sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

Can you please answer the question:

Would an uncalibrated barometer at least show when pressure began to increase or decrease?

antonio, you tried this kind of approach before...at the Moon Radio thread...it did not work then, it won't work now.

it did. You finally answered to a direct question, without dodging and diverting to totally unrelated comments.

There is always a very good reason I mention something in my messages: the cyclones/anticyclones information is meant to increase your knowledge about atmospheric physics.

I may thank Your Highness for this unvaluable gift ?

A lenticular cloud is formed by the action of the telluric currents (the vortices created by them).

In the context of the round earth theory, YOUR VIDEO IS COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINABLE.
(...)
Therefore, your own very video proves that cloud formation/trajectories are explainable only by taking into account the vortex theory of terrestrial gravity.

No way. A lenticular cloud is not a convective one. Anvil clouds are.

Facts :
Lenticular clouds need some unique conditions to exist:
- Steady and quite strong wind, with an altitude gradient of speed.
- A mountain or something else deflecting winds, at the proper angle.
- light or very low convective conditions.
- Adequate air moisture ratio

These conditions may result on a Stationary wave, exactly similar to those seen at the back of a speed boat. Some wikipedia stuff maybe? (I know you love it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_waves

Lenticular clouds love surfing on stationary waves. They look like they are perfectly stationary and frozen in time. Of course, they are not.
These clouds appear stationary because the flow of moist air continually resupplies the cloud from the windward side even as water evaporates and vanishes from the leeward side.
Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.
What? no telluric stuff, no magnetohydrodynamics involved, just basic and old fashioned physics ?
No need to invoke your best friend Tesla, ancien Mayas, buddhist levitators or anything else to show how smart you are and how hard you study "unexplained" material.
This is how lenticular clouds "float".

Let me show just how little you know about this subject.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071217electricclouds.htm

I see, it's obvious. But I'm sorry to say again that you are talking about convective clouds. Lenticulars are not by any way convective clouds.

Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

Maybe very strong convective currents and some wind shears?

In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.

Yep, a lot of people work on clouds. No one -but you- really understand what is going on ?

The very formation of a cloud, its effortless floating although its weight runs in the millions of tons, is explained by the fact that terrestrial gravity = electricity = magnetism, just as proved by the Biefeld-Brown effect.

This is a statement and your belief. Not enough to be the truth.

How many times do we really have to go through this? I have studied very carefully cloud droplet microphysics.

Really? I'm still waiting for values of free fall terminal velocities for typical water droplets and convective currents. Give your sources, give facts, not assumptions or fringe science. 

There is nothing there that explains how a cumulonimbus cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float IN SPITE of attractive gravity.

You may say instead that YOU don't know how. That's fine too.

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

Please give something else than your feeling.
Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:

Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway

So if an uncalibrated barometer would still show when pressure changes then does it matter to bring up these arguments about how mslp or altimeter are calculated. We don't care about those points in this discussion. All that matters is showing WHEN the changes take place. We can use any barometer, without calibration to show the part that matters to this discussion.

That is misleading the readers. That is derailment.

So the mslp, station pressure and altimeter are all useful to this discussion. It is in fact these numbers that are cited to help your arguments when you say "pressure recorded at stations show..."

antonio, you are ignoring everything we have discussed here so far.

It does not matter whether a cloud is convective or not: the explanation you offer cannot be true.

Please reread the cloud weight paradox, which you have dodged so far.

The very formation of the lenticular cloud, as I have said, defies the official atmospheric physics.

Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.

HOW WILL THEY HOVER FOR DAYS AT A TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THEIR WEIGHT DEFIES COMMONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS?

Please read carefully.

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.


More details.

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.

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


Your intervention at the Moon Radio showed you have no IDEA ABOUT THE INFORMATION YOUR OWN LINK PROVIDED: you failed to make any point there, as usual, don't kid yourself.


Only the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain the quote you provided:

Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses.

Your wording cannot but remind us of the parturition of the mountain and the birth of the mouse.

Really? I'm still waiting for values of free fall terminal velocities for typical water droplets and convective currents. Give your sources, give facts, not assumptions or fringe science. 

You cannot even explain the cloud weight paradox: how then can you ask for free fall terminal velocities?

If you cannot explain how the cloud's weight DEFIES attractive gravity, it would be a waste of time to search for such specialized info.

There is nothing there that explains how a cumulonimbus cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float IN SPITE of attractive gravity.

Since the official explanation is completely wrong, and since the Biefeld Brown effect is well documented, I DO KNOW very clearly how a cumulonimbus cloud weighinig some 1 billion tons can float.


You haven't done your homework at all on Gunn and Kinzer.

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the effect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of dierent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suffered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diffusivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

As I said, Antonio, your messages are but a parturition of mountain and a birth of the mouse.


FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS

electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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


rottingroom, please call the National Weather Service to find out how the true barometer pressure measurement is made to achieve this result:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

Please answer the question:

Can an uncalibrated barometer still be used to determine WHEN pressure begins to increase or decrease?

You know the answer is yes.

Therefore everything you have said about how mslp is derived is POINTLESS.

The numbers are still meaningful.

The data you provided shows station pressure and sea level pressure measurements.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.

Obviously, YOU HAD NO IDEA OF THESE FACTS, NO REAL BAROMETER PRESSURER MEASUREMENTS WERE EVER PERFORMED BY YOU.


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm


A direct contradiction of the claims you have been making here: the Taiwan and Coronado data are sea level pressure and station pressure recordings which are correlated with each other.

Here is the real data on Taiwan:


http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST; the amplitude of the semidiurnal cycle is about 1.4 hPa.


The numbers cannot be meaningful as they are station pressure measurements, as can be so clearly seen.


Please call the National Weather Service to find out how the true barometer pressure measurement is made to achieve this result:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

You will find out exactly how it is done, that is, how their statement contradicts all of your messages here so far.

Please read the real Taiwan data again.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

Please answer the question: will an uncalibrated barometer show when pressure begins to increase or decrease?

Quit dodging the question.

Just a yes or no will work here.

It will be amazing to see if you could provide such a short response. Please, surprise us with just a yes or a no.

If you look at the table you provided you'll see it is not plus or minus. Its always adding a number greater than zero and it's always that same number for that station. The numbers will therefore be proportional and the same changes in direction will be seen on the pressure graph.

There is no corner to hide in now sandokhan. No more derails to find. All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

I repeat:

1. It does not matter if the barometer has been calibrated for the changes in pressure will still be readily visible.

2. The amount added to account for elevation to show the station pressure will be the same for every following observation at that station and does not effect the pressure graph. We will still see the same changes in pressure.

