sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory

  • 250 Replies
  • 45911 Views
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2013, 11:31:10 PM »
Quote
Show evidence that this is observed everywhere and everytime, as I've asked you twice.
Your request is of the same caliber as your inability to read a simple graph.
(...)
The best official sources tell you that this phenomeon happens every day, every night, absolutely everywhere.
Again with rants...You have already proved that you are smarter than everyone here on earth. You do not need do repeat it everytime. And your assertion is still unproven:  pressure variations are not only semi-diurnal. You fail to admit this very basic level.

Quote
At each and every point on the surface of the Earth (right underneath a lenticular cloud for that matter) we have the following situation:
(...)
A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.
(...)
Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.
I may quote you: this is a blind guess, assertion of truth, synonymous with hypothesis, a status deserving of no merit, lowest form of scientific inquiry, a statement that has never been proven

Quote
Your bumbling wikipedia type of research explains nothing.
Until the air will evaporate, the entire weight of a lenticular cloud will be at least 500 tons (see my earlier calculations).
In fact, for the entire process of forming of the visible cloud, no explanation exists which can account for the levitation effect of the cloud.
You clearly have no scientific experience in researching and explaining this things.
No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.
You are again showing a total lack of basic understanding in clouds formation. I afraid, I cannot help you.

Quote
I went to more advanced textbooks, which even throw a shadow of a doubt on the updraft explanation itself.
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.
Here is an illustration of your poor understanding. The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud or a lenticular cloud is not always seen at the stronger updraft position. This does not , by far, disprove the explanation.

Quote
We are discussing here the RE view of the world, not the FE (where the Earth is absolutely fixed and not rotating).
No drifting of the debate, just a direct challenge to the very physics of mountain wave formation.
Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.
This "paradox" only exists in your mind. Writing it down does not give it some reality. And as lee waves are a well obeserved phenomenon, you are just denying reality.

Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.
The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?

Quote
First the conclusions of the experiments carried out by Dr. Brown in full vacuum:
-there is no such thing as attractive gravity: for the same mass, and the same supposed law of attractive gravity, the capacitor will levitate in full DEFIANCE of the same supposed law of universal attraction.
-terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity.
Again. These are YOUR conclusions. Nothing backs up them. nothing. A magnet can levitate a nail. This does not defy at all universal attraction.

Quote
Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, and terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electricity, clouds (all of them) do float because they are able to somehow tap into the very force exemplifed by the Biefeld Brown experiment/effects: concentrated force of some kind accumulates within the presence of a strong dielectric.
As asked multiple times. SHOW IT

Quote
Tesla was able to prove that clouds do emit and receive scalar waves.
No. the related text does not prove such thing. Read it again.

Let's face the facts. You constantly fail to disprove the mainstream explanation and to give a credible alternative explanation. You can paste again and again texts from your favourite readings, this is not by far a scientific demonstration.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 12:10:05 AM by Antonio »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2013, 02:54:48 AM »
Quote
The Biefeld Brown effect explained in even more details.
The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?
BB effect "levitates" an object by thrusting ion (actually hazardous ozone) downward, creating downdraft of ozone below the "levitating" object. If this is what sandokhan claims to happen with every cloud then why gliders look for clouds for a lift. sandokhan's claim is completely rubbish!



And if sandokhan is trying to prove that BB effect creates anti gravity, then watch this video that debunks this absurdity. BB effect does not work in vacuum. LOL!

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Lifter Anti-Gravity Myth has been BUSTED 1 of 2
sandokhan is good at lying. He's the master of deception!
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 04:55:57 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #152 on: October 11, 2013, 01:26:07 AM »
cartesian, the video you presented is the intellectual equivalent of a drugstore nostrum, or even worse, of a high school bull session with delusions of gradeur.

Dr. Thomas T. Brown, rare clips, vacuum chamber experiments, 1958-1960 Bahnson Labs:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">T.T. Brown Electrogravity Vacuum Experiments


NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/


More information here:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm


Why was there no effect in the video presented by cartesian?

