You claim that gravity and magnetism are linked? Please, tell me the order of magnitude, and I will be happy to measure the effect. I propose placing a block of Alumina insulator in a magnetic field. I will measure the change in weight in the presence of a magnetic field. How strong of a field would you like? I can produce a few Tesla no problem. How about a high current? I have a jig that can produce 1 mega-amp. Please give me a model, and I will happily test it out to see if it is legit. I have to say, I am very skeptical of your proposed connection between weight and magnetism.
Don't diss physics until you try it!