SO ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT BAROMETERS HAS BEEN POINTLESS. We DO NOT care about which type of pressure is used or how it was obtained. We just care about when pressure changes direction and all three: mslp, station pressure and altimeter all show this change just fine.

This was nothing more than a derailment.

Diurnal changes happen and semi-diurnal changes are not always at precisely at 4am, 10am, 4pm, and 10pm. They may usually occur at those times and most places may see that, but THIS IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.

What's actually embarrassing, sandokhan, is your apparent lack of overall knowledge.  When I said that gravity is extremely weak, I meant in respect to the other three forces, I was not referring to some differential based on altitude.  The weak nuclear force is 10^37 times stronger than gravity, the electromagnetic force is 10^42 times stronger than gravity and the strong nuclear force is 10^44 times stronger than gravity.  So, gravity in the RE model is by FAR the weakest force.

There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.  Do you know how much a proton or neutron weighs?  Do you know how diffusion works?  "Diffusion is a result of the kinetic properties of particles of matter. The particles will mix until they are evenly distributed."  The energy present in the air, simply due to it's temperature, is enough to keep the layers from forming.  And when the sun is shining on the air:  Party!  It's way more about energy than it is about weight differential at that scale.

Let me demonstrate first that electricity = magnetism.

I'm going to disprove you as a whole in one simple picture. Somehow you did make some correct claims though.

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.

Yet airplanes and skydivers feel no effect from it. Doesn't make sense.

monkey...I realized very well what you meant by weak gravity in your previous quote...however, your analysis does not apply to the real world: the notions of strong/weak nuclear forces are just a mathematical pipe dream.

Here is the step by step correct description of the structure of the atom, from boson to baryon:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101

Do your homework...and stop posting nonsense.

There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.  Do you know how much a proton or neutron weighs?  Do you know how diffusion works?

The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.

Nitrogen – 78 percent
Oxygen – 21 percent
Argon – 0.93 percent

That is why I reminded you of this very basic fact:

In fact, at an altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi), equivalent to a typical orbit of the Space Shuttle, gravity is still nearly 90% as strong as at the Earth's surface.

As you can no longer use the commonly accepted notion of weak gravity (gravity is the dextrorotatory string of the telluric subquark currents, see page 4 here), we have the following paradox:

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?


Here is the official explanation: When objects are in orbit around each other, there is a strong pull of gravity between them. For example, we commonly say that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. However, the Moon pulls back on the Earth as well. This changes the Earth a little. One way we see this happening is the ocean tides.

If the Moon's gravity is assumed to have such an influence upon the Earth's tides, HOW THEN can you post something like this: There is no way that the force of gravity, no matter what the altitude, would be strong enough for Oxygen gas and Nitrogen gas to become separated by weight due to a difference only two protons and a few neutrons.

You have no clear understading of the meaning of gravitational pull in relation to a specific weight, please do your homework.



rottingroom, the data you provided as truth (Taiwan, Coronado, Twenty Nine Palms) is the station pressure.

STATION PRESSURE = BAROMETER READING +- CALIBRATION CORRECTION

I quote:

Thus there are always two steps to reading and reporting a proper sea level pressure. Step one is to read the instrument and then refer to the Barometer Calibration Table to make any necessary corrections. The calibration table (or graph) provides a unique correction for each barometer reading - in that sense, it is similar to a Deviation Table for a magnetic compass.

This correction can be plus or minus. ONCE THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED, THE RESULT IS CALLED THE STATION PRESSURE FOR THAT INSTRUMENT LOCATION.


This the reason for the ARTIFICIAL DATA YOU PROVIDED WHICH COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTRADICT THE VERY STATEMENT MADE BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WHICH SAYS CLEARLY:

The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.



If you look at the table you provided you'll see it is not plus or minus. Its always adding a number greater than zero and it's always that same number for that station. The numbers will therefore be proportional and the same changes in direction will be seen on the pressure graph.

There is no corner to hide in now sandokhan. No more derails to find. All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

I repeat:

1. It does not matter if the barometer has been calibrated for the changes in pressure will still be readily visible.

2. The amount added to account for elevation to show the station pressure will be the same for every following observation at that station and does not effect the pressure graph. We will still see the same changes in pressure.


BUT IT DOES MATTER IF THE BAROMETER VALUES HAVE BEEN CALIBRATED TO CALCULATE THE STATION PRESSURE/SEA LEVEL PRESSURE.

IT WILL AFFECT THE PRESSURE GRAPH GREATLY.

Again, you have no idea what you are writing.


Take a look at the very data you provided as truth:


http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KNZY&num=72&raw=0

Station pressure: 29.764 - 29.774 - 29.754 - 29.744 ; also there is precise correlation between the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE data and the Station Pressure data: this only means that the sea level pressure and mean sea level pressure data was used AND NOT THE REAL ABSOLUTE BAROMETER MEASUREMENTS.


Barometric pressure corrections can be obtained by contacting a local airport or National Weather
Service weather station operator and requesting the current local reading. The barometer in
question is then adjusted so that its reading matches that obtained from the airport or NWS. Some
error will be introduced using this method of adjustment, increasing with distance since lateral
pressure variations may increase with the horizontal distance from the reporting weather station.
The tables provided with this document are based upon the United States Standard Atmosphere
and can be used in situations where no reporting stations exist within the immediate area. The
tables give the correction factor that is added to the barometric pressure reading for a given station
elevation. The correction is given both in inches of mercury (inHg) and in millibars (mb). Values are
indicated for elevations expressed in feet above sea level.

http://www.starpath.com/downloads/calibration_procedure.pd


Please answer the question: will an uncalibrated barometer show when pressure begins to increase or decrease?

I already answered your question a long time ago.

But you do not understand how barometer pressure calculations are profesionally performed.

In ADDITION to the uncalibrated barometer values, there are complex calculations which must be done to achieve the proper results.

Here is a very good reference for you: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L


You had no idea that the station pressure is actually a MODIFIED, calibrated value, and not the TRUE VALUE.


Once the true value is taken into account, AND the proper calculations are done, you will get the CORRECT RESULTS, as follows:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.



http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm

All the numbers used for pressure show when pressure begins to increase or decrease no matter what deviations are applied or how the barometer itself was calibrated.

As I have demonstrated above, using your own very links, IT DOES MATTER, since then you will have MODIFIED VALUES, WHICH ARE NEVER USED TO STUDY THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE TRUE BAROMETER PRESSURE VALUES.