Because the most important aspect of the Biefeld Brown was not taken into consideration: THE DIELECTRIC USED.

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.

Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.


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.)"


ORIGINAL PAPER SUBMITTED BY DR. TOWNSEND BROWN, IN 1955, VACUUM CHAMBER EXPERIMENTS:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/TT_Brown_Proposal.html










http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/TTB_Proposal_Blueprints_1-3.pdf

PROJECT MONTGOLFIER PRESIDENT JACQUES CORNILLION:

It was decided that the next step was to make tests in a big vacuum chamber. Dr. Brown again sent us designs for the construction of a large vacuum chamber and test apparatus.



As this phase of the project was undertaken my company was merged into another company. During this turbulent period of the merger we were able, with difficulty, to continue and complete the construction of the large vacuum chamber, though moved to a less hospitable location. The president of my company, now the president of the new merged company, Sud-Aviation, decided not to continue the experiments but to pass them along to another company S.N.E.C.M.A. (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) that was more specialized in this type of research.


The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER


FULL VACUUM SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, DR. BRUCE DEPALMA:

 Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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


FULL VACUUM GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT:


http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html

GYRO DROP EXPERIMENT


In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


cartesian, antonio and mb...do your bloody homework, and stop posting nonsense here.

Again. These are YOUR conclusions. Nothing backs up them. nothing. A magnet can levitate a nail. This does not defy at all universal attraction.

Not my conclusions: here you have the best proofs (full vacuum chamber experiments) that the spinning ball, the rotating falling gyroscope and the capacitor (Biefeld Brown effect) do DEFY THE ACCEPTED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY.

Moreoever, the Biefeld Brown effect does prove that terrestrial gravity is definitely linked to electricity.


Double helix theory of magnetism, subquark monopole theory (why a nail will levitate):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59837.msg1543551.html#msg1543551


The question is not about the BB effect, but its application to clouds "levitation".
Please answer directly to these questions;
1) If every cloud everywhere is "levitated" by the Biefeld Brown effect, please give strong evidence that every cloud everywehere is surrounded by an electrical field of the required magnitude.
2) if lenticular clouds are "levitating" by the BB effect, please explain why they do not change their position, as they always face a strong wind. This is called the Sandokhan Levitating Lenticular Paradox (TM). Where is the restoring horizontal force keeping them motionless? After all any cumulus follow the wind path.
3) Planes fly everytime into clouds. They never experience some antigravitational effects. Please explain why.
4) You are a self-called "clouds microphysics" expert, but until now, you still fail to give a definite droplet diameter and weight, and its corresponding free fall speed. Care to share your knowledge?


But the question IS ABOUT THE BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT.

It does DEFY attractive gravity, and does show that terrestrial gravity is definetely linked to electricity.


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.

"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


You dummy.

There is no restoring vector field paradox in the FLAT EARTH CONTEXT.

This paradox exists ONLY IN THE RE SCENARIO.


One of the basic laws discovered by Tesla: ether will behave as a fluid to a solid, and as a solid to a fluid.

Effect of ether on water/liquids:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1510960.html#msg1510960


OFFICIAL CLOUD MICROPHYSICS INFORMATION:

A body of density ρ1 and volume V falling through still air of density ρ.

The downward force acting on the body due to gravity is ρ1 x V x g.
The upward buoyancy force on the body, due to the mass of air displaced by the body, is ρ x V x g (by Archimedes’ Principle).

In addition, the air exerts a drag force Fdrag on the body, which acts upwards.
The body will attain a steady terminal fall speed when these three forces are in balance:

ρ1 x V x g = ρ x V x g + Fdrag

v ={2 x [g(ρ1 − ρ)r2}/[9 x η]

Also taken into consideration is the Stokes drag forces for spheres with radius ≤ 20 µm.

If ρ1 >>  ρ, then a different equation is used.

