Flat Earth

[sandokhan]

Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment

Latitude: 42.4166°

λ(He:Ne) = 632 nm

L = 3.6 m

https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf

GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES

I already did.

"In the bowels of the Gran Sasso, under 1,400 metres of rock, in addition to the big experiments for dark matter and neutrinos research, the INFN National Laboratories are home to the world's most sensitive instrument for measuring the Earth's rotation."


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&list=PL6pxt28A6Kr698HhssWZu9ldtEDknhKJ_&index=2&t=0s


Or google with "ring laser gyroscope rotation of the earth".

"If you have a problem about the idea of detecting earth's rotation, maybe you should look at the GPS data. GPS receivers need to calculate the rotation of the earth every second of every day, by determining the Sagnac delay, which is the motion of the earth's surface receiver with respect to the satellite in the time of flight period of the microwave transmission. If the earth wasn't rotating, it would cause a range error of up to +/-30 meters. Seeing as GPS can determine position down to cm or even mm, the rate of rotation of the earth at all latitudes can be determined with quite high precision. "

Denial is no longer an option.

Do the GPS satellites experience a Sagnac delay? That is the much more important issue.

 

[cnut]

interesting,
Inertial Navigation - Forty Years of Evolution (imar-navigation.de)

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

Gran Sasso, Italy - GINGERino experiment

Latitude: 42.4166°

λ(He:Ne) = 632 nm

L = 3.6 m

https://home.infn.it/newsletter-eu/pdf/NEWSLETTER_INFN_35_inglese_10.pdf

GINGERINO: THE MOST SENSITIVE METER OF THE EARTH'S ROTATION IS AT THE GRAN SASSO LABORATORIES

I already did.

"In the bowels of the Gran Sasso, under 1,400 metres of rock, in addition to the big experiments for dark matter and neutrinos research, the INFN National Laboratories are home to the world's most sensitive instrument for measuring the Earth's rotation."


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy_9J_c9Kss&list=PL6pxt28A6Kr698HhssWZu9ldtEDknhKJ_&index=2&t=0s


Or google with "ring laser gyroscope rotation of the earth".

"If you have a problem about the idea of detecting earth's rotation, maybe you should look at the GPS data. GPS receivers need to calculate the rotation of the earth every second of every day, by determining the Sagnac delay, which is the motion of the earth's surface receiver with respect to the satellite in the time of flight period of the microwave transmission. If the earth wasn't rotating, it would cause a range error of up to +/-30 meters. Seeing as GPS can determine position down to cm or even mm, the rate of rotation of the earth at all latitudes can be determined with quite high precision. "

Denial is no longer an option.

Do the GPS satellites experience a Sagnac delay? That is the much more important issue.

I am not denying anything. I am merely pointing out the lack of evidence that the earth is rotating or moving in any way. I have not found a single DEMONSTRATION of this instrument being used to try to prove that the earth is anything other than standing still. Stating that GPS satellites experience a Sagnac delay proves nothing. I see no evidence that satellites even exist, other than from mainstream science propaganda "experts".

A simple experiment putting the laser gyroscope to task would plenty suffice to put the matter at rest, but no such experiment exists. If it did, that is, if we had ANY experiment proving that the earth rotates, then there would not be 200+ proofs that the earth is not a spinning ball, because if there is even one proof, then we could establish hundreds of proofs. I do not understand why you keep restating a theory as a fact without supplying the necessary proof to support the theory. The experts have not made their burden either, or else we would have a demonstration to put the final nail in the proverbial coffin.

Until you can demonstrate that the earth is rotating, beyond theoretical formulas and consensus from experts that depend on arcane, unproven mathematical formulas, animations and models in place of real repeatable, verifiable, trial and experiment, you are wasting everyone's time.

 

[sandokhan]

You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.

You cannot.

Live, RLG Sagnac effect beat frequency:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYkisyOZvs


Rotation of the Earth using a gyrocompass, live:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z291HWPNtc



Use "gyrocompass rotation of the earth" to search on youtube.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.

You cannot.

Live, RLG Sagnac effect beat frequency:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYkisyOZvs


Rotation of the Earth using a gyrocompass, live:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z291HWPNtc



Use "gyrocompass rotation of the earth" to search on youtube.

This is a demonstration of magnetism, not of measuring spin or rotation. Notice the device has to be in water, so it acts like a compass. If the earth was moving or rotating, you would be able to detect the motion by simply placing anywhere on the earth. The experiment in the video above does not prove the earth is rotating.
[automerge]1607968566[/automerge]

You seem to be denying both the Sagnac effect on a light interferometer, and the existence of the ring laser gyroscope.

You cannot.