In your links, there is a direct CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SEA PRESSURE VALUES AND THE STATION PRESSURE VALUES, EXACTLY MY POINT.

OFFICIAL ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE INFORMATION:

The mean sea level pressure (MSLP) is the atmospheric pressure at sea level or (when measured at a given elevation on land) the station pressure reduced to sea level assuming that the temperature falls at a lapse rate of 6.5 K per km in the fictive layer of air between the station and sea level.

This is the atmospheric pressure normally given in weather reports on radio, television, and newspapers or on the Internet. When barometers in the home are set to match the local weather reports, they measure pressure reduced to sea level, not the actual local atmospheric pressure. The reduction to sea level means that the normal range of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure is the same for everyone.

How can you still post your nonsense given these very clear and basic facts?

HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001


THIS REFERENCE EVEN HAS A GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


A total confirmation of the data from the National Weather Service.

But, the explanation commonly accepted, as we can see above, is totally incorrect.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

And Lord Rayleigh response to the lunar gravitational influence on the atmospherric tide:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=fS_TJ63wdAYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=barometric+semidiurnal+changes+lunar+influence&source=bl&ots=g3ReY8cpIC&sig=rsTjBiL4A1AFr-AD32sbl7xnYOs&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=r3U9UoOgJKTh4QS6jYHIBg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=barometric%20semidiurnal%20changes%20lunar%20influence&f=false



GRAPH ATTACHED WHICH DOES SHOW THE 10:00 AM AND 10:00 PM MAXIMUMS (PAGE 569).

I quote:

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF


A very simple demonstration that everything I have posted here was in fact correct.

I can't talk to you sandokhan. You have ignored everything I wrote. I'm done.

It does not matter whether a cloud is convective or not: the explanation you offer cannot be true.

Why not? give arguments. Real ones, not just denial. Sorry for the repetition, but convective clouds are totally different. They barely share the same colour with lenticular ones.

Please reread the cloud weight paradox, which you have dodged so far.

You are naming this a paradox. Real life is another story, but I can't help there.

The very formation of the lenticular cloud, as I have said, defies the official atmospheric physics

This falls short. I've given a very simple, factual explanation, of their formation. It's not my belief, it's a widely observed, measured and explained phenomenon. Please show us your rebuttal. Give some data now.

Quote

Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering for hours or days, until the wind or weather changes and the cloud disperses. Take a deeper look at the video provided. It's quite compelling.

HOW WILL THEY HOVER FOR DAYS AT A TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THEIR WEIGHT DEFIES COMMONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATIONS?

This is your essence: selective reading.
Please note the starting words "Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering". I repeat: "can look like". Got it ?
A plane flying at 60 kts against a 60kt wind can look like it is hovering. Does it really defy the accepted explanation? 

The cloud argument based on wind holding them up does not work in this case.

Have you ever read what I wrote?

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

I think it's obvious you don't want to face simple facts. In fact you don't want any kind of evidence that does not fit your preconceived idea.   

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.

Again that's your belief. Can you now give some real life facts or data, or should we stick with your statements ?

Your intervention at the Moon Radio showed you have no IDEA ABOUT THE INFORMATION YOUR OWN LINK PROVIDED: you failed to make any point there, as usual, don't kid yourself.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, master. But, again, I cannot help you if you don't want to understand basic photography and generally speaking, basic real world physics. Try to disprove my ideas by facts, not by rants.

Only the Biefeld-Brown effect can explain the quote you provided

Please go further. Show HOW the Biefeld-Brown effect works on these lenticular clouds, and HOW it is not the result of standing waves and basic moisture behaviour. Your move.

You cannot even explain the cloud weight paradox: how then can you ask for free fall terminal velocities?
If you cannot explain how the cloud's weight DEFIES attractive gravity, it would be a waste of time to search for such specialized info.

Don't do that for me. Do it for wiser people, who eventually reads your theories. It may help to have some numbers somewhere. Are you saying that you don't have any idea of the falling speed of the droplets because you don't need it ?

Since the official explanation is completely wrong, and since the Biefeld Brown effect is well documented, I DO KNOW very clearly how a cumulonimbus cloud weighinig some

1 billion tons can float.

Your belief is irrelevant. A biased logic does not help here.

You haven't done your homework at all on Gunn and Kinzer.

(...) pasted text
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

Thank you for this additional data. It gives some interesting clues, as I may conclude that you share the results of this study.
Let's focus on it then.
You may notice on page 136 that there is no data for droplets smaller than 0.5mm. I remember you saying:

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.

Repeated 8 times
So we are discussing about 0.01 mm droplets, because greater diameters may cause rain and stop the "cloud paradox"TM .
If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.
As this study shows identical results for 0.5mm droplets and nothing for smaller ones you may search deeper.

But let's go a little bit further and jump to the conclusions:

(...) This causes an increase in the cross sectional area of the charged drop exposed to the airflow which in turn increases the drag and thus decreases the terminal velocity of the drop (Dawson and Warrender 1973; Gay et al 1974; Chuang and Beard 1990; Coquillat and Chauzy 1993)

What? A big charged drop changes his shape and needs even less upward lift to stay at a given altitude ? Just plain aerodynamics ? nothing about deroto-detoro-ximato fields?.
Please note that never ever, in this whole study, you may find something about charged drops floating in the air by some mysterious antigravity phenomenons. I may remind you that a droplet catched in an anti gravitational field should exhibit a spherical pattern. This study shows obviously anything but this one.

antonio...you came here as the godfather of free fall terminal velocity of droplets...and yet you have shown to everybody that you have NO IDEA about this subject.

Having done no research at all, using the same useless tactics as you did at the Moon Radio Distance thread (where if you do remember, you failed miserably to make any point at all), you picked at random this link, here is your own wording:

Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:

Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway

But those tests were NOT performed carefully at all, you simply assumed they were, and in the process made a fool of yourself.


Here is the real data on the catastrophic experiments carried out by Gunn and Kinzer:

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the effect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of dierent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suffered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diffusivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.

Can it get any worse than it? Of course, just read your own messages.


You failed again to read CAREFULLY what is meant in the paper I quoted from, as a bibliographical reference.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops
will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.

Do you understand English, antonio?

THE CHARGED DROPS WILL EVAPORATE LESS THAN THE UNCHARGED DROPS. WHY? BECAUSE OF THE BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT, WHICH DOES PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY (ANTIGRAVITATIONAL) IN THE FORM OF LAEVOROTATORY SUBQUARKS.