The terminal fall speeds of 10 and 20 µm radius water droplets in air at 1013 hPa and 20C are 0.3 and 1.2 cm s-1 respectively.

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.


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

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #153 on: October 11, 2013, 01:43:22 AM »
rottingroom and cartesian...can you handle a SINGLE GRAPH?



U.S. Weather Bureau, “Ten-Year Normals of Pressure Tendencies and Hourly Station Pressures for the United States,”
Technical Paper No. 1, Washington, D.C. 1943.

Semidiurnal variations: maximums at 10:00 am/10:00 pm and minimums at 4:00 pm/4:00 am

Normal station pressure data will lead to the correct results.


Now here is what you posted.

https://googledrive.com/host/0BwWwYmdlMY6KbjVTVTFQOE1LWm8/Pressure.jpg

You wrote:

Here is a link where you can confirm that my graph uses the correct numbers:

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


But those ARE NOT THE CORRECT NUMBERS.

As I explained earlier, the programmer who wrote the computer code used the wrong formula to calculate the station pressure data.

For each value of the SEA LEVEL PRESSURE DATA, there will a direct correlation to the station pressure number, which is an indication of the mistake present there. BY DEFINITION, STATION PRESSURE NUMBERS AND SEA LEVEL PRESSURE NUMBERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY DIFFERENT.

For SLP at 1010.4 we will have a SP data of 27.783. Whenever the figure of 1010.4 is repeated we will also have a value of 27.783, a clear indication that the wrong formula was used.



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.


This is what we actually see in the sea level pressure column.



Now, here the absolute proof that I am correct: semidiurnal barometer value changes with maximums and minimums are recorded each and every day, everywhere, at each latitude.

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

Each day, around 4 a.m./p.m. the pressure is at its lowest and near its peak around 10 a.m./p.m.


Remember, this is the data from the National Weather Service itself.


A remarkable characteristic of the semi-diurnal barometric variation is the regularity of the occurrence of the maxima and minima and their uniformity in time of day in all latitudes. While the amplitude of these waves may vary greatly with latitude, with elevation, and with location, whether over the sea or over the land, the local times of maxima and minima are very constant.

http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinobserv06terruoft/bulletinobserv06terruoft_djvu.txt
(Bulletin of Applied Physical Science)


The correct data from the Bulletin of Applied Physical Science.


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).



Humboldt carried a barometer with him on his famous South American journeys of 1799-1804. In his book Cosmos he remarked 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-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/29_Atmos_Tides.pdf



Is this ok with you rottingroom? Can you live with this?

Surface pressure exhibits a remarkably stable semidiurnal oscillation with maxima at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. and minima at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. local time. This semidiurnal oscillation in surface pressure is a universal phenomenon observed worldwide and can be identified even in disturbed weather conditions.

http://amselvam.webs.com/SEN1/bio2met.htm


Now, here is the SEMIDIURNAL BAROMETER VALUE PARADOX ITSELF:

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.


antonio, I have just proven to you, using the the best references available, that the semidiurnal barometer pressure paradox DOES OCCUR ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE.

Please read: at all latitudes, a universal phenomenon.


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.

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

A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity: it debunks your every laughable assertion on the physics of lenticular clouds.

Atmospheric tides simply DEFY any concept of attractive gravity.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 01:45:02 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #154 on: October 11, 2013, 02:08:09 AM »
antonio wrote:

Here is an illustration of your poor understanding. The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud or a lenticular cloud is not always seen at the stronger updraft position. This does not , by far, disprove the explanation.

I told you that tricks and word games do not work with me.

Here is the best proof that you do not understand the physics of lenticular clouds.

THIS IS WHAT YOU WROTE:

The author explains that either a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular cloud

In fact, lenticular clouds ARE GENERATED BY MOUNTAIN WAVES, this is the very definition of lenticular cloud.

How can you then write that a mountain wave does not form everytime a lenticular clouds forms?




Here is the original quote:

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.


