Playing with a gyroscope?

It is obvious that you have not been exposed so far to graduate level research which, in some cases, encompasses if needed THOUSANDS of pages of bibliography.

If you cannot read a couple of paragraphs, detailing the very best information about the subject discussed, perhaps you should find another website or a children's board to post your messages.

Dr. Maurice Allais classical experiment proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that terrestrial gravitation is not attractive.

I'll ignore your juvenile ad hominem for the moment.  If that's really one of your best rejoinders, then you've obviously never partaken in any real-time debates.

And regarding the late Dr Allais's 50-year-old experiments:

Eight gravimeters and two pendulums were deployed across six monitoring sites in China for the solar eclipse of July 22, 2009. Although one of the scientists involved claimed in an interview to have observed an Allais effect, the result has not been published in any mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal.

An automated Foucault pendulum was used by Dr Horacio Salva and found no evidence for a precession change of the pendulum's oscillation plane (<0.3 degree/hour) during the Solar eclipse of July 11, 2010.

[Wikipedia 6/12/2013]

Both these contemporary experiments make a mockery of your hyperbolic "beyond a shadow of a doubt" claim.  Sorry; you'll have to try much harder next time.

ausgeoff...I told you that you do not know how to perform a proper research; no ad hominem, just the facts.


You actually have the audacity to come here , in the Flat Earth Debate, WITH A WIKIPEDIA SOURCE?



A similar gravity anomaly was measured using a two-pendula system during the line-up of Earth-Sun-Jupiter-Saturn in May 2001. During the total solar eclipse in 1997, a Chinese team performed measurements with a high-precision gravimeter. However, in contrast to the Allais effect, they detected a decrease in the earth’s gravity. Moreover, the effect occurred immediately before and after the eclipse but not at its height. In the course of observations conducted since 1987, Shu-wen Zhou and his collaborators have confirmed the occurrence of an anomalous force of horizontal oscillation when the sun, moon, and earth are aligned, and have shown that it affects the pattern of grain sequence in crystals, the spectral wavelengths of atoms and molecules, and the rate of atomic clocks.

    Various conventional explanations have been put forward to account for gravity anomalies during eclipses, such as instrument errors, gravity effects of denser air due to cooling of the upper atmosphere, seismic disturbances caused by sightseers moving into and out of a place where an eclipse is visible, and tilting of the ground due to cooling. Physicist Chris Duif has argued that none of them are convincing. He believes that gravitational shielding, too, cannot explain the results, as it would be far too weak (if it exists at all).



CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.allais.info/docs/pugarticle.pdf

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22 (an automated foucault pendulum was also used to observe the anomalies described in the paper)


READ CAREFULLY:

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE JULY 2010 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.diaspora-stiintifica.ro/diaspora2010/prezentari/wks18/Dimitrie%20Olenici%20-%20Anomalii%20in%20comportarea%20pendului%20Foucault%20in%20timpul%20unor%20evenimente%20astronomic.pdf (LAST PAGE)

More information on Professor D. Olenici's experiments here: http://www.allais.info/priorartdocs/olenici.htm


Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.




ausgeoff...please leave any research in the hands of people who are more capable than you...here, you do not stand a chance with me...not now, not ever.

That allais effect does seem to show that the Moon and Sun while combined has a dramatic shielding effect of the aetheric pull.

Of course my model looks like this:

That allais effect does seem to show that the Moon and Sun while combined has a dramatic shielding effect of the aetheric pull.

Of course my model looks like this:

"Of course my model looks like a bunch of photoshop effects"

ausgeoff...I told you that you do not know how to perform a proper research; no ad hominem, just the facts.

You actually have the audacity to come here , in the Flat Earth Debate, WITH A WIKIPEDIA SOURCE?

OH NNOES NOT WIKIPEDIA THE HORRORS!!