A TOTAL CONFIRMATION OF THE EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT BY DR. FRANCIS NIPHER.


Have you no shame whatsoever to come here and simply ignore this very basic conclusions of this remarkable paper?

MORE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE VERY SAME WORK.


For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.

If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.

But the radius of cloud droplet can reach at most some 0.2 mm, usually 0.1 mm. Again, you have no experience in dealing with scientific papers.

IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR THE G&K AND THE PRESENT STUDY.

LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE DIAGRAMS.

THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU. Please visit your local eye physician if you need glasses.

If you cannot read a simple graph, what are you doing here antonio?


Here again is the cloud weight paradox for you.

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.


More details.

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.

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


The official explanations cannot stand scrutiny for even a second: no one can explain how a cloud weighing some 1 billion tons can float effortlessly in front of everyone, DEFYING ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.



Please note the starting words "Lenticular clouds can look like they are hovering".

You haven't done your homework, as usual.

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Cloud_Images_Lenticular_01.html


(copyright Peter Michaud)

The 10 March 2008 was a day of interesting weather. It started fine and calm, the sky clear blue with nary a cloud. By midday lenticular clouds* had appeared as shown in the first photo above. These lenticular clouds or "lennies" as they are sometimes called, stayed through the day.

"At the high points in the wave, moisture in the air condenses out to form a cloud," Michaud explained. "In the photo you can see that the wave established this morning displayed two peaks. Actually there were four -- two more were downstream from Mauna Loa, but the other two were not as impressive as Mauna Kea's!"



(copyright C. Picking)

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Lenticular clouds can be shaped like a saucer, and can fly in the sense that, like most clouds, they are composed of small water droplets that float on air.

Thus we arrive at the very cloud weight paradox (the official explanation of standing waves/moisture fails miserably).

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.

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.


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.


BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN FULL VACUUM:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161

A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

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.)"

THE CONCENTRATED FORCE OF SOME KIND WHICH DOES ACCUMULATE, antonio, IS THE VERY SAME FORCE OBSERVED BY DR. DEPALMA, DR. KOZYREV, DR. TESLA.

It is the effect of the laevorotatory string of the telluric currents.

Terrestrial gravity is a measure of the dextrorotatory string of the same telluric currents.

The Biefeld Brown effect is the PERFECT PROOF and explanation for the cloud weight paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and much more.

antonio...you came here as the godfather of free fall terminal velocity of droplets...
(...)rant
(...)pasted text
(...)rant
(...) dodging
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).

I've never claimed such a thing. YOU are coming here as the godfather of known and unknown physics, and still dodged this simple question time after time. I'm waiting for something else than beliefs here.

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.

Again, your thoughts are not science. Give facts and evidence, not anonymous pasted text as a reference.

I think it's obvious there is another unexplained process of an electrical nature suspending the water against the pull of gravity.
(...) pasted text
(...) dodging
(...) rants
Thus we arrive at the very cloud weight paradox (the official explanation of standing waves/moisture fails miserably).

Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.

A CLOUD IS A VISIBLE MASS OF DROPLETS.
(...)pasted text
(...) long pasted text
(...) very long irrelevant pasted test
The Biefeld Brown effect is the PERFECT PROOF and explanation for the cloud weight paradox, the barometer pressure paradox, and much more.

That's all ? All this text to show another belief ?
Why are you still debating? You think obviously that you are dead right. Fair enough, but you are wasting your time with me, I don't buy it 

You came here with this ABSOLUTE statement, meant to show your knowledge of the very subject chosen here for debate by yourself:

Here is a quote from "The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air" From R.Gunn and GD.Kinzer , page 247, Chapter 6- Experimental procedure and results:

Careful tests showed that the presence of the electric charge on the droplets in these experiments did not modify the velocity of fall in anyway

Here is the real data on the catastrophic experiments carried out by Gunn and Kinzer:

Measurements were carried out by Kinzer and Gunn (1951) in a free fall system to study the effect of ventilation coeffcient on freely falling water drops of dierent diameters. In the analysis of the data obtained in all these experiments, the drop surface temperature was not estimated but assumed to be the temperature of adiabatic saturation. Their analysis also suffered from inaccuracies in determining the values of water vapour diffusivity and terminal velocities of the water drops.


Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.



But I did scientifically prove that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity and also the validity of the Biefeld Brown effect.

The visible behaviour of clouds (lenticular included) cannot be explained at all, in terms of the usual explanations offered by science (see my previous debates here, where I debunked the updraft and moisture arguments).

Here are the basic facts of science on clouds, again.

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.

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.

Therefore, the water droplets 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.

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.


As we have seen (the arguments used here by the RE), there ARE NO physical processes which can explain the defiance of attractive gravity by fog and by clouds (either updrafts or moisture).

The 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).


Let me prove to you that terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, thus proving not only everything I have written here on the cloud weight paradox, but also the validity of the Biefeld Brown.


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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage.When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that shielded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


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.


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.

Do you understand English antonio?

A clear violation of the basic law of attractive gravity.


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.


BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT EXPERIMENT PERFORMED IN FULL VACUUM:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540161.html#msg1540161

A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

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.)"

THE CONCENTRATED FORCE OF SOME KIND WHICH DOES ACCUMULATE, antonio, IS THE VERY SAME FORCE OBSERVED BY DR. DEPALMA, DR. KOZYREV, DR. TESLA.


Let me make it very clear to you.

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.)"

Therefore, we have a definite proof of the following fact:

Clouds defy attractive gravity because of the Biefeld-Brown effect. As in the charged vs. uncharged droplets experiment, the effect of the laevorotatory strings will be to SUSPEND the droplets in mid-air for some period of time (hours, days).


A complete proof of the statement made earlier:

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.


antonio, you have continously dodged the BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT, carefully documented in the extraordinary references I have provided here.

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.

Let me remind you of the very basic facts.

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.)"


This concentrated force which does accumulate is the same force documented by Francis Nipher, and is the same force observed in the charged vs. uncharged droplet experiment.

It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that attractive gravity is but a myth, and that clouds which weigh at some 1 billion tons defy the same attractive gravity using the proven Biefeld Brown effect.

You came here with this ABSOLUTE statement, meant to show your knowledge of the very subject chosen here for debate by yourself:
(...)pasted text

You may be in this kind of show, not me.

Quote

Please scientifically disprove it. Arrogance is useless. Care to show HOW it fails miserably? you didn't give any kind of explanation.