The author is telling us that A LENTICULAR CLOUD'S PRESENCE IS NOT AN INDICATION OF THE STRENGTH OF UPDRAFTS IN A MOUNTAIN WAVE.

Furthermore:

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.

Therefore, for high altitudes lenticulars, which weigh as much or even more than low altitude clouds, there will not be a strong enough wave lift (as in the lower altitude) to explain their presence.


Here is what YOU wrote:

As the air is deflected first in an upward motion, it's immediately followed by a downward deflection (just after A and B).

There are no updrafts that can sustain a 500 ton lenticular cloud (a very conservative estimate), especially at high altitudes.


Exactly what I wrote:

No updraft can sustain a weight of 500 tons, while the cloud becomes visible.



And as lee waves are a well obeserved phenomenon, you are just denying reality.

Mountain waves can only exist on a fixed flat earth.

The restoring forces paradox shows that mountain waves COULD NOT POSSIBLY FORM ON A SPHERICAL ROTATING EARTH.


This is the second time you dodged the issue.

You are showing to everybody that you cannot explain the formation of mountain waves in the rotating earth context.


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.


But this requirement cannot be met in a rotating earth scenario.


Moreover, the updraft required to sustain the weight of the cloud itself could never form anyway: the vertical updraft would have to fight in the incoming layers of atmospheric tides each rotating at a certain speed (100 miles to 300 miles for a mountain of some 2000 - 3000 ft in height) in the west to east direction.


Mountain waves could never form on a rotating earth given the restoring forces paradox.

READ CAREFULLY.

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.


And I haven't even mentioned the Airy Experiment which does prove that the Earth is not rotating around its own axis.


Here is the task before you antonio.

Please explain how the atmosphere itself rotates at the same speed as that of the rotating earth.

Then we arrive at the restoring forces paradox.

The restoring vector field 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.


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.


Please explain how the basic requirement of a mountain wave formation, wind flow perpendicular to the mountain range, or nearly so, being within about 30 degrees of perpendicular, can be fulfilled given  the restoring vector field paradox, in the rotating earth scenario.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 02:10:10 AM by sandokhan »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #155 on: October 11, 2013, 02:18:15 AM »
Which part of your video shows BB effect actually works in vacuum? I can't see it. The closest thing to a proof that I saw in that video is at position 3:40 (below). This video only shows a group of people drinking champagne and nothing more. I can make a video showing me drinking a lot more than that and will it prove anything to you?  :P

I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #156 on: October 11, 2013, 02:32:15 AM »
antonio...you have just made your biggest mistake so far.

Here is what you wrote:

No. the related text does not prove such thing. Read it again.

Of course, you know what this means.

A full discussion of the Tunguska event, which does prove that Tesla's results were correct.

I will then return to the Tesla cloud experiment to show you that it did reveal the correct measurements.


Dr. Nikola Tesla, 1915:

"It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war."


The path of the ball lightning created by Tesla, Siberia (Tunguska), 1908, ten minutes PRIOR to the explosion (7:15 am):



The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.

Tesla was always fascinated with the concept of wireless propagation, and he was known to work on projected wave energy processes that could create microscopic, invisible particles of concentrated energy that could be beamed great distances... often resulting in electric fireballs, spherical plasmoids, or ball lightning.

How did Tesla transmit the enormous energy necessary for the formation of the ball lightning?


During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by the Herman von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable." In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'

'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly exprest his confidence in its success."


Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.
 
Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.
 
The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.
 
In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.



"Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated the ether waves by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum. This he was accomplishing with his own, hand-engineered equipment (produced according to Maxwell's original, quaternion equations), when he detected an interference "return" from a passing line of thunderstorms. Tesla termed the phenomenon a "standing columnar wave," and tracked it electromagnetically for hours as the cold front moved across the West."


"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


I WAS OBSERVING STATIONARY WAVES.



Let us now reduce the distance from London to Tunguska to just 5000 km.


Then the curvature will measure: 483.7 km




The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km


Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.