Live, RLG Sagnac effect beat frequency:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IYkisyOZvs


Rotation of the Earth using a gyrocompass, live:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z291HWPNtc



Use "gyrocompass rotation of the earth" to search on youtube.

This is a demonstration of magnetism, not of measuring spin or rotation. Notice the device has to be in water, so it acts like a compass. If the earth was moving or rotating, you would be able to detect the motion by simply placing anywhere on the earth. The experiment in the video above does not prove the earth is rotating.

View: https://youtu.be/esBaHppmhTQ

This is a long presentation, but goes a long way to debunking mainstream science's approach to physics. Please watch this and give me your analysis if you're interested and willing. Otherwise, let's just agree to disagree. The evidence you have presented thus far does not convince me of a rotating earth. Thank you for the lively discussion and I look forward to your analysis of above video. Cheers

 

[sandokhan]

This is a demonstration of magnetism, not of measuring spin or rotation. Notice the device has to be in water, so it acts like a compass.

No.

A gyrocompass is a type of non-magnetic compass which is based on a fast-spinning disc and the rotation of the Earth to find geographical direction automatically.

"The electric motor contains a permanent magnet, and that magnet is affected by the Earth's magnetic field, making the boat act like a magnetic compass. I added additional permanent magnets in approximately the opposite orientation to minimize the magnetic compass effect so that the gyrocompass effect would be as strong as possible."


"How is the gyrocompass like a passenger experiencing a catch-up force? As you say, the water, table, and boat are already rotating with the Earth, so they experience no catch-up torque. But the flywheel is not rotating with the Earth; it is rotating in a different direction. A rigid object can only spin around one axis at a time, and the flywheel's spin axis is not aligned with the Earth's rotation axis. If the gyro were bolted to the Earth, as a passenger, the Earth would force the flywheel's spin axis direction to change over time. Spin direction only changes due to an applied torque, just as linear speed only changes due to an applied force. That is the passenger torque. The next part of your comment refers to what I call an "ideal gyroscope": a gyroscope with perfectly balanced and frictionless gimbals, able to turn in any direction. First, note that an ideal gyroscope does not care about motion at all, since that involves linear forces, and its gimbals are perfectly balanced so that linear forces are not transmitted to the flywheel. What an ideal gyroscope cares about is absolute direction*; specifically, because there is no friction or imbalance, it experiences no torque, so its spin axis direction in 3D space will remain constant. So, if an ideal gyro's spin axis is pointed at a motionless asteroid, it will remain pointed at it *if the asteroid is infinitely far away. But the gyrocompass is not an ideal gyroscope because it is constrained to rotate in the horizontal plane. It therefore experiences the "passenger catch-up" torque I explained above; again, think about what the flywheel would feel if its spin axis could not rotate at all with respect to the Earth's surface, as the Earth rotates. For reasons explained in the video, in a gyrocompass, that torque causes the flywheel's spin axis to precess until it is pointing North, such that the spin axis is as close to the Earth's spin axis as it can get. It will then continue to point North because any time it deviates (for example, because it wants to keep pointing in the same direction in 3D space), it immediately feels the restoring torque caused by the Earth's rotation. There is no need to calibrate the gyrocompass ahead of time; it always seeks North (or South, if you use the left-hand rule instead) because it always seeks to align its own spin axis with the Earth's."

This is a long presentation, but goes a long way to debunking mainstream science's approach to physics.

That's something else entirely.

You must understand that a gyrocompass is a non-magnetic compass.

 

[Jd755]

Intriguing stuff Bob.
The thing that is bouncing about here in this tiny mind is the how the up and down motion gets translated into the illusion of a wave.

We get told all the time that waves are visual evidence of frequencies and indeed machines such as oscilloscopes are built to show us wave patterns and we seem to have no trouble conflating frequency and wave into one amalgam. That sound changes pitch seems an obvious thing to say but again frequency comes into the reckoning and we end up seeing waves everywhere when the reality seems to be waves are purely illusory only gaining the impression of reality through our trained perception.
Our 'wild' perception on the other hand knows they are illusions, least mine does since we began this written conversation.

Our eyes seem to be made to not actually lets us see the up and down motions for what they are no matter what medium is waving yet they do. Watch a young tree in a wind and it becomes obvious it is being pushed one way by the wind and which overcomes the push of its internal bits n bobs which which want it to remain perpendicular to the ground. When the wind 'push' drops enough the trees 'push' moves it back to the perpendicular and if the drop is sudden and the sapling is strong enough it will push it beyond the perpendicular in the direction the was pushing from then it comes back to the perpendicular.
Having written that out which is essentially up and down done horizontally, it occurs that the wind may well be pushing it past the perpendicular in concert with the upward push of the tree's internals.