Honestly, did you think this was a PhD level physics forum Sandy? The is the FES forums for chrissakes. If more people on this site spent at least a few minutes checking things on Wikipedia they'd be better off. If a Wiki article has sources, I don't see what's wrong with that. Anyway, is that any worse than you just Googling "Allais effect" and copypasting the article abstract in place of an argument? And only citing articles that show an effect? And including untranslated articles in French on an English only forum? Is this what you consider. PhD quality research Sando? You're not a scientist, no matter how much you pretend to be.

<Wow, Sandokhan can use Google and press ctrl-c/ctrl-v! Impressive>

ausgeoff...please leave any research in the hands of people who are more capable than you...here, you do not stand a chance with me...not now, not ever.

Yes AusGeoff, do step off, and leave the copypasta to the eminently capable Sandokhan, will you?

Sandy, what's your explanation, in your own words, as to why the Allais effect is so inconsistenly measured, when both the null results and positive results are taken into account?

You'll also notice how no actual researcher touted their positive results as "the total demolition of the theory of attractive gravity" or such other hyperbole that you are fond of. They merely said that some effect was observed that they couldn't explain. Can you walk us through, in your own words (i.e. No copypasta), how you came to this conclusion that the scientists you cite failed to reach?

I wonder what Allais Effect experiment showed that the anomaly in gravity was due to sub quarks?

A true scientist can invent formulas where none exist, fundamental formulas.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1577473#msg1577473

These formulas go way beyond what can be found in the works of Euler, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Jacobi and Gauss, none of them could find/discover a global logarithm formula, but I did.


Dr. Maurice Allais' conclusions:


http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
 
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.


From my previous message:

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.

We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


Again.


However all three of our experiments exhibited rather brusque variations (the abrupt jumps of the Kiev balances, the humps and particularly the sharp spikes in the Suceava short pendulum charts, and the deviation of the Suceava
long pendulum) which cannot have resulted from linear combination of the gravitational/tidal influences of the Sun
and the Moon, the magnitudes and angles of which vary only gently over the time scales of the effects seen. We
therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)


This should be clear enough.


Since the Moon can be seen during the period of a single month, in the morning/evening sky together with the Sun, WITH NOT EVEN A MINUTE/INFINITESIMAL Allais effect, we can conclude that the solar eclipse is not caused by the Moon, but by a different heavenly body, which can and does influence the vibration of the subquark strings (see all my articles on the subject).


Read Dr. Allais report to Nasa: http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

The periodic components registered during the experiment are inexplicable within the framework of currently accepted theories.


In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.


Such an extraordinary influence/effect means one thing: the heavenly body which does cause the solar eclipse can modify the vibration/energy transmitted to the laevorotatory subquark strings to such a degree as to cause an effect measured to be twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation.

ausgeoff...I told you that you do not know how to perform a proper research; no ad hominem, just the facts.

A true scientist can invent formulas where none exist, fundamental formulas.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1577473#msg1577473

These formulas go way beyond what can be found in the works of Euler, Bernoulli, Lagrange, Jacobi and Gauss, none of them could find/discover a global logarithm formula, but I did.

Inventing formulas means nothing if you don't show them to be true. You made up formulas, you did not discover it.

 

...

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.

Yes, an anomaly will go against the accepted theory. This is why it is an anomaly. This is not your reasoning, this anomaly was already known.(plus you have to ignore all the data that doesn't support the anomaly notion.)

However all three of our experiments exhibited rather brusque variations (the abrupt jumps of the Kiev balances, the humps and particularly the sharp spikes in the Suceava short pendulum charts, and the deviation of the Suceava
long pendulum) which cannot have resulted from linear combination of the gravitational/tidal influences of the Sun
and the Moon, the magnitudes and angles of which vary only gently over the time scales of the effects seen. We
therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.

Ok, an unknown physical influence.

Since the Moon can be seen during the period of a single month, in the morning/evening sky together with the Sun, WITH NOT EVEN A MINUTE/INFINITESIMAL Allais effect, we can conclude that the solar eclipse is not caused by the Moon, but by a different heavenly body, which can and does influence the vibration of the subquark strings (see all my articles on the subject).

