Flat Earth

[Jd755]

For what its worth, I took fortuna fields post to be sarcastic.

In other news I was playing with the Tiros image of earth and flipped through ninety degrees and the touted 'blue marble' of recent times disappears. That is neither a 3D ball or the mathematical object labelled sphere.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/XvAwLc7FZm2z/

 

[sandokhan]

"200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"

Yes.

All mainstream science has to do is to bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs. Right under the eyes of the geocentrists, the RLG will record rotation (according to the formula published by A. Michelson in 1925).

This, notwithstanding that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac effect. If the orbital Sagnac would be recorded by satellites, the error on the ground would amount to hundreds of meters. To escape this very precise fact (see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna) relativists are now embracing the modified Lorentz ether theory (local-ether theory).

 

[grav]

"200 Proofs Earth Is Not a Spinning Ball"

Yes.

All mainstream science has to do is to bring forth a single ring laser gyroscope, and it's all over for those 200 proofs. Right under the eyes of the geocentrists, the RLG will record rotation (according to the formula published by A. Michelson in 1925).

This, notwithstanding that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, which is much larger in magnitude than the rotational Sagnac effect. If the orbital Sagnac would be recorded by satellites, the error on the ground would amount to hundreds of meters. To escape this very precise fact (see the calculations carried out for the LISA space antenna) relativists are now embracing the modified Lorentz ether theory (local-ether theory).

Yes?
as in 'Yes, we have we no bananas'?
And , yes? a ring laser thingamajig device can nullify ocean water being flat, air needing to rotate 100 mph, Chicago being visible from 50 miles, and 197 other Dubay proofs?
Could it be that the gyroscope is detecting the movement of the dome, not the earth plane ifself? I say yes. Yes, meaning yes.

But yes, I do not think that satellites, as advertised, exist in a highly suspicious region called space. A silly freemason fiction, to have tin boxes careening and zipping around hundreds of miles up, or prowling the vastness of the cosmos. AND, transmitting signals billions and billions of miles back to earth, which -- who is kidding whom -- we can't get close to on terra firma. No cell tower for 3 miles = no signal.

And, yippie yahoo, we get another theory to play with, modified at that!
Modified Lorentz ether THEORY.
Whereas the modified grav theory is provably flat and stationary.

 

[Silent Bob]

I enjoy discussing this topic, whatever your view there is a lot of interesting topics to look at.

Its funny, even before the resurgence of FE around 2015 I had been thinking about this. A few years earlier I wanted to test myself about what I really knew and could prove for myself without having to rely on information from other people. I decided to choose something I knew for certain to be true, something I wouldn't even question normally and the earth being round seemed a good place to start. I very quickly realised that I couldn't prove it all, not without resorting to NASA photos etc. Quite a wake up! So when the FE topic did suddenly have a resurgence I was ready to consider it all with an open mind. I was quickly convinced that FE was possible, but wasn't intially convinced that it was so, just open to the possibility. These days I increasingly find myself thinking that space doesn't really exist as its described to us, so nothing would surprise me anymore.

Also the old Occam's razor argument, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. To say the earth appears flat and stationary because it actually is, is much simpler than explaining orbital mechanics, the maths for which is fiendishly complex! I am a physicist and we love to reduce everything to the status of a sphere in a vaccuum (makes the maths easier!) so it's no surprise we ended up with a RE model. This just about sums us all up


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUwlEdz42xo


I recently was on ebay looking for old book, due to getting interested in history and this forum. I just wanted an old book, didn't really care what it was. The first one I found for decent price, condition and age turned out to be 'The earth is not a globe' by Samual Rowbotham, so I snapped it up - original 1800's copy, seemed like a bargain. What a great read it is too, especially as everything is described in a simple to follow way using classical science, none of todays overly complex maths and relativity etc. I think I prefered science back then! This book pretty much convinced me, although since I have also come across concave earth, hollow earth etc, so who knows! I'll probably go with John Levi's description of a 'realm' as this covers all bases!