As there is no way to check the 'space vacuum's existence but given this atmosphere is pressured the odds favour it being mythical, it has to be the case that the electromagnetism going up and down does so in pressrised atmosphere's. I know we can create near vacuums within this pressurised atmosphere and prove that electromagnetism passes through and across the vacuum and its container.I don't know of any experiments or examples of an electromagnet being energised within a vacuum but surely such a thing would prove the vacuum is no barrier to whatever is pushing the magentism up and down.

Your description of what Feynman said sounds very much like our act of breathing. In our case muscles are flexed to push the gases out and thus overcome the atmospheric pressure as it is termed but our muscular push is not sustainable unlike the atmospheric push which seems to be inexhaustible ergo a constant.
We have to breath harder in other words push with more effort the further away we get from the water vapour and liquid water boundary so this must mean that the push pressure from the atmosphere is lessening with our increase in height. I know this is counter intuitive to people brought up on oxygen levels being the cause of breathlessness at height.

Taking another leap out of our indoctrinated reality it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the pressure increases as it approaches the liquid vapour boundary because it cannot fully penetrate the boundary. The boundary itself being the throttle so to speak.
It doesn't seem to bounce back so it could be that there is different things going on within the pushing force. We get pushed, pun intended, into the direction that the 'ether' is a thing, one sole thing and it never enters our thinking that it may be two or more things.
Could it be a pushing force made up of pushing forces working in both directions in the same way Erics magnet machine revealed the reality that the wave is simply up and down or in and out and as we know and can prove to ourselves ad infinitum, there is no down without up.

 

[Safranek]

They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for flight dynamics, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.

The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.

But that is a formula for a globe.

That is why no other FE has ever been able to tackle this issue, not Rowbotham, not anyone else.

If we use the FE ballistic trajectory formula, the target will be missed badly.
[automerge]1607959288[/automerge]
Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?

Ok, so you seem to have left a hint you didn't elaborate on.

Is g a constant?

If not, are there other variables influencing it within or external to the 'false' formula?

Do you know of any sources who have become aware of and tried to tackle this issue successfully?

I dont care about complicated formulas. Are you able to debunk these both videos?

Both videos proof that theres no Earths Curvature.

Let's keep one thing in mind. Sandokhan is not saying the earth is round. He is pointing out a scientific standing that seems to have stuck (not proven wrong to date) regarding ballistic trajectories. There is a working formula which works (reflects reality accurately) and this is used scientifically against FE arguments.

The issue is NOT whether you or anyone else cares about 'complicated formulas' or not. A complicated formula is a relative term, complicated for some, straight-forward for some.

If there's one thing that all people seriously questioning the shape of our realm SHOULD agree on, it is the fact that mathematics is the language that can accurately describe any physical phenomena, hence why it is and always has been the language of physics. (Yes it is also the language describing theoretical physics but that's another thing altogether, 'theoretical' aptly describes it.)

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

For example you can have two artists painting a scene where

one is actually painting the scene having experienced it and it can be verified by physically going to the scene and confirming what was painted via comparison,

while another artist is painting the scene without having seen it and theorizes regarding the particulars of the scene. When trying to confirm his painting, it will differ from the actual scene as it is theoretical, not from his experience and thereby not being able to confirm reality when put through the test by comparing it to the actual physical scene as in the first case.

It can be done with paint and it can be done with math. Not the best metaphor but the best I came up with on short notice.

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

Having said that, like paint, math is flexible up to a point and can be manipulated into demonstrating reality by using the right variables and constants.

Speaking of points:

Bill Gaede: What's the point?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU


Him and Stephen Crothers were two of my influences when I was starting to try to understand the math behind theoretical physics. When the math became to complex and time-consuming to understand, I unfortunately postponed that study indefinitely.

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

Back to the topic. So I hope we all agree that math CAN accurately define reality.

So my questions now are these?

In the RE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

1 Are we defining any constant(s) as a variable(s) or vica versa?

My guess would be yes as the RE formula obviously omits the ether.

2. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate

3. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

4. Does the formula omit any variables or constants to derive it's accurate result?

In the FE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

On the basis of what the result of the formula you've posted is (missing by a long-shot) , then I'd venture to say the we don't.

I mean you posted one but its NOT an accurate formula for BT it it doesn't work.

Thus;

1. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate?

2. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

With ether missing my guess would be a yes for 1 and a no for 2.

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

Now for the best part.

1. Do we have any sources of anyone in physics who considered the ether and its effect on 'gravity' who has provided any data regarding its physical and scientific characteristics mathematically and/or with actual experiments?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then who, when and how can we incorporate it into a BT formula that actually works?