What? You said it was unknown. Now you know what it is? Oh right, you just jumped to a random conclusion again. You jumped to what you believe in, which has nothing to do with the experiment. There is nothing in any of the experiments that says the moon doesn't cause a solar eclipse.  The moon can be seen " WITH NOT EVEN A MINUTE/INFINITESIMAL Allais effect" because the Allais effect is said to happen during a solar eclipse. So why the huge jump to the moon does not cause a solar eclipse. And you are trying to call yourself a scientist, a Master or PhD  at that.

Read Dr. Allais report to Nasa: http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf

The periodic components registered during the experiment are inexplicable within the framework of currently accepted theories.

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.

You do not need t repeat yourself.

Such an extraordinary influence/effect means one thing: the heavenly body which does cause the solar eclipse can modify the vibration/energy transmitted to the laevorotatory subquark strings to such a degree as to cause an effect measured to be twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation.

Once again, another huge jump with nothing to back up what you say. All the experiments say is that during a solar ellipse, sometimes anomalies can be seen. Nothing in them says your version of gravity is real. Nothing says your version of gravity accounts for the anomalies. Stop playing scientist, you have no idea what you are doing.

sokarul, you are a numskull who should not be allowed to post here, in the upper forums.

Do your homework before you even dare to post something...


The best scientists of the 19th century believed that there is ANOTHER SATELLITE/PLANET ORBITING THE EARTH, besides the Moon.


That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which
eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


Therefore, I am certainly entitled to say that the Moon could not possibly account for the anomalies in the Allais effect given that the existence of dark bodies revolving about the luminous objects in the firmament has been admitted by practical observers from the earliest ages.



The periodic components registered during the experiment are inexplicable within the framework of currently accepted theories.

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.


Therefore, since already the supposed attractive gravitational effects have been taken into account, the incredible anomalies measured to be twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation, cannot be explained at all in the framework of accepted astrophysics.

Moreover, there is the question of HOW is the energy transmitted to the pendulum from the heavenly body, that is, there must a medium which transmits the vibration/input energy.

It is obvious you have no idea about physics, in general.

For the same supposed law of attractive gravitation, the same accepted masses of the Sun/Moon/Earth, there is an anomaly which measures  twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation - each and every time a solar eclipse occurs.

A true scientist like Dr. Maurice Allais says this:

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field.


A new field means the existence of ether.

In addition, Dr. Allais says: In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.

sokarul, you are a numskull who should not be allowed to post here, in the upper forums.

Well let's just see.

Do your homework before you even dare to post something...

Already did.

The best scientists of the 19th century believed that there is ANOTHER SATELLITE/PLANET ORBITING THE EARTH, besides the Moon.

This is 2014. Should we start blood letting again?

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which
eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

When was the last solar eclipse that wasn't during a new moon or right around it? This should be simple and disprove everything I say.

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

I'm convinced, people I never heard of said so, so they must be right. They also thought the moon was made of cheese.

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

And?

Therefore, I am certainly entitled to say that the Moon could not possibly account for the anomalies in the Allais effect given that the existence of dark bodies revolving about the luminous objects in the firmament has been admitted by practical observers from the earliest ages.

You said the moon couldn't account for the Allais Effect because there is no Allais effect when there is no solar eclipse. So why doesn't the "shadow object" cause the Allais Effect all the time? Seems to me you can claim the same thing in reverse. But you will never do that, because you are so set on your pretend beliefs.

The periodic components registered during the experiment are inexplicable within the framework of currently accepted theories.

And once again, every single measurement was taken on or near a new moon. Why is this? All yo have to do with show a solar eclipse during some time when it's not a new moon.

In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.

There were experiments that found no change.

Therefore, since already the supposed attractive gravitational effects have been taken into account, the incredible anomalies measured to be twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation, cannot be explained at all in the framework of accepted astrophysics.

Once again anomalies are anomalies because they don't fit.

Moreover, there is the question of HOW is the energy transmitted to the pendulum from the heavenly body, that is, there must a medium which transmits the vibration/input energy.