Here is a pdf copy of Rowbotham's book for anyone interested, as far as I can see this pdf is true to the original book.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Earth Not a Globe (Samuel Rowbothan).pdf
My favourite experiment is still the Bedford flats, where he rowed the boat 6 miles away whilst watching it with a telescope just above the water level. It should have vanished due to the earth's curvature but didn't of course. The only explanation put forward for this, refraction, doesn't make sense to me. You would need the graded optical refraction, due to air temp differences, to be just right to curve the light in a way which perfectly follows the curvature of the earth. Grasping at straws with that one, I've never heard another attempt to explain it from a RE point of view. This experiement has been repeated many times today, with lasers, but I still like the original one the best! Once again Occam's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation for this, that the earth looks flat because it is, is much more likely than a complex graded refractive index coincidence against all the odds.

If anyone else on here has read the book, what was the main experiment that convinced you? Also any RE's that can explain any of the experiments in the book, i'd be interested to hear what you have to say

 

[Citezenship]

I enjoy discussing this topic, whatever your view there is a lot of interesting topics to look at.

Its funny, even before the resurgence of FE around 2015 I had been thinking about this. A few years earlier I wanted to test myself about what I really knew and could prove for myself without having to rely on information from other people. I decided to choose something I knew for certain to be true, something I wouldn't even question normally and the earth being round seemed a good place to start. I very quickly realised that I couldn't prove it all, not without resorting to NASA photos etc. Quite a wake up! So when the FE topic did suddenly have a resurgence I was ready to consider it all with an open mind. I was quickly convinced that FE was possible, but wasn't intially convinced that it was so, just open to the possibility. These days I increasingly find myself thinking that space doesn't really exist as its described to us, so nothing would surprise me anymore.

Also the old Occam's razor argument, that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. To say the earth appears flat and stationary because it actually is, is much simpler than explaining orbital mechanics, the maths for which is fiendishly complex! I am a physicist and we love to reduce everything to the status of a sphere in a vaccuum (makes the maths easier!) so it's no surprise we ended up with a RE model. This just about sums us all up


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUwlEdz42xo


I recently was on ebay looking for old book, due to getting interested in history and this forum. I just wanted an old book, didn't really care what it was. The first one I found for decent price, condition and age turned out to be 'The earth is not a globe' by Samual Rowbotham, so I snapped it up - original 1800's copy, seemed like a bargain. What a great read it is too, especially as everything is described in a simple to follow way using classical science, none of todays overly complex maths and relativity etc. I think I prefered science back then! This book pretty much convinced me, although since I have also come across concave earth, hollow earth etc, so who knows! I'll probably go with John Levi's description of a 'realm' as this covers all bases!

Here is a pdf copy of Rowbotham's book for anyone interested, as far as I can see this pdf is true to the original book.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Earth Not a Globe (Samuel Rowbothan).pdf
My favourite experiment is still the Bedford flats, where he rowed the boat 6 miles away whilst watching it with a telescope just above the water level. It should have vanished due to the earth's curvature but didn't of course. The only explanation put forward for this, refraction, doesn't make sense to me. You would need the graded optical refraction, due to air temp differences, to be just right to curve the light in a way which perfectly follows the curvature of the earth. Grasping at straws with that one, I've never heard another attempt to explain it from a RE point of view. This experiement has been repeated many times today, with lasers, but I still like the original one the best! Once again Occam's razor would suggest that the simplest explanation for this, that the earth looks flat because it is, is much more likely than a complex graded refractive index coincidence against all the odds.

If anyone else on here has read the book, what was the main experiment that convinced you? Also any RE's that can explain any of the experiments in the book, i'd be interested to hear what you have to say

Yes I read this book on a beach in Goa(India)Jan 2016, looking out on the Arabian sea and just by luck the friend i was traveling with said to me as i was reading it, that the view was so amazing that he could see the curvature of the earth, he was very shocked when I said all I could see was a strait line, we talked a bit more and then i said watch for a boat to go over the horizon and disappear, then have a look through your camera and zoom in as much as you can, the boat reappeared but he could not accept what his own eyes and mind was telling him, the programming was just to strong!