If no, then there's a long road ahead.
[automerge]1607987471[/automerge]

Intriguing stuff Bob.
The thing that is bouncing about here in this tiny mind is the how the up and down motion gets translated into the illusion of a wave.

We get told all the time that waves are visual evidence of frequencies and indeed machines such as oscilloscopes are built to show us wave patterns and we seem to have no trouble conflating frequency and wave into one amalgam. That sound changes pitch seems an obvious thing to say but again frequency comes into the reckoning and we end up seeing waves everywhere when the reality seems to be waves are purely illusory only gaining the impression of reality through our trained perception.
Our 'wild' perception on the other hand knows they are illusions, least mine does since we began this written conversation.

Our eyes seem to be made to not actually lets us see the up and down motions for what they are no matter what medium is waving yet they do. Watch a young tree in a wind and it becomes obvious it is being pushed one way by the wind and which overcomes the push of its internal bits n bobs which which want it to remain perpendicular to the ground. When the wind 'push' drops enough the trees 'push' moves it back to the perpendicular and if the drop is sudden and the sapling is strong enough it will push it beyond the perpendicular in the direction the was pushing from then it comes back to the perpendicular.
Having written that out which is essentially up and down done horizontally, it occurs that the wind may well be pushing it past the perpendicular in concert with the upward push of the tree's internals.

As there is no way to check the 'space vacuum's existence but given this atmosphere is pressured the odds favour it being mythical, it has to be the case that the electromagnetism going up and down does so in pressrised atmosphere's. I know we can create near vacuums within this pressurised atmosphere and prove that electromagnetism passes through and across the vacuum and its container.I don't know of any experiments or examples of an electromagnet being energised within a vacuum but surely such a thing would prove the vacuum is no barrier to whatever is pushing the magentism up and down.

Your description of what Feynman said sounds very much like our act of breathing. In our case muscles are flexed to push the gases out and thus overcome the atmospheric pressure as it is termed but our muscular push is not sustainable unlike the atmospheric push which seems to be inexhaustible ergo a constant.
We have to breath harder in other words push with more effort the further away we get from the water vapour and liquid water boundary so this must mean that the push pressure from the atmosphere is lessening with our increase in height. I know this is counter intuitive to people brought up on oxygen levels being the cause of breathlessness at height.

Taking another leap out of our indoctrinated reality it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the pressure increases as it approaches the liquid vapour boundary because it cannot fully penetrate the boundary. The boundary itself being the throttle so to speak.
It doesn't seem to bounce back so it could be that there is different things going on within the pushing force. We get pushed, pun intended, into the direction that the 'ether' is a thing, one sole thing and it never enters our thinking that it may be two or more things.
Could it be a pushing force made up of pushing forces working in both directions in the same way Erics magnet machine revealed the reality that the wave is simply up and down or in and out and as we know and can prove to ourselves ad infinitum, there is no down without up.

One thing we should keep in mind is that if the Enoch descriptions of our realm are considered possibly accurate then we have potential pressure release/increase through these so-called gates. I remember reading the sun working through them but was this also mentioned in relation to the winds?

 

[Jd755]

Arithmetic is what accurately describes reality. Mathematics does no such thing it is an abstract language.
Euclidean geometry does not work on a curving surface.. Anyone can test this for themselves.
And when you are stood the ball shape it curves away from you in every direction away from where you are standing.

 

[Safranek]

Arithmetic is what accurately describes reality. Mathematics does no such thing it is an abstract language.
Euclidean geometry does not work on a curving surface.. Anyone can test this for themselves.
And when you are stood the ball shape it curves away from you in every direction away from where you are standing.

To my awareness arithmetic is a part of mathematics.

Then my question to you is;

Can trigonometry, calculus, geometry, algebra (the theoretical part of math) be used in conjunction with arithmetic to accurately describe reality?

 

[Jd755]

There are no such things as coincidences. This popped up just a few minutes after posting this.

Centuries ago, a prestigious Islamic library brought Arabic numerals to the world. Though the library long since disappeared, its mathematical revolution changed our world.

The House of Wisdom sounds a bit like make believe: no trace remains of this ancient library, destroyed in the 13th Century, so we cannot be sure exactly where it was located or what it looked like.
But this prestigious academy was in fact a major intellectual powerhouse in Baghdad during the Islamic Golden Age, and the birthplace of mathematical concepts as transformative as the common zero and our modern-day “Arabic” numerals.
Founded as a private collection for caliph Harun Al-Rashid in the late 8th Century then converted to a public academy some 30 years later, the House of Wisdom appears to have pulled scientists from all over the world towards Baghdad, drawn as they were by the city’s vibrant intellectual curiosity and freedom of expression (Muslim, Jewish and Christian scholars were all allowed to study there).
An archive as formidable in size as the present-day British Library in London or the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, the House of Wisdom eventually became an unrivalled centre for the study of humanities and sciences, including mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geography, philosophy, literature and the arts – as well as some more dubious subjects such as alchemy and astrology.