But I did scientifically prove that there is no such thing as the law of attractive gravity and also the validity of the Biefeld Brown effect.

I never asked you to disprove attractive gravity. I've asked you multiple times to disprove standing waves, and lenticular clouds formation, step by step. The work seems to be still in progress. Let me know when you have finished.

The visible behaviour of clouds (lenticular included) cannot be explained at all, in terms of the usual explanations offered by science (see my previous debates here, where I debunked the updraft and moisture arguments).

No debunk there, just denial. Please try to have a scientific approach, and learn a bit more about standing waves.

Here are the basic facts of science on clouds, again.
(...)very long repeated pasted text
Let me prove to you that terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, thus proving not only everything I have written here on the cloud weight paradox, but also the validity of the Biefeld Brown.
(...) very long repeated and unrelated pasted text

This is not by any ways a proof, that's only your own belief. Care to come back to the clouds subject now ?

Do you understand English antonio?

Not very well, some sentences are quite difficult for me to understand, and it takes me a long time to write answers, but I'm working hard to improve my level. Thank you for your help in this process.

A clear violation of the basic law of attractive gravity.

(...)pasted text
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.
(...) BB pasted text
Therefore, we have a definite proof of the following fact:

Clouds defy attractive gravity because of the Biefeld-Brown effect. As in the charged vs. uncharged droplets experiment, the effect of the laevorotatory strings will be to SUSPEND the droplets in mid-air for some period of time (hours, days).
It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that attractive gravity is but a myth, and that clouds which weigh at some 1 billion tons defy the same attractive gravity using the proven Biefeld Brown effect.
(...)pasted text

Let me summarize. The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.
That's quite short, isn't it ?

"I realized very well what you meant by weak gravity in your previous quote"

You obviously didn't, because you then stated the same irrelavent fact that gravity still has 90% strength at an altatude of 250 miles.  If it's not strong enough to separate the gases at sea level, it doesn't matter how strong it is at any higher altitude.



You seem to always be giving the incorrect importance to either relative and absolute numbers.  You keep posting absolute numbers like the weight of the atmosphere or the weight of a cloud, when only the relative weights are important;  and you keep posting relative numbers like the strength of gravity at 250 miles, when the absolute number is important to the discussion.



As for the "Great differences in specific weight," let's turn this around on you, Sandokhan, and see if you can provide some relevant information to the discussion:

What is the "specific weight" of a molecule of nitrogen gas?
What is the "specific weight" of a molecule of Oxygen gas?
What is the "specific weight" of an Argon atom?

And we don't need another description of the nature of the atom or molecules.  Please provide a number for each molecule or atom, all in the same unit of measure.

Your version of reality, which includes gravity as a weak force, simply does not exist. I thought these things were well understood, without any need for comments.

Therefore, I included the official figures for gravity (altitude/percentage) to keep the discussion going, even though you did not have this concept of gravity in mind, and had no idea that weak gravity is a baseless myth, which can be debunked immediately.

I told you to do your homework, to think things through, to listen.


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.


The brownian motion of gases DEFIES attractive gravity, even at ground (laboratory) level.

Do you understand what attractive gravity in the context of heliocentricty implies?

Since the brownian motion of gases defies attractive gravity, and we are told that the Earth orbits the Sun at 29 km/s, there should be no force which could keep the gases in the atmosphere (in any proportion).


If it's not strong enough to separate the gases at sea level, it doesn't matter how strong it is at any higher altitude.

Perhaps what you mean is the presence of gases in a lab on a boat, not the hydrogen/oxygen in liquid water...then, the same attractive gravity could not keep those gases in a atmosphere which rotates at the same speed with the Earth (and here, of course, we will get into the cloud trajectories paradox).


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.”

Again, please read carefully.

...are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.

Argon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, simply DEFY attractive gravity, despite the great differences in specific weights (certainly you can do the homework and obtain the figures you seek).


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?

Gases in the atmosphere (and at ground level, given the brownian motion paradox) SIMPLY DEFY ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.


Next time we meet, we will debate the barometer pressure paradox.

antonio, given the fact that you cannot even read a simple graph, your requests should be addressed in a different tone of voice.

Here is what you wrote earlier:

If you read carefully the diagram page 136 you should note that the relaxation time of a 0.5mm (smallest studied) droplet is the same for G&K and the given study.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf

IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR THE G&K AND THE PRESENT STUDY.

LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE DIAGRAMS.

THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU.


If your "performance" is not due to poor eyesight, or the fact that you simply have no idea how to read a graph, then it means you deliberately tried to mislead your readers.


I understand very well the microphysics/atmospheric physics of lenticular clouds (including the standard standing wave theory).

Let us go the official line/textbook on lenticular clouds.

They form when a current of moist air is forced upwards as it travels over a mountain, causing the moisture to condense and form a cloud. Sometimes the air is forced into a wave pattern, generating what is known as a wave cloud.


Both the updraft/moist air arguments have been debunked here previously, that is why I asked you to do your homework.

Droplets are kept in the air by updraft (vertical movement of air) the same way as hang gliders are lifted in the air. Without updraft, the cloud dissipates or doesn't form.

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.


No atmospheric current speed could account at all for these types of cloud weights: 5 million tons,  or 1 billion tons.

Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations (the ridiculous updraft explanation).


UPDRAFTS CANNOT EXPLAIN AT ALL THE DEFIANCE OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY BY CLOUDS.


Quite recently, antonio, scientists at the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center have discovered that cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

In fact, in a recent press release (Weizmann Institute/Goddard Space Flight Center), researchers announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds.

The electromagnetic field beneath a thunderstorm increases (up to 10,000 volts per meter) because it acts like a capacitor, storing energy from the surrounding environment.


Let us return to the precise experiment about charged vs. uncharged droplets.

The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.

For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.


Therefore, we have a clear and definite proof that electricity DOES IN FACT contribute greatly to the whole cloud microphysics process.


Let us return to the famous Francis Nipher experiments.


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

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage.When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that shielded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


Therefore, terrestrial gravity and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.

Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century, performed a series of even more famous experiments which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the link between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

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.

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" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil

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



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.


http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-1-1024x730.jpg
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)

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-2-1024x494.jpg
Left: Carrousel test rig. Right: Disc in flight. (photos courtesy of J. Cornillon)

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:

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Mont-3-1024x720.jpg
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.)"


A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.

Therefore, clouds float effortlessly in the sky, not due to any updrafts (a ridiculous explanation), but because of the Biefeld-Brown effect.


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.