And here is the huge jump out of nowhere. No, there is no evidence that energy is being transmitted. You just made it up. All you have is a supposed anomaly. Nothing more. You think you are a scientist. How many joules of energy is "the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m"?

It is obvious you have no idea about physics, in general.

Because I don't make anything up? Or because I can actually quote everything you say and write a response? You can't even do that.

For the same supposed law of attractive gravitation, the same accepted masses of the Sun/Moon/Earth, there is an anomaly which measures  twenty million to one hundred million times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation - each and every time a solar eclipse occurs.

Just keep pretending you even understand that. And just keep pretending the high tide doesn't follow the moon.
A true scientist like Dr. Maurice Allais says this:

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field.

More experimentation is needed. Do not just to conclusions.

A new field means the existence of ether.

Nope. Pipe dream

In addition, Dr. Allais says: In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.

And the experiments that didn't find anything?

Now let me educate you on experiments.
This was the first experiment I helped run this week. Please note in the picture the reaction vessel is empty. It's in the fish tank.  The gas scrubbers to the left are of course gas scrubbers. The water was chilled to 10 degrees C. The flow meter measured the flow of gas into the vessel and a slight vacuum was pulled on the opposite side, by the scrubbers.

Should I claim the shadow object is real because of this test? No, that would be stupid. The experiment was only to test a certain thing, nothing more.

Moving on, the second phase of the experiment was to do roughly the same thing but at 5 atmospheres. This was done in a titanium autoclave.(Titanium of course having 22 protons which is too scary for you to believe)

Roughly same test with different conditions. Should the new test be taken as the "shadow object" exists? No. Once again, the test experiment was to test a certain thing. In this case they thought the reaction would happen faster. Nothing more.

So I shouldn't be allowed to post in the uppers? Think again. I know what science consists of. I know what it's like to preform expeiments. All you know is how to copy paste things you don't even understand. (Prime example, you cried on and on about Tesla disproving hertzian waves only to admit hertzian waves exist on tfes.org I bet that hurt)

I will say it again, you don't understand so you make whatever claims and jumps you want. Data means nothing.

You actually have the audacity to come here , in the Flat Earth Debate, WITH A WIKIPEDIA SOURCE?

LOL.  I thank you for the best laugh I've had all day sandokhan!  This comment from someone who simply copies and pastes other peoples' research verbatim, and who relies on—literally—dozens of links to other peoples' sites.  I await the day you actually post some of the research results you've obtained with your own resources my friend, rather than that of every other pseudo-scientist on the planet.

ausGeoff...please leave any research in the hands of people who are more capable than you... here, you do not stand a chance with me... not now, not ever.

And LOL again.  If the plethora of links you've already clogged these forums with is any indication of your personal researching abilities, then I've already defeated your nonsensical "arguments".  Unfortunately—for you—you seem to be a sucker for every quack theory promulgated by every nutjob out there.  I can only suggest that you delve more deeply into the accredited sciences which are supported with empirical evidence, and have been for hundreds of years.

One of Maurice Allais's conclusions from the paper you linked:  The effect of the anisotropy of space is proportional to the square of the amplitude of swing of the pendulum and inversely proportional to its length.  This explains why the Foucault effect is disturbed the less the greater the length and the smaller the swing of the pendulum are.  This is total rubbish.  And a non sequitur.

You're obviously unaware that it's been proven as part of the Kennedy-Thorndike, Ives-Stilwell, and Michelson-Morley experiments that the atmosphere is isotropic.

And Allais's so-called "paraconical pendulum" support mechanism has been replaced by friction-free magnetic bearings (which of course were developed after Allais's time), so any anisotropic effects of the atmosphere would be negated anyway if they existed.

To quote any fifty-year-old research carried out by a professor of economics with only an honorary science qualification as the sole source for your claims is truly grasping at straws.  Sorry.

I will say it again, you don't understand so you make whatever claims and jumps you want. Data means nothing.

Data is the last thing sandokhan wants to consider.  He prefers to take the easy way out, and simply copypasta reams of other people's research.  And most of that is more than 100 years old.  You'll note that he never posts any results of his own research.
 