Source

Can trigonometry, calculus, geometry, algebra (the theoretical part of math) be used in conjunction with arithmetic to accurately describe reality?

See above We are being blinded by theorists.

 

[Collapseinrealtime]

They are assuming a flat non-rotating earth for flight dynamics, which is a different subject. Not for the ballistic trajectory.

The formula for the ballistic trajectory of a projectile is correct, see the derivation. Had it not been correct, all of the targets would have been missed badly (WWI and WWII). This fact excludes the possibility that a different formula would have been used secretly. Anybody can fire a projectile, use the formula, and see that it works indeed.

But that is a formula for a globe.

That is why no other FE has ever been able to tackle this issue, not Rowbotham, not anyone else.

If we use the FE ballistic trajectory formula, the target will be missed badly.
[automerge]1607959288[/automerge]
Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?

Ok, so you seem to have left a hint you didn't elaborate on.

Is g a constant?

If not, are there other variables influencing it within or external to the 'false' formula?

Do you know of any sources who have become aware of and tried to tackle this issue successfully?

I dont care about complicated formulas. Are you able to debunk these both videos?

Both videos proof that theres no Earths Curvature.

Let's keep one thing in mind. Sandokhan is not saying the earth is round. He is pointing out a scientific standing that seems to have stuck (not proven wrong to date) regarding ballistic trajectories. There is a working formula which works (reflects reality accurately) and this is used scientifically against FE arguments.

The issue is NOT whether you or anyone else cares about 'complicated formulas' or not. A complicated formula is a relative term, complicated for some, straight-forward for some.

If there's one thing that all people seriously questioning the shape of our realm SHOULD agree on, it is the fact that mathematics is the language that can accurately describe any physical phenomena, hence why it is and always has been the language of physics. (Yes it is also the language describing theoretical physics but that's another thing altogether, 'theoretical' aptly describes it.)

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

For example you can have two artists painting a scene where

one is actually painting the scene having experienced it and it can be verified by physically going to the scene and confirming what was painted via comparison,

while another artist is painting the scene without having seen it and theorizes regarding the particulars of the scene. When trying to confirm his painting, it will differ from the actual scene as it is theoretical, not from his experience and thereby not being able to confirm reality when put through the test by comparing it to the actual physical scene as in the first case.

It can be done with paint and it can be done with math. Not the best metaphor but the best I came up with on short notice.

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

Having said that, like paint, math is flexible up to a point and can be manipulated into demonstrating reality by using the right variables and constants.

Speaking of points:

Bill Gaede: What's the point?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU


Him and Stephen Crothers were two of my influences when I was starting to try to understand the math behind theoretical physics. When the math became to complex and time-consuming to understand, I unfortunately postponed that study indefinitely.

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

Back to the topic. So I hope we all agree that math CAN accurately define reality.

So my questions now are these?

In the RE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

1 Are we defining any constant(s) as a variable(s) or vica versa?

My guess would be yes as the RE formula obviously omits the ether.

2. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate

3. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

4. Does the formula omit any variables or constants to derive it's accurate result?

In the FE Ballistic Trajectory (BT) formula:

On the basis of what the result of the formula you've posted is (missing by a long-shot) , then I'd venture to say the we don't.

I mean you posted one but its NOT an accurate formula for BT it it doesn't work.

Thus;

1. Are the definitions of the characteristics of the variables and constants accurate?

2. Does the formula include all known forces AND influences accurately?

With ether missing my guess would be a yes for 1 and a no for 2.

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

Now for the best part.

1. Do we have any sources of anyone in physics who considered the ether and its effect on 'gravity' who has provided any data regarding its physical and scientific characteristics mathematically and/or with actual experiments?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes, then who, when and how can we incorporate it into a BT formula that actually works?

If no, then there's a long road ahead.
[automerge]1607987471[/automerge]

Intriguing stuff Bob.
The thing that is bouncing about here in this tiny mind is the how the up and down motion gets translated into the illusion of a wave.

We get told all the time that waves are visual evidence of frequencies and indeed machines such as oscilloscopes are built to show us wave patterns and we seem to have no trouble conflating frequency and wave into one amalgam. That sound changes pitch seems an obvious thing to say but again frequency comes into the reckoning and we end up seeing waves everywhere when the reality seems to be waves are purely illusory only gaining the impression of reality through our trained perception.
Our 'wild' perception on the other hand knows they are illusions, least mine does since we began this written conversation.