To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #157 on: October 11, 2013, 02:35:29 AM »
You still haven't answered my re: air pressure question too. Can you explain using less than 100 words for my simple question below?

So, what exactly are you trying to prove/disprove sandokhan? That the gravity changes with time? Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time? I don't want your air pressure stuffs. I want you to show that the weight of a solid object varies with time. If you cannot show this kind of more direct evidence, then you are also talking nonsense like in your Tunguska BS.
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #158 on: October 11, 2013, 02:36:52 AM »
sandokhan, your Tunguska nonsense is completely debunked!

Tunguska Explosion... Sandokhan Go... Destroys Refraction Excuse
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 02:38:41 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #159 on: October 11, 2013, 02:39:14 AM »
Re: BB effect in vacuum

Which part of your video shows BB effect actually works in vacuum? I can't see it. The closest thing to a proof that I saw in that video is at position 3:40 (below). This video only shows a group of people drinking champagne and nothing more. I can make a video showing me drinking a lot more than that and will it prove anything to you?  :P


I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #160 on: October 11, 2013, 02:51:42 AM »
cartesian...your link to the tunguska thread is not even a joke.

NOTHING AT ALL WAS DEBUNKED THERE.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km


Have you then lost your mind to say that anything was debunked at all?


Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Not so.  In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.  If the earth were flat, the refraction would eventually cause the light to be pushed to the ground, but on a curved surface, the refraction continues to refract the light parallel to the earth's surface and for great distances.


To talk about ice crystals, with an explosion at some 7 km in the atmosphere on one side of the globe, and a very clear view of the initial trajectory/flash of the explosion from the other side of the hypothetical globe, means that you have no explanation for the facts involved here.

According to your explanation, we should have a 24 hour a day constant sunlight...this is what you wrote:

In the right circumstances refraction can continue to refract light indefinitely, parallel to the earth's surface.

Certainly the sun's rays of light (official theory) will be parallel to some portion of the surface at some time in the earth's rotation...that is why I invited you to think.


The fact that the glow persisted for days, IS DUE to influence of the telluric currents which were activated (received more energy) from Tesla's ball lightning.

What is actually light, and what is magnetism?

These are questions which the official science has failed to answer ever since Maxwell's original equations were modified/altered/truncated.

Here is the proper explanation of magnetism and light:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1495370.html#msg1495370

The latest laboratory information about magnetism, the double helix theory of subquark strings:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714


More information here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489785.html#msg1489785


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



That the gravity changes with time?

Don't play dumb cartesian.

Cheap tricks like this do not work with me.


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.


Can you understand English?

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.



Do you have any evidence showing the weight of an object varies with time?

Sure.

FULL VACUUM SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT, DR. BRUCE DEPALMA:

 Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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



The video with Dr. Brown was shown to prove that the vacuum chamber experiments did take place.

NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/


FULL VIDEO, VACUUM CHAMBER BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT:

Click here to Download the full video ( 11 Mb )

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv


Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

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)

The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #161 on: October 11, 2013, 02:55:53 AM »
More vacuum experiments:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/

TESTS RESULTS :

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.


Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #162 on: October 11, 2013, 02:58:16 AM »
More vacuum experiments:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/vacuum/

TESTS RESULTS :

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.
Failed. The wire may be in the vacuum but the lifter is definitely not.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 03:02:40 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #163 on: October 11, 2013, 03:00:18 AM »
Re: Tunguska

There was not any single local eyewitness reporting seeing light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast. They only saw it during the blast. You failed! Again.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 03:05:41 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #164 on: October 11, 2013, 03:41:04 AM »
The wire may be in the vacuum but the lifter is definitely not.

More of your high school pranks?

The purpose of this test is to remove the corona effect and the ionic wind produced by the wire placed above the Lifter. The wire used here is the thin tungsten wire placed in the 38 mm diameter vacuum tube of a tubular incandescent light bulb. I have used the same unlinked Lifter previously tested on February 20, 2003. I have used three tubes connected electrically together in triangle and the connection are carefully insulated so as to avoid any leakage current. The wire apparatus has been completly mecanically unlinked from the main aluminum armature. The thin wire, connected to the HV generator, is handled by myself and the aluminum armature, connected to the ground, is able to go upwards freely like a common Lifter.