 

[grav]

@Silent Bob, I'm still rolling the "spherical --×-- in a vacuum" around in my mind.
And I don't get it. Sorry. Does math predict something in a vacuum?
or is it one of those impossible scenarios. Schrodinger's cat ?

A real physicist in a forum. That must be a first!
Have you ever talked about FE to your colleagues?
Example, air.
On earth we have 1 atmosphere of 14.7 psi.
At 62 miles, the Karman line, air pressure is virtually nil.
When I checked the Ideal Gas Law/s, all the equations have volume in their equations.
If volume is infinity, then should there not be an equilibrium of gas particles everywhere?

This is when Globe defenders trot out Gravity. We FEers call it grabbity.
This "force" supposedly velcroes air and oceans to the many-mach spinning and vortexing ball.
And when we point to clouds and smoke as exceptions to the grabbity rule, here comes another theory. Big Bang, special relativity, dark matter, the list goes on and on.
Theories and manmade constants have dragged Modern Science into the mud. Do you agree? I would also ask if it can be fixed but ha ha. Scientists and medical doctors are so suppressed and oppressed. Publish or perish. I used to think that perish referred to academic status, or a teaching position or pension. The truth may be more the origunal meaning of the verb. Perish.

 

[cnut]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGPhjptxwow

hello,
This is my first time using this format, so please bear with me.
I would like to share a video that discusses long distance photography and the
Antarctica midnight sun, in relation to the shape of the earth.
Titled :
20200426 Globalists and their Lies Prove the Earth is Flat


Taboo Conspiracy [Mirror]

A bit crude, but makes very relevant points.
The people behind taboo conspiracy woke a lot of
people up. At 40 seconds in you will see the humble
Auntie Grav, dedicating her time to spreading the truth,
and standing her ground. She deserves respect.
And I applaud the new sh for allowing this discussion, without
the nonsense.
Thanks,
cnut

 

[sandokhan]

Could it be that the gyroscope is detecting the movement of the dome, not the earth plane ifself?

The two domes are fixed (first dome separates our atmosphere from the high density ether which provides the rotational gravitational force which keeps the planets/stars moving; the second dome contains these stellar/planetary orbits).

Only the ether drift can rotate above the surface of the Earth.

However, the round earth believers will smile and show you the results of the Michelson-Gale experiment (1925), where Michelson detected fringe shifts which he promptly assigned as being a proof of the rotation of the Earth (he claimed that his formula is the SAGNAC EFFECT formula). Every ring laser gyroscope will also detect rotation, the formula used for the RLGs is the one derived by Michelson.

You then might say: "well, this is not the Sagnac effect, but the Coriolis effect of the ether drift". Then, you will be kindly asked to provide such a formula. Do you have a Sagnac effect formula for the MGX? You do not. Einstein, Lorentz, Michelson, Post could not provide one. So the RE win all the way, no matter how many proofs (200 or 500) are presented which show that the Earth is not rotating.

Michelson provided the biggest subterfuge in the history of science (Kepler's fake data in Nova Astronomia, Newton's fake attractive gravitational force pale by comparison): he assigned the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula to the SAGNAC EFFECT.

"Sagnac effect is a change in propagation time for light going in a closed path. The time delay Δt appears when a test equipment is rotated with an angular velocity Ώ. Sagnac effect is frequently used in rate gyros in navigational systems. Fiber optics is used with light-speed c inside the fiber in a circular light path. The difference in propagation time Δt for two opposite directions of light is described as

Δt = 4AΩ/c^2

Where A is enclosed area. Δt is derived based on an integration of Ω over A.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area. This interpretation gives

Δt = 4vL/c^2

producing the same value as the earlier expression. This can also be demonstrated by geometrical relations. These two integrations have different physical implications. We must therefore decide which one is correct from a physical aspect. Mathematics can not tell us that. So the decision is whether the effect is caused by a rotating area or by a translating line. Since Sagnac effect is an effect in light that is enclosed inside an optical fiber we can conclude that Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area. No light and no rotation exists in the enclosed area. Sagnac detected therefore an effect of translation although he had to rotate the equipment to produce the effect inside the fiber.