Our eyes seem to be made to not actually lets us see the up and down motions for what they are no matter what medium is waving yet they do. Watch a young tree in a wind and it becomes obvious it is being pushed one way by the wind and which overcomes the push of its internal bits n bobs which which want it to remain perpendicular to the ground. When the wind 'push' drops enough the trees 'push' moves it back to the perpendicular and if the drop is sudden and the sapling is strong enough it will push it beyond the perpendicular in the direction the was pushing from then it comes back to the perpendicular.
Having written that out which is essentially up and down done horizontally, it occurs that the wind may well be pushing it past the perpendicular in concert with the upward push of the tree's internals.

As there is no way to check the 'space vacuum's existence but given this atmosphere is pressured the odds favour it being mythical, it has to be the case that the electromagnetism going up and down does so in pressrised atmosphere's. I know we can create near vacuums within this pressurised atmosphere and prove that electromagnetism passes through and across the vacuum and its container.I don't know of any experiments or examples of an electromagnet being energised within a vacuum but surely such a thing would prove the vacuum is no barrier to whatever is pushing the magentism up and down.

Your description of what Feynman said sounds very much like our act of breathing. In our case muscles are flexed to push the gases out and thus overcome the atmospheric pressure as it is termed but our muscular push is not sustainable unlike the atmospheric push which seems to be inexhaustible ergo a constant.
We have to breath harder in other words push with more effort the further away we get from the water vapour and liquid water boundary so this must mean that the push pressure from the atmosphere is lessening with our increase in height. I know this is counter intuitive to people brought up on oxygen levels being the cause of breathlessness at height.

Taking another leap out of our indoctrinated reality it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the pressure increases as it approaches the liquid vapour boundary because it cannot fully penetrate the boundary. The boundary itself being the throttle so to speak.
It doesn't seem to bounce back so it could be that there is different things going on within the pushing force. We get pushed, pun intended, into the direction that the 'ether' is a thing, one sole thing and it never enters our thinking that it may be two or more things.
Could it be a pushing force made up of pushing forces working in both directions in the same way Erics magnet machine revealed the reality that the wave is simply up and down or in and out and as we know and can prove to ourselves ad infinitum, there is no down without up.

One thing we should keep in mind is that if the Enoch descriptions of our realm are considered possibly accurate then we have potential pressure release/increase through these so-called gates. I remember reading the sun working through them but was this also mentioned in relation to the winds?

The video I posted above addresses the very ideas you are considering and does a great job in delineating the confusion. Check it out when you get a chance.

 

[sandokhan]

Here is the FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/g

Can't modify vo or the angle.

So, is g a constant, or can it become a variable?

However, this is the correct FE formula:

R = [vo^2sin(2θo)]/f(k)

k is the variable electrogravitational value, which depends on the altitude, the atmospheric ether tide, the density of ether at a certain altitude, and the spin rate

The curvature factor is ~EQUAL to the antigravitational effect produced by the spin rate of the projectile which forms a torsion field which partially cancels out the g force.

It is assumed by modern science that “differences in spin rate do not affect the aerodynamic coefficients”. (Ballistics 2011, 26th International Symposium, pg. 474)

“How far the bullet drops has nothing to do with spinning other than that it keeps it in the most favorable aerodynamic position”.

But spinning has everything to do with the calculation of the range, as proven by the experiments carried out by Dr. Bruce DePalma.

Let vo = 1,000 m/s and θo = 45 degrees (neglecting air drag and other factors such as the Coriolis and the Eotvos effects).

R = [1,000^2sin90degrees][{1 + 1,000^2cos^2(45deg)}/(9.81x6,378,164)}]/9.81 = 102.7514 km

The curvature factor is: 1.007991

Even though f(k) is a nonlinear function of k, let's approximate this factor by k in order to get an estimate:

R(flat earth) = 101.937 km (a difference of some 800 meters)

102,751.4 = 1,000^2sin90degrees/k

k = 9.73223

"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."


Gyro Drop Experiment (experiment carried out by the team of researchers who worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

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.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.


The word “curvature” has to be replaced with the phrase “DePalma spinning effect” in the US Naval manual for curvature calculations applied to the range of the projectile:

https://i2.wp.com/mathscinotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CurvatureTable1.png?resize=768,723 (Table of Curvatures for Different Horizontal Ranges)


Advanced Flat Earth Theory (DePalma spinning ball experiments)

"The precise application of Newton’s laws … have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension [rotation] opens up the possibility of an anti-gravitational interaction"

Dr. Bruce DePalma, 1977


"Artillery projectiles are spinning at a very high speed when they exit the barrel of the gun. The spinning stabilises the projectile in flight and makes it more accurate."