The aluminum armature of the Lifter, connected to the ground, is free to move upwards
The height of the hovering is limited by three thin nylon wires fastened to the base.

When the wire in the vacuum tubes apparatus is approached above the aluminum plate, while the HV generator is switched on, the aluminum armature goes upwards quickly towards the tube apparatus. There is no corona effect and ion wind effect in the vacuum tube, there is no hissing sound and the lifter flys very silently. The current measured is in micro-Ampere range ( about 1µA ) with about 25KV DC. The Lifter is able to hover with only 25 mW of HV power.




More tests here.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/inthebox/index.htm


No ionic wind could explain the antigravitational effect.


NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.

At the atmospherical pressure, we can observe a thrust in the plan of rotation and directly applied on the asymmetrical capacitors when the voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. This produces a torque on the apparatus. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.

The oscillation of the apparatus in the horizontal plan is amplified with a parametrical effect due to the superposition of impulsions.

Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/


FULL VIDEO, VACUUM CHAMBER BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT:

Click here to Download the full video ( 11 Mb )

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv


There was not any single local eyewitness reporting seeing light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast. They only saw it during the blast.

The telluric currents were activated at some distance from the area of the blast itself.

You dodged the entire debate.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.


The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km




Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Light travels through double helix (double torsion) subquark strings which fill every nanometer of aether (search for the proofs of the existence of aether in my messages, please): the glow was an activation of these strings, which persisted for days, due to the energy it injected in those very strings.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


You dodged the initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

You dodged the fact this path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska.



You dodged the eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

You dodged the fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.




Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #165 on: October 11, 2013, 03:42:57 AM »
Re: BB effect

Is this what you call vacuum? You must be joking right?  :P

I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #166 on: October 11, 2013, 03:44:53 AM »
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast. Without that, you failed. Completely!
I think, therefore I am

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #167 on: October 11, 2013, 06:55:09 AM »
Great, I just wrote sandokan this long argument and this website failed. Oh well. I don't really think I need to keep repeating my unaddressed arguments.

« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 07:42:16 AM by rottingroom »

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #168 on: October 11, 2013, 08:04:55 AM »
Sandokahn,  the existence of attractive gravity and the non-existence of the Aether are not our opinions.  They are logic conclusions based on the data from several different repeatable (and often repeated) experiments.

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #169 on: October 11, 2013, 06:21:51 PM »
Re: BB effect

Is this what you call vacuum? You must be joking right?  :P


It seems like the person doing the experiment thinks air can't move in a closed box.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #170 on: October 13, 2013, 05:37:42 AM »
Mean Sea Level Pressure formula:

http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/jma-eng/jma-center/ric/material/1_Lecture_Notes/CP5-Pressure.pdf

It is a nonlinear formula, thus confirming what we already know:

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.



PROJECT MONTGOLFIER PRESIDENT JACQUES CORNILLION:

It was decided that the next step was to make tests in a big vacuum chamber. Dr. Brown again sent us designs for the construction of a large vacuum chamber and test apparatus.



As this phase of the project was undertaken my company was merged into another company. During this turbulent period of the merger we were able, with difficulty, to continue and complete the construction of the large vacuum chamber, though moved to a less hospitable location. The president of my company, now the president of the new merged company, Sud-Aviation, decided not to continue the experiments but to pass them along to another company S.N.E.C.M.A. (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) that was more specialized in this type of research.


The team made some hasty tests before having the project shut down for delivery of the vacuum chamber to the new company. The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.

FINAL REPORT, BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT TESTED IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER:

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf

PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm

NASA NSSTC LEEIF vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.

The vacuum is a High Vacuum at 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr, this is equal of vacuum space conditions at about 350 km far from the earth ground.