Nikola Tesla, clouds, and stationary waves (telluric currents, ether strings), confirming the discoveries made by the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center:

“It was on the third of July–the date I shall never forget–when I obtained the first decisive experimental evidence of a truth of overwhelming importance for the advancement of humanity.

A dense mass of strongly charged clouds gathered in the west and towards the evening a violent storm broke loose which, after spending its fury in the mountains, was driven away with great velocity over the plains. Heavy and long persisting arcs formed almost in regular time intervals.

My observations were now greatly facilitated and rendered more accurate by the experiences already gained. I was able to handle my instruments quickly and I was prepared. The recording apparatus being properly adjusted, its indications became fainter and fainter with the increasing distance of the storm until they ceased altogether. I was watching in eager expectation. Surely enough, in a little while the indications again began, grew stronger and stronger and, after passing thru a maximum, gradually decreased and ceased once more.

Many times, in regularly recurring intervals, the same actions were repeated until the storm, which, as evident from simple computations, was moving with nearly constant speed, had retreated to a distance of about three hundred kilometers. Nor did these strange actions stop then, but continued to manifest themselves with undiminished force. Subsequently, similar observations were also made by my assistant, Mr. Fritz Lowenstein, and shortly afterwards several admirable opportunities presented themselves which brought out still more forcibly and unmistakably, the true nature of the wonderful phenomenon. No doubt whatever remained: I was observing stationary waves."

Nikola Tesla, “Transmitting Electrical Energy Without Wires, Scientific American, June 4, 1904, supplement

Tesla's device recorded the influence of stationary waves (telluric currents) upon and from the charged clouds.

"The discovery of the stationary terrestrial waves [indicates]... that, despite its vast extent, the entire planet can be thrown into resonant vibration like a little tuning fork; that electrical oscillations suited to its physical properties and dimensions pass through it unimpeded, in strict obedience to a simple mathematical law, has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Earth, considered as a channel for conveying electrical energy... is infinitely superior to a wire or cable...

Nikola Tesla, 'Tuned Lightening', 1907

Aether/ether and brownian motion

Since the aether is a fluid, one would expect that a particle moving through it would generate waves which could interact with other particles or objects in the aether and act back on the particle. This view is reasonable since this is just what one sees for objects moving through water or air. Hence, one would expect the Schrodinger Equation to be the
description of the motion of a particle through the aether. There are analogous problems in other fluids, such as the Brownian motion of small particles in a gas, or the motion of particles through a metal.

In this 'Push Gravity' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate, the particles being neutral and an order of size smaller than gross matter at the sub-atomic level, which is merely formations of energetic vortex swirls in the aether medium. It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion,

The longitudinal waves manifest itself like Brownian noise at the water surface and like the CMBR noise in the vacuum.


Therefore scientists are beginning to acknowledge that Brownian motion is the result of the vibrations of the telluric currents/ether strings (for which we have definite proofs of existence).

Sandokhan , you forgot the deal : Less rants, more facts....
Anyway

antonio, given the fact (...) rant
THE G&K GRAPH VALUE IS WAY BELOW THE CORRECT MEASUREMENTS DONE BY THE AUTHORS OF THE PAPER, FOR THE VERY VALUE OF 0.5 MM QUOTED BY YOU.
(...)rant

I'm sorry but there, I can't help you.

(...)
They form when a current of moist air is forced upwards as it travels over a mountain, causing the moisture to condense and form a cloud. Sometimes the air is forced into a wave pattern, generating what is known as a wave cloud.

Both the updraft/moist air arguments have been debunked here previously, that is why I asked you to do your homework.

I'm sorry to conclude that you are still confusing denial and debunking.
But let's go with the lenticular/wave clouds.
As you know very well standing waves physics and -I assume- the specific case of lee waves, we'll jump to cloud formation. Assuming there is an adequate wind speed, we may see this kind of phenomenon


You can see the wind deflected by a mountain (A) , forming behind it a standing wave pattern (B). Please note that the following waves are not represented.
By nature, standing/lee waves remain at a constant position, as long as the wind's speed is roughly constant.

Yes lenticular clouds "form when a current of moist air is forced upwards". Pressure drops, temperature drops, so we may see some water condensing, forming the visible could.
You should note that this clouds may be visible not only when air "travels over a mountain" (A) , but also when it "travels over"  the standing waves ( B), so clouds can be visible without any kind of mountain directly below it.
As you have roughly calculated the weight of a cumulonimbus, can you please give a rough approximation for weight of  the air mass lifted by the mountain ?

You have ommited the second important step.
As the air is deflected first in an upward motion, it's immediately followed by a downward deflection (just after A and B). The same phenomenon is inverted. Air is forced downwards, gains pressure and temperature so condensed water, if any, will evaporate. The cloud's tail disappears.
The lenticular cloud, as you see it, is not a monolithic thing hovering and defying "attractive gravitation", it's just a marker showing a particular area where moisture condenses/vaporizes. As it is formed by standing/lee waves, this area is locked at a constant position.
Simple and very well known phenomenon.
I know that, as usual, you will dismiss this simple explanation by a single word  "no"  followed by some fringe science theories, the longer the better. Please stay on focus and admit this simple fact. Lenticular clouds follow very simple physics. No antigravitational fields, no BB effect, just a little help from a mountain and wind.

 

Droplets are kept in the air by updraft (vertical movement of air) the same way as hang gliders are lifted in the air. Without updraft, the cloud dissipates or doesn't form.
(...)pasted text
Remember, that the currents stop frequently, changing their position/direction often: therefore, the situation is even more hopeless for the official atmospheric science explanations (the ridiculous updraft explanation).

You have been shown that standing/lee waves are fixed in position, as long as the wind is constant. This situation may last for days, as the clouds

Quite recently, antonio, scientists at the Weizmann Institute
(...) pasted text
Let us return to the precise experiment about charged vs. uncharged droplets.
(...) pasted text

I'm happy to having directed you to some new material  . Can you please specify what is your last shot for the droplets diameter into a cloud ? You seem to be very versatile there.

Therefore, we have a clear and definite proof that electricity DOES IN FACT contribute greatly to the whole cloud microphysics process.

Really ? Don't stop now, start by giving some evidence that electricity surrounds every single cloud of any type.

Let us return to the famous Francis Nipher experiments.
(...) very long pasted text
Therefore, terrestrial gravity and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

This is your opinion, not a fact. May I conclude that you give some credit to the Cavendish experiment ?

The BB effect exists so clouds are suspended because of the BB effect and any other explanation is wrong.

Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century,
(...) very long pasted and repeated text
Therefore, clouds float effortlessly in the sky, not due to any updrafts (a ridiculous explanation), but because of the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Understood. The BB effect exists, therefore clouds float, you are paraphrasing me. Can you please give some real life links between the BB effect and atmospheric behaviour?

"Argon, and nitrogen, and oxygen, simply DEFY attractive gravity, despite the great differences in specific weights (certainly you can do the homework and obtain the figures you seek)."

The burden of proof is on YOU.  YOU are the one claiming that there is such a huge difference that they should become distinct layers.  As I have said, the difference between Nitrogen gas and Oxygen gas is two protons and a few neutrons. 



Also, I can't believe that you are using the aether as part of your argument.  Have you not heard of the The Michelson–Morley experiment that was performed in 1887 which proved that the aether did not exist?  I can't wait to see the seventeen pages you paste in to prove that experiment to be a hoax.

Therefore scientists are beginning to acknowledge that Brownian motion is the result of the vibrations of the telluric currents/ether strings (for which we have definite proofs of existence).

No, they are not.

1. Biefeld-Brown Effect is used by the Ionic Breeze air purifier. No magic. Can't work in clouds like you say.
2. You keep talking about gases being found in the same ratio at all altitudes but you seem to always leave out that air pressure drops as you go up in altitude. A clear argument for gravitation. Also goes against the Biefeld-Brown Effect holding up clouds as air pressure would be higher above the clouds.
3. Tesla is still not a magician. My toothbrush still charges using the technique he used.
4. Here is a video showing how you can have separated gases.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ship floating on nothing! :: Physikshow Uni Bonn

Also, I can't believe that you are using the aether as part of your argument.  Have you not heard of the The Michelson–Morley experiment that was performed in 1887 which proved that the aether did not exist?

The Michelson-Morley experiment is the greatest experimental CATASTROPHE of the 19th century.

Dayton Miller ether drift results:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

The unimaginable, colossal, grievious errors committed by both A. Michelson and E. Morley, the best presentation:

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (it starts with the History Revisited section and then to the end)


Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31008#p31008
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=31007#p31007

Please read further:


http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.


COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF THE SPACE TIME CONCEPT/THEORY OF RELATIVITY:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58921.msg1509746.html#msg1509746


The simplest way to prove the existence of ether:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1540150.html#msg1540150


Plenty of other proofs, please search in my messages.


The gases in the atmosphere paradox still remains to be addressed.

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.”

Again, please read carefully.

...are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights.


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?



A promise is a promise.

BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


References for the existence of the barometer pressure paradox.

Here is another reference on the DAILY SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE BAROMETER PRESSURE:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=vNkZAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA217&lpg=RA1-PA217&dq=barometer+pressure+semidiurnal+change+10+am+4+pm&source=bl&ots=zgQHfJMC_w&sig=NMbmgLuqwPVwEfGVp3WuSu8Mdgg&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=-As4UqWRL4qp4ATI2ICIBA&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=barometer%20pressure%20semidiurnal%20change%2010%20am%204%20pm&f=false

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv...10....3L

...that the two daily maxima at about 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. were so regular that his barometer could serve somewhat as a clock.



http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html

Surface pressure measurements in Taiwan (at 25 deg. N) are least around 4am and (especially) 4 pm Local Standard Time, and most around (especially) 10am, and 10pm LST.


NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DATA:


The most basic change in pressure is the twice daily rise and fall in due to the heating from the sun. Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m. The magnitude of the daily cycle is greatest near the equator decreasing toward the poles.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/atmos/pressure.htm


HERE ARE MORE REFERENCES ON THE SEMIDIURNAL CHANGES IN THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE:

The atmospheric pressure is greatest at about 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 pm. and least at about 4:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The variations are primarily the result of the combined effects of the sun's gravitational attraction and solar heating, with solar heating being the major component.

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00001262/00001

The barometric pressure curve shows a portion of the normal twice-daily oscillation that occurs due to solar and lunar gravitational forces (atmospheric tides), with high pressures at approximately 10:00 AM and PM, and low pressures at 4:00 AM and PM.

http://info.ngwa.org/gwol/pdf/930158405.PDF



---------------------

Precise formula to be used at the other thread (jumping while the earth is supposedly rotating)



T = period of rotation, 24h x 3600x/h = 86,400 s

g = 32 ft/s^2

t = time spent in the air (the projectile)

cos@ (cosine of latitude of experiment)

(deflection of a vertically fired projectile: tennis ball, jump, etc.)

Geocentric Coriolis force:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747

antonio, your effort to at least investigate the physics of the lenticular cloud is noted.

However, you dodged the entire file on the Nipher and Brown experiments.

You must remember that the barometer pressure paradox contradicts any official cloud microphysics information.

At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’”

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Thus, we have a clear indication that any official explanation about lenticular clouds (or any clouds) is mistaken.


As I said, you did research the topic, however, there is more to it than that.

The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.

We can easily estimate the weight of the lenticular clouds to be some 500 tons (some of them are much larger of course than 1 km in volume, this is a very conservative estimate, please see my earlier messages).

Therefore we right back at the cloud weight paradox.

To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.

How could an updraft sustain a weight of 500 tons of droplets of water which make up the lenticular cloud?

Now, antonio, things WILL GET MORE COMPLICATED.


The wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, TAKES US BACK RIGHT TO THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY PARADOX.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1541977.html#msg1541977

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.

From THE RESTORING FORCES PARADOX:

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.


I am sorry, antonio, scientists no longer accept the updraft version of cloud physics.

Cloud formations often exhibit structure that could be the result of something other than blowing winds. Does ionized plasma actually shape the clouds?

"Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud ‘condenser’ is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud ‘condenser’ gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa." --- Wal Thornhill, 2004


The Tesla experiment from my previous message does prove the existence of telluric currents/strings energy which is sent forth from the cloud itself.

In a recent press release, scientists from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds: exactly the findings of the Tesla experiment.

The Biefeld Brown effect does prove that attractive gravity does not exist, period.

Therefore, any official explanation for the clouds defiance of gravity is useless.

THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.

www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

"These results seem to indicate clearly that gravitational attraction between masses of matter depends upon electrical potential due to electrical charges upon them."

Every working day of the following college year has been devoted to testing the validity of the above statement. No results in conflict with it have been obtained. Not only has gravitational attraction been diminished by electrification of the attracting bodies when direct electrical action has been wholly cut off by a metal shield, but it has been made negative. It has been converted into a repulsion. This result has been obtained many times throughout the year. On one occasion during the latter part of the year, this repulsion was made somewhat more than twice as great as normal attraction.