BALLISTICS

For artillery projectiles spin rates in the order of 20,000 revolutions per minute are needed, rifle bullets are an order of magnitude greater.

The rotation of the projectile (its spinning rate) will radically alter both its mass and its inertia.

The rotation produces a TORSION FIELD which will attract the Whittaker potential waves (ether longitudinal waves) thus forming an ether vortex around the projectile which will impart antigravitational properties.

The magnitude of this effect is totally unaccounted for by modern science, in fact it is attributed to curvature calculations.

But the DePalma effect can only take place on a flat stationary Earth, since both the gravitational and the antigravitational strings/waves of the electrogravitational field of the Earth must rotate at the same rate above the surface of the Earth.

The Eotvos effect is caused by the rotation of the ether field; a superb study of the seminal paper published by Roland Eotvos on gravitational anomalies almost 100 years ago (his discoveries remain completely unexplained by modern science):

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF THE EOTVOS EXPERIMENT*

 

[Jd755]

Safranek, sorry but I cannot keep track of your edits.
Maths is an invented language of theory.
Arithmetic describes physical reality. Earth shape theory is entirely within the former without the latter.
To conflate the two into a hybrid is how where we are today came about with our senses showing us how things (edit) our are and our minds are away with the fairies of theories.

For the gates of Enoch or whatever to be creating the push force then something has to be be something beyond the gates doing the pushing of whatever is being pushed so are we in the Simpsons dome scenario again?

 

[sandokhan]

COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN


Internet History Sourcebooks Project


Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:


Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.


After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold.


The math is simple: 22½ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.


If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).

 

[Deleted member 37]

flatearth . net

 

[Myrrinda]

I actually read somwhere about everything being pushed from above, for the life of me I can't remember where... Was it Walter Russell? I don't think so? I have devoured so many books the last few years it's impossible at the moment for me to recollect where I read what (sorry) but I'm really glad I was reminded of the fact by this thread! I don't know why I read the whole thing, since FE does not interest me usually, but I'm glad I did ? there is always so much great info here, no matter the subject. And if some of you remember me from the old forum, I'm one of those sensitive intuitive types and I just feel certain things... and this must be it. Things don't drop to the ground, they are being pushed. And the universe is liquid.
We have a balance organ in the ear and feel when we are not perpendicular. It feels bad to have certain health conditions (vertigo) and when there is something wrong with this organ, or when we move too fast and tumble around at the same time, we even get sick and vomit. It's kind of important and healthy to be in the right angle to the ground so to speak. All liquids become level, yes, even in our inner ear, that's how it's supposed to be.

As for the"widdershinns" there is a german word "widersinnig" which means non sensical (literally wider = against [with an i only, not to be confused with wieder = again] and sinnig = referring to the sense) so you could also say counter-sensical or opposed to what makes sense/is sensible [again and against is like wider/wieder almost the same spelling...]

 

[Safranek]

Safranek, sorry but I cannot keep track of your edits.
Maths is an invented language of theory.
Arithmetic describes physical reality. Earth shape theory is entirely within the former without the latter.
To conflate the two into a hybrid is how where we are today came about with our senses showing us how things (edit) our are and our minds are away with the fairies of theories.

For the gates of Enoch or whatever to be creating the push force then something has to be be something beyond the gates doing the pushing of whatever is being pushed so are we in the Simpsons dome scenario again?

Here are two definitions, I used it with the understanding of the second. Arithmetic is just one of the methods of calculation included in mathematics.

math·e·mat·ics
(măth′ə-măt′ĭks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

math·e·mat·ics
(măth′ə-măt′ĭks)
The study of the measurement, relationships, and properties of quantities and sets, using numbers and symbols. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus are branches of mathematics.
The American Heritage® Student Science Dictionary, Second Edition. Copyright © 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

So accordingly arithmetic is a branch of mathematics.

So when I wrote "the fact that mathematics is the language that can accurately describe any physical phenomena" I was correct.

I concede that other branches of math have been and still are being used to fudge physical reality but I was not referring to that in my statement.

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

Regarding the gates of Enoch;

I suspect that you guys are right in your hypothesis of push forces being the only forces.

Our realm, 'the earth' must be under the influence of forces internal and external. You mentioned a pressure system. Pressure systems need valves to control the pressure. Valves can either let pressure escape or add to the pressure.