Anybody can post dozens of citations—without having the faintest idea as to what they actually explain.  sandokhan obviously—but mistakenly—thinks that a tsunami of references  will reinforce the silly pseudo-scientific claims he makes.  The poor guy seems to think he's some sort of preeminent philosophical cum scientific guru LOL.
 

ausgeoff...you had no idea what the concept of the center of gravity of a body means.

You could not perform the proper research to discover the following basic facts:


Dayton Miller ether drift results:

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

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

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


Here is the real deal about the Michelson-Morley experiment and the anisotropy of ether:

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

Please read further:


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

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

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


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

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


As I told you before, please leave physics to be discussed by the people who do know the subject.


The Allais effect confirmed by the Lamoreaux experiment: the pressure of ether = terrestrial gravity

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Through.the.Wormhole-Can.We.Travel.Faster.than.Light?ENG.HD

Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University): proof of the existence of negative energy (zero point vacuum energy - that is, subquark strings/telluric currents/magnetic monopoles double torsion strings):

starts at 9:31 (negative energy and pressure gravity experiment)


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

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

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


The Dark Body which does cause the solar eclipse cannot be detected by modern scientific equipment, as this heavenly body emits subquarks and absorbs visible light: that is why its effects can only be measured during a solar eclipse.



Dr. T. Henry Moray observed the SAME TELLURIC CURRENTS/SUBQUARK STRINGS DURING HIS CLASSIC EXPERIMENTS:

During the Christmas Holidays of 1911, I began to fully realize that the energy I was working with was not of a static nature, but of an oscillating nature. Further I realized that the energy was not coming out of the earth, but instead was coming to the earth from some outside source. These electrical oscillations in the form of waves were not simple oscillations, but were surgings --- like the waves of the sea --- coming to the earth continually, more in the daytime than at night, but always coming in vibrations from the reservoir of colossal energy out there in space.


While investigating the output of his device, he discovered a feature of the natural static energy, which had somehow been overlooked by other aerial battery designers. The electrostatic power had a flimmering, pulsating quality to it. He learned of this "static pulsation" while listening through headphones, which were connected to telephone wires. The static came in a single, potent surge. This first "wave" subsided, with numerous "back surges" following. Soon thereafter, the process repeated itself. The static surges came "like ocean waves". Indeed, with the volume of "white noise" which they produced, they sounded like ocean waves!

These peculiar waves did not arrive with "clock precision". Just like ocean waves, they arrived in schedules of their own. Dr. Moray was convinced that these were world-permeating waves. He came to believe that they represented the natural "cadence of the universe". This intriguing characteristic suggested that small amounts of pulsating electrostatic charge might be used to induce large oscillations in a large "tank" of charge.



The Black Sun activates these world-permeating waves (subquark strings) during a solar eclipse: this is the effect measured by Dr. Allais and the other experiments performed during the last 50 years.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1626747#msg1626747

Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)


Orders of magnitude incompatible with current theory

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation, whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
 
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of universal gravitation (pp. 118-129 and Table VII, p. 129).

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic support, this relation is about a hundred million (pp. 285-328).
The discrepancies discovered are enormous, and, as far as I know, unmatched in the literature.

In fact, the results of the experiments of July 1958 confirmed in an electrifying manner my previous reasoning, leading to the conclusion that, in the movement of the paraconical pendulum with anisotropic support, there are anomalies of a periodic character which are totally inexplicable in the framework of currently accepted theories.

All those reposted links and ideas and you still couldn't even respond to me. We all know why. Let it be known he could not find a solar eclipse that happened when the moon wasn't in it's new moon phase. There goes his shadow object idea. That takes all his ideas with it.

ausGeoff...you had no idea what the concept of the center of gravity of a body means.

Wow!  Is this some sort of flat earth forum record?

SIXTEEN links to other people's research data etc in one single comment.  Count 'em folks.

   

I like how, for Sandokhan, Wikipedia is totally out of bounds as a source, even to give a basic example, but an archived copy if some guy's homemade geocities site is treated as some kind of authority.