In the video of the tests, two asymmetrical capacitors are mounted on a rotating arm with a torsion wire used as a rotational axis.

A potential difference between the wire and the main armature of the asymmetrical capacitor is slowly increased from 0 to +45 KV.


At the pressure of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ( High Vacuum conditions ), the apparatus rotates when the High Voltage is increased from 0 to +45 KV. However the thust observed is weaker than at the atmospherical pressure. When the voltage is back down to 0 V, the device retrieves its initial position.


Conclusions : This experiment is very interesting and shows definitely that a force is produced on asymmetrical capacitors when a High Voltage of +45KV is applied between their armatures in a High Vacuum ( 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr ).


VIDEO OF BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/ascinvacuum.wmv


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/



I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast.

The tricks you used at the other thread do not work with me.

The existence of the telluric currents which run between the North Pole (receptive end) and the South Pole (emissive end) in a double helix figure explains why and how the glow was seen for days in northern Europe.

The glow was also seen all over northern Russia and Asia.

Over the next few days, night skies in Asia and Europe were aglow

 Watson, Nigel. The Tunguska Event". History Today 58.1 (July 2008): 7. MAS Ultra-School Edition. EBSCO. February 10, 2009


This means that the input of energy from the ball lightning (fireball) launched and maneuvered by Nikola Tesla was carried away to the North Pole and lasted for days (activation of the laevorotatory strings of the double helix telluric currents).


YOU CANNOT DODGE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES ANYMORE.


1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.



2. Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


3. The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km

The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.

The best and most perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is flat: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska for a distance of 5000 km.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 05:44:17 AM by sandokhan »

*

sokarul

  • 16105
  • Discount Chemist
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #171 on: October 13, 2013, 08:47:40 AM »


PAGE 26 FULLY DESCRIBES THE OBSERVED BIEFELD BROWN EFFECT IN FULL VACUUM CHAMBER


http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm


What page would that be? While it is in French, none of the pictures show the same apparatus as the ones used outside of a vacuum.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #172 on: October 14, 2013, 03:16:29 AM »
Re: Project Montgolfier

Interesting material but unfortunately it's entirely in French and scanned, making any effort to translate it to English a lot harder. In summary, page 26 says that only when plexiglass was used as dielectric material that they could observe very weak movement. Other materials didn't reveal any movement. This doesn't prove that "ion wind" was not produced at all. Ion wind could have been produced in a small amount by the plexiglass itself (a normal lifter uses air as dielectric material between the two poles). Why did they need any dielectric material in a vacuum anyway?

So fail again.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 03:31:46 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #173 on: October 14, 2013, 03:22:01 AM »
Re: Tunguska

You should have highlighted this part sandokhan:
Quote
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

It was a phenomena that was going on continuously. Not just one off like a blast. It was also an eyewitness from the UK, not Tunguska. So fail again
I think, therefore I am

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #174 on: October 15, 2013, 07:50:06 AM »
In summary, page 26 says that only when plexiglass was used as dielectric material that they could observe very weak movement

Please learn some French.

http://projetmontgolfier.info/uploads/Section_3__Final_Report.pdf (page 26)

When the DISK SHAPED CAPACITOR WAS USED, the total deviation/movement was A FULL 30 DEGREES (deviation totale du systeme 30 degre).


And I offered in the previous paragraph (my previous message) the proper translation:

 The Final Report for the Projet Mongolfier, April 15, 1959, outlined these five tests confirming, as in the prior tests, that there was a definable force.


Plexiglass used by Dr. Brown:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ttbekp.htm




I was able to find the references on Tunguska.


Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.

http://prometheus.al.ru/english/phisik/onichelson/tunguska.htm


Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).

Over the next few days, "white nights" and unusual silvery clouds were seen over tha vast territory from Siberia to Europe's western borders.

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080626/112250936.html


In many countries of Europe as well as western Siberia, the darkness of night was replaced by an unusual illumination.

(bibliotecapleyades archive)


Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.