Now if we hypothesize that the earth is a closed realm in which water is the source of all sentient life, then we have water in 2 states (liquid, gas) at all times and in 1 state (ice) only under certain temperature conditions, extreme edges in FE or poles in RE and extreme heights (high mountains and high atmosphere). Sentient life only requires the first 2 states.

Logic would dictate that for the liquid state there is likely a 'valve' that controls the amount of water in our oceans possibly at the bottom of our realm (could be the cause of tides), and for the gaseous state (our atmosphere) the 'gates' of Enoch could be those 'valves'.

Of course this is just hypothesizing.

Furthermore, if we consider that our realm is not the only realm created, then we have to also include the possibility of ways to enter and exit our realm either in a physical, semi-physical or spiritual state. Otherwise we would be at a loss for being able to reasonable account for any so-called 'alien' visitations in our documented past or at present.

 

[sandokhan]

A single image explains everything about our universe.



We are being told that this is due to the pressure of the atmosphere.

However, that cannot be true.

"Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn't it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don't we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn't that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?"

The barometric pressure paradox defies the currently accepted facts about atmospheric pressure.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."

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.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’



Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

The Diurnal Cycle of Convection and Atmospheric Tides in an Aquaplanet GCM

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


So, what does cause the IMPLOSION of the plastic bottle as it is brought down towards sea level?

 

[Jd755]

Safranek why do you need to use someone else's definitions?
Why not use your own?
The only truths I can see are Euclidean geometry does not work on curved surfaces and we in our daily lives build, construct, move in relation to a level which is provided by the properties exhibited by contained (edit) water and our eyes ability to recognise said level.
These truths are self evident and can be rested again and again by anyone, no theory required just practical real world efforts to check things out something that is an anathema to the theorists.

Again regarding the push force. You can test it for yourself using a coffee cup and a table top. Push the cup away from you then pull it towards you without pushing it. Anyone can do this over and over as yet again it is a practical real world fact that blows up every pull theory ever written.

This entire reality is the requirement for life, all life within this water realm to exist. Nothing is here by chance or just as some sort of left over. it is impossible to remove one bit of it from the whole as you seem to be suggesting with the ice form of water. The instant we try and isolate we focus on the isolation from the view of what WE have allowed so lose the knowing. Whether we claim to understand something or not the whole seems to be oblivious to our machinations.

The idea of valves above and below is interesting. Clearly something is causing tides to rise and fall and the only things we know for sure is the moon pulling on the liquid water is nonsense. As they are rhythmical and predictable either something is doing the regulating external to the tide or it is simply the process itself. Liquid water leaving the container via a valve and water vapour coming in via another valve would create a tide all over the water within the container in the same instant as the level would drop uniformly across the entire surface. This doesn't seem to happen. The ebb and flow of tides is an up and down motion just like the magnetism waves and the pressure is down from vapour to liquid though I feel it whatever it is that is doing the pushing and it passes through the vapour and the liquid and indeed everything in this reality.
It does seem to be connected to the innate densities within things but I'm buggered if I can figure out or even see how.

I can throw a stone and a feather into the water vapour and the stone will go further into the pushing force than the feather which to me suggest the density of the stone is better able to penetrate the push force than the feather's density can but then the push force will put the stone back on the ground much quicker than the feather.
Doing the same thing in the liquid water will see the stone moving in the direction of the push force until it hits something as dense as it is whereas the feather will not even overcome the surface of the water so its density has to be less than liquid water but more than water vapour.
Then there is the ice itself which is able to rise up from the liquid vapour boundary and stay there by becoming less dense than liquid water and more dense than water vapour. It is more dense than both stone and feather as they will both sit on the surface of the ice, the ice vapour boundary for as long as the ice persists.

Density is probably not the word the people who once lived that knew what is going on used it doesn't feel right to me somehow but it's as close as you get.

Then if one fills a rubber balloon with half water vapour and half helium it will float or hover in the water vapour and providing there is no draught it will sit there for as long as the rubber holds the right balance within itself. Should the helium escape it will move down towards the liquid vapour boundary until it hits something at least as dense as it is then it moves no more.
Pull the water vapour out and it moves further away from the boundary and in doing so further against the pushing force which we seem to find counter intuitive so we invent the term 'lighter than air' to pigeon hole what is going on from further investigation. Science cannot deal with the whole which is why its proponents concentrates on separation.


I know this is a stolenhistory forum however history is a broad church and the stealing of our innate knowledge about where we are if not about who and what we are was historical and is ongoing today. The more this thread has devleoped the more obvious it has become to me that the whole of recorded 'official' history is a concerted effort to keep us from remembering what our real story is. When the veil of illusion thins it's game over that is why it's ongoing today.
Even the word history has taken on a comic turn for me. Hi Story!