We conclude that the later expression

Δt = 4vL/c^2

is the correct interpretation."

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2159

"Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over a surface. The assumption that starts from an integration over a surface (2Aw; rotation) is mathematically correct (due to Stokes' rule) but equal to a line integral (vL; translation). We must decide if the reason is a translating line or a rotating surface from a physical point of view. The rotation theory is correct only mathematically. Since the effect is locked inside an optical fiber the translating line is the correct interpretation. Classification as a rotational effect is wrong."

Professor Ruyong Wang has proven the Sagnac effect applies to uniform/translational/linear motion:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/ruwang/ION58PROCEEDINGS.pdf


Therefore, the formula for the Sagnac phase shift which features the area and the angular velocity IS INCORRECT. Only the formula which includes the linear velocity is CORRECT.


You see, Georges Sagnac used the formula which features an AREA to describe the effect he discovered (an earlier version was provided by Oliver Lodge), since at that time (1913) no one understood that Stokes' theorem could be applied to an interferometer.

Michelson picked up Sagnac's omission and went all the way with it in 1925.

MGX experiment (nine consecutive messages):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2024700#msg2024700
MMX experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2041450#msg2041450

Then, the RE will use the HAMMAR experiment to finally put to rest geocentricity. However, Hammar also made a huge error, which has remained undetected (until now) for almost 80 years:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2031383#msg2031383

More details on the MGX experiment:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2049574#msg2049574
Advanced Flat Earth Theory (five consecutive messages)


Unless you can provide the correct SAGNAC EFFECT formula for the MGX, the RE will always win.

Here is the correct Sagnac effect formula for the MGX:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)


Coriolis effect vs Sagnac effect:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (three consecutive messages)

Superluminal Sagnac effect - subluminal Coriolis effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2234148#msg2234148

Kassner effect: the Coriolis effect is not related to the Sagnac effect

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

 

[grav]

We talk about the ether, or aether, as if science has its true nature nailed down.
Nicola Tesla, who actually invented useful things, called light the luminferous ether.
Theoretical physics defines the aether loosely, as packets of energy called protons.
Then, there's liquid gravity, black holes, and all manner of mysterious faces of energy and/or matter.

As @Silent Bob mentioned, Occam would not approve of the flights of fantasy of theoreticians who make up alphabetic constants to finagle their hoohah equations.
My definition goes with Occam. The aether is electricity. Period.
Positive and negative charges in a solid mass. No empty spaces. Just lines of configurations of +++___,+_+_+++ and an infinity of variations.

No damned proton or idiotic electron shell. Just dielectric particles..
Now this business of ether drift, it seems to me that it was thunk up to prove that earth moved through space, though no proof of outer space exists.

@sandokhan claims there are two domes, both of which are stationary.
It is the stars inside them which move, right?
Maybe like lights flowing through a plastic rope of a Christmas tree light.

- - - - - - internet search for ether drift -->


Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson | Nature

www.nature.com › news
Abstract. THE Michelson-Morley experiment for determining the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether, the “ether-drift experiment,” was ...
The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth * | Nature

www.nature.com › news
The ether-drift experiment first suggested by A Maxwell in 1878 and made possible by Michelson's invention of the interferometer in 1881, though suitable for the detection of the general absolute motion of the earth, was actually applied for detecting only the known orbital component of the earth's motion.
Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
(1933). "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth". Reviews of Modern Physics. 5 (3): 203–242 ... Aether theories · Albert A. Michelson · Edward W. Morley
The classical ether-drift experiments: a modern re-interpretation

arxiv.org › physics
Feb 12, 2013 · In spite of this, the so called `null results' of the classical ether-drift experiments, traditionally interpreted as confirmations of Special Relativity, have so deeply influenced scientific thought as to prevent a ...

 

[sandokhan]

Aether is the medium through which ether propagates.

Ether = transverse subquark waves through which longitudinal boson strings flow

Quarks consist of three subquarks, mesons have six subquarks, baryons have nine subquarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.