Starting point: 12 o'clock midnight
End point: 12:15 a.m.

That is the period of time mentioned by the lady in the letter to the Times: she did not remember when it first appeared during those 15 minutes.


As usual you failed to address the three issues I mentioned in my previous message.

1. The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravity.

The initial path approached Kezhma from the south. Then, the path changed course to the east, to Preobrazhenka, and then west again to the actual site of the blast/shockwave.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.



A clear proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis: the object itself (that could not have been a comet, asteroid, meteorite, rocket or jet airplane) DEFIED attractive gravity. At 29 km/s (speed of the round earth orbiting the sun) the object itself should have disappeared instantly from view.



2. Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye: a clear proof that no curvature exists at the surface of the Earth.

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.


Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.


3. The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.

The visual obstacle will measure: 2578.8 km

The very trajectory of the object was seen BEFORE THE EXPLOSION EVER TOOK PLACE, between 0:00 am and 0:15 am (London time) - the explosion itself occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 am (Tunguska time):

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m."

INSTANTANEOUSLY, the explosion itself caused these phenomena all over Europe:

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.



Since the light of the Sun could not be seen from London (7:15 am, local time, cloudless day) due to the curvature (or any light reflection phenomena), as we are told by official science, THEN CERTAINLY NO LIGHT FROM AN EXPLOSION WHICH OCCURRED AT 7 KM IN ALTITUDE COULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AT ALL, AT THE SAME TIME.

The best and most perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is flat: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska for a distance of 5000 km.

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #175 on: October 15, 2013, 11:40:44 AM »
Re: BB effect

Please learn some French.

I am not here to learn French, if you want to use that document to support your claim then arrange to provide the translated version. This is an English forum. We'd like to know the methodology how the experiment was done and its result. What's the difference between torsion and continuous experiment?

As far as I am concerned, BB effect produces thrust, it does not violate any of the Newton laws.
I think, therefore I am

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #176 on: October 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM »
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast, not local.

Quote
Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravit
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.


You failed again.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2013, 11:53:22 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37806
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #177 on: October 16, 2013, 12:36:07 AM »
Re: Tunguska

I want a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska in the nights/days following the blast and not during the blast, not local.

Quote
Massive glowing "silvery clouds" covered Siberia and northern Europe.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Unusual phenomena were detected on 30 June 1908 over Eurasia. They included seismic and pressure waves recorded at several observatories; bright luminescence in the night skies; anomalous optical phenomena in the atmosphere, such as massive glowing silvery clouds and brilliant colorful sunsets (Busch, 1908; Zotkin, 1961; Vasilyev et al., 1965).
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The initial path paradox of the ball lightning: a clear defiance of attractive gravit
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
Eyewitness accounts from Lake Baikal and Nizshne-Karelinskoye
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.

Quote
The fact that the initial path was seen all the way from London, TEN MINUTES PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION: no curvature whatsoever between London and Tunguska. The fact that despite a 2578.8 km visual obstacle in Stockholm photographs could be taken without flash apparatus.
Not a local eyewitness report about light in Tunguska nights/days following the blast.


You failed again.

You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument. 

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #178 on: October 16, 2013, 12:53:44 AM »
You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument.

I think the whole point is that, without a witness to the conditions at the location of the event in the days following it, the light seen in other locations during that time cannot be used as proof of anything.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Re: sandokahn's gravity-effect-on-air theory
« Reply #179 on: October 16, 2013, 01:49:01 AM »
You do realize that the Tunguska event happened in the middle of the wilderness, right?  How in the heck can you demand a local eye witness report when the closest person was probably hundreds of miles away?  Don't take this the wrong way, but not only are you acting like an immature child making unreasonable demands, but you are grasping at straws because you failed to prove your argument.

You do realize that there were many local eyewitnesses who reported seeing the blast or even feeling the impact of the blast, right? None of them reported seeing any light after the blast.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 01:50:42 AM by Cartesian »
I think, therefore I am