A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage.When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that shielded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.




http://www.davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm (aetherometry, gravity)


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_gravity01.htm (aether and gravity experiments)


http://milesmathis.com/caven.html (about the errors in the Cavendish experiment)


The relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops. It is concluded that in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less than that of uncharged drops.

For example, the radius of a drop falling from 2 km height in an atmosphere of 70% relative humidity has to be of 1.07 mm if uncharged and 1.037 mm if charged, for it to reach the ground with 1 mm radius. So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.
http://www.ias.ac.in/jess/june2004/Esb1571.pdf


The results from Tesla's experiment, the above cloud droplets experiments, and the findings of the Weizmann Institute/
Goddard Flight Space Center do prove that cloud microphysics is an electrical phenomenon.


Again, the Biefeld-Brown experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

Therefore the clouds' defiance of gravity can only be explained as follows.

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.


Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown, the brighest star of American physics in the 20th Century, performed a series of even more famous experiments which proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the link between terrestrial gravity and electricity.

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.

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" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil

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

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.

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.)"


A clear violation of the attractive law of gravity.


The Biefeld Brown effect debunks any official explanation for the physics of clouds (especially the clouds' defiance of gravity): terrestrial gravity is absolutely related to electricity.

sandokhan why don't you post their actual papers. We have already seen how you take peoples experiments and change them to fit what you believe.
Or you can just keep ignoring me and I will go back to making a living doing what you say is impossible.

antonio, your effort to at least investigate the physics of the lenticular cloud is noted.

I highly appreciate your delicate sense of humour, coming from someone who didn't have a clue about lenticular formation physics two days ago. However, I appreciate your compliment.

However, you dodged the entire file on the Nipher and Brown experiments.

There is nothing to dodge here, it's only pasted text about already discussed material. What did I miss ?
Remember, we are talking about clouds, not tiny balsa models flying over a table.

You must remember that the barometer pressure paradox contradicts any official cloud microphysics information.
At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (...) long repeted pasted text
Thus, we have a clear indication that any official explanation about lenticular clouds (or any clouds) is mistaken.

How can you assume there is every day at every place in the world a semi-diurnal pressure drop ? You are far from it.
Don't dismiss, go further: how the official explanation about lenticular clouds is mistaken ?
 

As I said, you did research the topic, however, there is more to it than that.
The presence of clouds merely point out wave activity and not wave intensity at any particular level. Because moist air takes less vertical distance to reach its condensation level than does dryer air, the presence of a lenticular cloud is not necessarily an indication of the strength of the updrafts or downdrafts in a mountain wave.

For example, high altitude lenticulars may indicate there is sufficient moisture at that altitude to form them, when in fact the strongest wave lift and sink occurs at a lower altitude where there isn't enough moisture to form the lenticular clouds.

As the air ascends, it cools and condenses out moisture, forming the distinctive lenticular clouds. As it descends, it compresses and the heat of compression reabsorbs the moisture.

Yep, you are paraphrasing me, with a more educated style, I must confess. There is nothing more there, so what's the point here ?

We can easily estimate the weight of the lenticular clouds to be some 500 tons (some of them are much larger of course than 1 km in volume, this is a very conservative estimate, please see my earlier messages).

As usual, can you share the details of your estimation ?

Therefore we right back at the cloud weight paradox.
To set up a mountain wave condition three elements are needed:

  Wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular.
  An increasing wind velocity with altitude with the wind velocity 20 knots or more near mountaintop level.

How could an updraft sustain a weight of 500 tons of droplets of water which make up the lenticular cloud?

You are still considering a lenticular cloud as a monolithic mass of a tremendous weight. But as it has been previsouly explained, there is no mysterious hovering or floating mass, just water condensing and vaporizing. What step is confusing you?

Now, antonio, things WILL GET MORE COMPLICATED.
The wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, TAKES US BACK RIGHT TO THE CLOUD TRAJECTORY PARADOX.
(...) pasted thread.
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

By nature, lee waves need a steady wind direction over a mountain range. As lee waves are observed, we can safely conclude that wind direction is ok. Furthermore, gliders flying nearby lenticular clouds experience this fact. Earth's shape and rotation is irrelevant there. Is this an effort to drift the debate ?

I am sorry, antonio, scientists no longer accept the updraft version of cloud physics.
(...) previous pasted text
The Tesla experiment from my previous message does prove the existence of telluric currents/strings energy which is sent forth from the cloud itself.

No it doesn't. It's your assumption, period

In a recent press release from the Weizmann Institute and the Goddard Space Flight Center announced that a mysterious zone of previously undiscovered particles fills the airspace around clouds: exactly the findings of the Tesla experiment.

Please give evidence that Tesla measured the same phenomenon.

The Biefeld Brown effect does prove that attractive gravity does not exist, period.
Therefore, any official explanation for the clouds defiance of gravity is useless.

As you failed to prove that lenticular clouds are defying gravity, we are still at the starting line there...
Are you saying that every single cloud is surrounded by poweful electric fields ?

THE FRANCIS NIPHER EXPERIMENTS ARE A FACT OF SCIENCE.
A clear proof that attractive gravity does not exist at all.

Mr Nipher modifies the Cavendish experiment. He puts some electricity into the stuff and tada, it moves. As Nipher's is a modified Cavendish's => gravity = electricity. I'm sorry, but I cannot share your view there.

(...) relaxation time required for a ventilated drop to reach its equilibrium temperature increases with the drop size and is higher for the charged than for the uncharged drops.
(...)So, in a given distance, charged drops will evaporate less as compared to the uncharged drops.

Evaporation is related to droplet surface. Ok. What's the point ?

The results from Tesla's experiment, the above cloud droplets experiments, and the findings of the Weizmann Institute/
Goddard Flight Space Center do prove that cloud microphysics is an electrical phenomenon.

I'm sorry, you've just failed the peer review process there.

Again, the Biefeld-Brown experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.
Therefore the clouds' defiance of gravity can only be explained as follows.
(...) very long pasted (4 times) text
The Biefeld Brown effect debunks any official explanation for the physics of clouds (especially the clouds' defiance of gravity): terrestrial gravity is absolutely related to electricity.

Got it. I put a magnet over a nail. The nail levitates. Thence the magnet experiment proves the inexistence of attractive gravity.

The BB effect is proven so the clouds levitate. We already agreed before that this was a lovely logical fallacy. You don't need to repeat it again.