TELLURIC CURRENTS are represented by double torsion waves of BOTH laevorotatory (antigravity) and dextrorotatory (terrestrial gravity) subquarks.

A single subquark has some 14 billion bosons and antibosons.

Electricity = flow of bosons through subquark waves

Time is a torsion potential or a scalar wave.

Time is the dextrorotatory scalar wave (subquark string), or terrestrial gravity.

Anti-time is the laevorotatory scalar wave, or antigravity.

Space-time fabric is the aether (the medium) through which scalar waves propagate (ether), these scalar waves are called time and anti-time (terrestrial gravity and antigravity).

The flow of time and anti-time can cause matter to either increase or decrease in weight.

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.

Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.


A magnet has two streams of particles which flow N - S but also S - N.

 

[Citezenship]

The external rays which disintegrate matter are telluric currents of dextrorotatory spin.

I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???

 

[sandokhan]

Here is the story of one of the most distinguished American physicists ever, Dr. T. Henry Moray: everything you want to know about telluric currents, and the true source of radioactivity.

ETERNAL LANTERNS (Electric Rock, Ground Energy, The Swedish Stone, Crucible of the Stars, Space Rays, Photonuclear Reactors, Sea of Energy, Radioactive Impulses, sections)

Right-handed ether waves increase the weight, have a disintegrating effect on matter. Left-handed ether waves sustain life, lower the weight.

Dextrorotatory subquark waves = terrestrial gravity = time

Laevorotatory subquark waves = antigravity = anti-time

 

[Citezenship]

Here is the story of one of the most distinguished American physicists ever, Dr. T. Henry Moray: everything you want to know about telluric currents, and the true source of radioactivity.

ETERNAL LANTERNS (Electric Rock, Ground Energy, The Swedish Stone, Crucible of the Stars, Space Rays, Photonuclear Reactors, Sea of Energy, Radioactive Impulses, sections)

Right-handed ether waves increase the weight, have a disintegrating effect on matter. Left-handed ether waves sustain life, lower the weight.

Dextrorotatory subquark waves = terrestrial gravity = time

Laevorotatory subquark waves = antigravity = anti-time

Okay lets forget the words, why don't you give us a visual demonstration!

 

[sandokhan]

Sure thing.

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

 

[codis]

I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???

There seem to be gateways to a magic dimension we mortals (me and you) have not discovered yet.

 

[Citezenship]

I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???

There seem to be gateways to a magic dimension we mortals (me and you) have not discovered yet.

Do you think i can get there by meditating???

 

[sandokhan]

I think the only spin here is yours, where the hell are you getting this shit from???

There seem to be gateways to a magic dimension we mortals (me and you) have not discovered yet.

But you have already.

“Time is the most important and most enigmatic peroperty of nature. Time is not propagated like light waves; it appears immediately everywhere.” – Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev

"Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, a respected Russian astrophysicist, announced almost fifty years ago that he had discovered a new force in physics that he called the “density of time.” He concluded that the rate at which time passes can be altered by other physical processes."

Kozyrev: Aether, Time and Torsion

CHAPTER 01: THE BREAKTHROUGHS OF DR. N.A. KOZYREV

http://www.fountainmagazine.com/Issue/detail/revisiting-november-2014

“After years of careful experiments, Dr. Kozyrev and his colleagues found that in a left-hand rotating system the time flow is positive-it adds energy. In a right-hand system the time flow is negative. ... In Dr. Kozyrev's view our world is a left-hand system and it has a positive time flow that adds energy to our universe.

Time not only has a pattern of flow, says Dr. Kozyrev, but also a rate of flow. He calls "the rate of flow" the difference between cause and effect. "As the rate of the time flow through a substance changes, weight is lost," Dr. Kozyrev told us.”

Biohomochirality and Terrestrial Gravity


Some molecules come in left– and right-handed forms that are mirror images of each other (i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.). All biological proteins are composed of only left-handed amino acids. How this could have come about in a primordial soup has long been a puzzle to origin-of-life researchers, since both L (levo, left-handed) and D (dextro, right-handed) forms react indiscriminately.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.


Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.


http://we.vub.ac.be/~dglg/Web/Teaching/Les/Orlifequestions/Cronin-Reisse.pdf (origins of biohomochirality, an unsolved problem)

Origin of life: the chirality problem - creation.com (the best work on the problem of biohomochirality)

Mystery of the Left-Handed Proteins: Solved? | CEH (biohomochirality still unsolved)

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2006/files/Rajan.pdf


The latest attempt to try to solve the biohomochirality problem (salt induced peptides formation and the more recent work on potassium ions Potassium ions are more effective than sodium ions in salt induced peptide formation - PubMed ) has many unresolved major problems:

http://books.google.ro/books?id=5ZGUD49fMcAC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=origin+of+salt+in+ocean+water+peptides+primordial+soup&source=bl&ots=FcdmUK6LXN&sig=oCgbOFYcBHsJp2SQ24xQJVxOozY&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TFWCUcOrAoXatAaGjoGADA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=origin of salt in ocean water peptides primordial soup&f=false

Oldies but baddies — AF repeats NCSE’s eight challenges to ID (from ten years ago) | Uncommon Descent (comments 282 and 305)


The best proofs from molecular biology and genetics which prove the theory of evolution to be just a myth:

What evidence is found for the first life on earth? (the best work on the proofs from molecular biology and genetics which demolish evolutionism)


The origin of biohomochirality is to be found in the physics of the subquark.

Dr.T. Henry Moray:

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.

Terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).



Origin of life: the chirality problem - creation.com

God left handed - creation.com

Right-Handed Amino Acids: Can They Smack Down the Evolutionist's Chirality Problem?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140921043113/https://creationresearch.org/members-only/crsq/50/50_2/CRSQ Fall 2013 lo res bookmarked for web.pdf

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/homochirality_i059531.html

http://www.creationismonline.com/YEC/The_Origin_Of_Life.pdf



The most extensive experiments with anti-time (using the implosion of the atom on mercury) were performed by the knights of the black sun (thule and vril societies): the Kronos Projekt (Die Glocke).

 

[Potato]

"Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev, a respected Russian astrophysicist, announced almost fifty years ago that he had discovered a new force in physics that he called the “density of time.” He concluded that the rate at which time passes can be altered by other physical processes."

I'm going to dumb-down this conversation to ask a question. Is there a correlation between this left-handed motion and the "widdershins" perambulation practiced in magickal workings or the haj of mecca?

Widdershins definition:

Widdershins is a Scottish term (Lowland Scots) meaning counterclockwise or against the sun. The Scottish Gaelic term is tuathal, which means “Northerly”. The opposite direction is deosil or, more correctly, deiseal, or sunwise (clockwise). The term Widdershins is also used to mean any direction that isn’t the proper or usual way.

Traditionally, it is bad luck to move widdershins around a building or person while walking deiseal confers good luck and protection. Walking widdershins around a church is especially unlucky. According to the fairy tale, Childe Rowland, running widdershins around a church may get you transported to the land of the fae and the story of Fairy Cross Plain tells of a boy who danced widdershins nine times around a faery ring and fell under their control.

Many modern magical practitioners will move widdershins only when “undoing” a magickal action, such as opening a circle. Some will walk widdershins when doing banishing magick and curses and deiseal for drawing and healing magic.

Perambulation:

(2) Perambulation.

In the absence of the cubic stone this ceremony has rather lost its point. In all the ancient mysteries this perambulation was observed and a similar custom is common in both religious and magical ceremonies; the number of rounds is usually either three or seven. It was until quite recent years common in all parts of the British Isles especially in regard to "holy" wells, and in many parts of the world the fields were annually protected by means of a procession carrying lighted torches; in Scotland this custom was observed on Halloween up to the last century. (31) The rule appears to be that when a blessing is intended the course of the sun is followed, but in black magic the perambulation was performed against the sun, which has the general meaning of Death. Muslims, however, perambulate the Kaaba at Mecca seven times against the sun, and the WaYao (Central Africa) do the same round a model of the sacred mountain.

An Examination Of The Masonic Ritual - MM (themasonictrowel.com)

Or even the Whirling Dervish dancers:

The dervish whirls counter-clockwise with the right arm directed upwards (towards the heavens) and the left turned towards the earth. During the dance, the dervishes enter a hyperconscious state. This is all done while maintaining their perfect physical balance, which includes making small rocking movements with the hands, arms and head as they spin.

Sufi Meditation and Positive Mental Health (stressresilientmind.co.uk)

 

[Silent Bob]

@Silent Bob, I'm still rolling the "spherical --×-- in a vacuum" around in my mind.
And I don't get it. Sorry. Does math predict something in a vacuum?
or is it one of those impossible scenarios. Schrodinger's cat ?

A real physicist in a forum. That must be a first!
Have you ever talked about FE to your colleagues?
Example, air.
On earth we have 1 atmosphere of 14.7 psi.
At 62 miles, the Karman line, air pressure is virtually nil.
When I checked the Ideal Gas Law/s, all the equations have volume in their equations.
If volume is infinity, then should there not be an equilibrium of gas particles everywhere?

This is when Globe defenders trot out Gravity. We FEers call it grabbity.
This "force" supposedly velcroes air and oceans to the many-mach spinning and vortexing ball.
And when we point to clouds and smoke as exceptions to the grabbity rule, here comes another theory. Big Bang, special relativity, dark matter, the list goes on and on.
Theories and manmade constants have dragged Modern Science into the mud. Do you agree? I would also ask if it can be fixed but ha ha. Scientists and medical doctors are so suppressed and oppressed. Publish or perish. I used to think that perish referred to academic status, or a teaching position or pension. The truth may be more the origunal meaning of the verb. Perish.

The joke is usually only understood by geeky physicists so don't worry! With any physical problem it is easiest to assume you are dealing with a sphere, like with charges for example. This is because we can calculate everything from one variable, the radius. Any other shape would be more complex to calculate things such as volume, surface area etc. Then we like to assume that whatever we're talking about is in a vacuum so that we don't have to account for interactions with other particles. So the only way we can work out the maths is if we assume the simplest case of a sphere in a vacuum even though real life is never like this. Yes, I know

Here's another - A physicist gets stopped for speeding in his car. The police officer asks him 'Can you tell me how fast you were going?' to which the Physicist replies, 'No, but I can tell you exactly where I am!' - This is to do with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle

I don't really talk FE with colleagues, if they've never looked into it for themselves they will just assume I am joking. I've discussed the golbal warming myth with them and the danger of vaccines, can have good debates on these subjects, but FE would be too mind bending for most of them!

You make a good point about Boyles law, it assumes a closed system which doesn't interact with anything outside. I can still remember one of my lecturers repeating how closed systems never exist in reality so these our only approximate models! I can't explain how our atmosphere could be contained without borders within an infinite vacuum, it makes my head hurt to try.....

The gravity argument always confuses me. I still believe there is a force pulling everything down, this is what converts mass into weight. I know where you're coming from with density and buoyoncy but these only exist if we have a force pulling or pushing on them. So what I mean is that on a FE model we still need a force pulling everything down, whether you call it gravity or something else. However, the existance of gravity doesn't favour the RE or FE model, it would work for both. The same lecturer I mentioned above always used to stress that we don't know what gravity is, only what it does. If you try and describe gravity you just end up stating what it does, or describe it as a force. The same applies to a force, we know what it does but we don't know what it is. Just because you develop maths which can predict how something works accurately doesn't mean that you actually know or undertstand the mechanism of what is actually happening.

As for Big Bang, special relativity, dark matter etc, once more the same lecturer I mentioned above had plenty to say about this, you can actually hear him for yourself as he appeared on a thunderbolts podcast to talk about some of this stuff. Basically he confirms what you say about modern science being dragged into the mud! I won't be getting fixed anytime soon, I have helped apply for grants for research and they all want to know how your research meets all this bollocks criteria - the point being that if you don't go along with everything mainstream you won't get any funding, where as if you produce positive results for their pet projects you'll be successful.....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnQ8UybIdAU