David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Hidden Science & Advanced Technology (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Is gravity what we think it is? (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=285120)

 lionson 15-11-2014 01:30 AM

Is gravity what we think it is?

What is gravity? As I see it gravity is just the relationship between the electric force and magnetic force. Let us look at an atom. The nucleus is positively charged with protons and attracts electrons which forms a magnetic orbit and absorbs numerical information which then forms a particular element. Everything is math when broken down but this is another subject. This is how I see our planetary system as well.

So what keeps us grounded on Earth? How about our mass and weight. So the atmosphere which is produced by ionized particles the same as the sun, creates a torus-like barrier from outside forces and therefor an equilibrium.

I also believe that the inner core and axis of this planet are indeed hollow. The core is not magma but ionized particles. This would also explain what the Aurora Borealis actually is. Earth is like a battery with a positive input and a negative output which creates a sustained atmosphere which is initially fueled by the sun. All matter is magnetic and subject to the electric force.

How about the human body? Your heart is a bio-electric pump ionizing blood and fueling the neurological system. The brain is like a magnet and why our feelings from the heart influence the mind and why our thoughts attract our personal reality. Your body also produces an electromagnetic frequency. Have you ever felt almost magnetically pulled to something or someone?

Maybe I am all wrong about this or maybe there is some truth to this?

 sandokhan 15-11-2014 09:23 AM

Electricity = Magnetism

A brief description: the magnetic field consists of strings of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) which circulate between the two poles of the magnet (BOTH N-S and S-N). Through the subquarks we have a flow of bosons/antibosons.

In a conductor, which consists of the same subquark strings, these subquarks align themselves to allow the boson flow (what we actually call electricity).

The same phenomenon: one is a flow of bosons through subquarks outside a conductor, the other a flow of bosons inside a conductor.

The subquark strings are made up of two helices: a laevorotatory spin, and a dextrorotatory spin.

Terrestrial gravity is the DEXTROROTATORY SPIN SUBQUARK STRING; the laevorotatory offers the opposing force, the antigravitational energy needed to explain the DePalma, Kozyrev, and Brown experiments.

Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive.

The Earth is not Hollow.

There is no curvature at the surface of the Earth.

No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

38:28 to 38:35

From the same spot, a splendid photograph:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/13...854d63fa_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#

No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself.

The motto of this forum is: "exposing the dreamland we believe to be real"

However, the nature of this dreamland is just barely beginning to be understood as to its two crucial aspects: the falsification of history, and the true shape of the Earth.

 lionson 15-11-2014 11:30 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sandokhan (Post 1062306878) Electricity = Magnetism http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281870 A brief description: the magnetic field consists of strings of subquarks (magnetic monopoles) which circulate between the two poles of the magnet (BOTH N-S and S-N). Through the subquarks we have a flow of bosons/antibosons. In a conductor, which consists of the same subquark strings, these subquarks align themselves to allow the boson flow (what we actually call electricity). The same phenomenon: one is a flow of bosons through subquarks outside a conductor, the other a flow of bosons inside a conductor. The subquark strings are made up of two helices: a laevorotatory spin, and a dextrorotatory spin. Terrestrial gravity is the DEXTROROTATORY SPIN SUBQUARK STRING; the laevorotatory offers the opposing force, the antigravitational energy needed to explain the DePalma, Kozyrev, and Brown experiments. Terrestrial gravity is a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive. The Earth is not Hollow. There is no curvature at the surface of the Earth. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281819 No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7sI8W5zyTcc 38:28 to 38:35 From the same spot, a splendid photograph: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/13...854d63fa_b.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289# No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself. The motto of this forum is: "exposing the dreamland we believe to be real" However, the nature of this dreamland is just barely beginning to be understood as to its two crucial aspects: the falsification of history, and the true shape of the Earth.

Well I don't follow your logic. Math is the code or the nature of the "matrix" or what you call dreamland, which I believe to be an entirely different yet consciously connected dimension. I don't see how a photograph can prove curvature based on its limited depth or a video showing cartoon images of earth.

Electricity is not magnetism just as protons are not electrons. All matter is magnetic and manifested by the numerical value of a nucleus; the atomic number. I did not claim "earth is hollow" rather the core and axis are hollow. Is the sun a sphere? moon? or just illusions? I do not agree with modern physics as you do and find that math to be more of fantasy and a never ending road to nowhere. It sounds like you believe everything is based on light?

I do agree that the earths "gravity" is pressure but created by the electromagnetic force on ionized particles. Your reasoning seems contradicting; a dreamworld subject to forces? Would not your spin theories only reinforce curvature?

Everything you have stated except for curvature is mainstream science so how is this hidden?

And again I never said I am right. I threw an idea out there and got some condescending response I would expect from Sheldon.

 sandokhan 17-11-2014 12:53 PM

I do not agree with modern physics as you do

It so happens, that I do not agree AT ALL with modern physics...

So what keeps us grounded on Earth? How about our mass and weight.

It cannot be mass and weight.

Here is the Allais effect, explained in detail:

Here is the Barometer Pressure Paradox:

Here is the Biefeld-Brown effect:

And the Lamoreaux effect:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...21&postcount=2

Terrestrial gravity is the result of PRESSURE, exerted by the telluric currents.

Your reasoning seems contradicting; a dreamworld subject to forces? Would not your spin theories only reinforce curvature?

Our dreamworld is absolutely subject to forces.

The spin theories are totally incompatible with any curvature of the Earth.

Since terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure, it cannot take place on a spherical Earth, but only on a flat surface.

Everything you have stated except for curvature is mainstream science so how is this hidden?

No, it is not mainstream.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum...521#msg1639521

I don't see how a photograph can prove curvature based on its limited depth or a video showing cartoon images of earth.

The photograph in my previous message shows that there is no 3.35 meter midpoint visual obstacle across the Strait of Gibraltar.

No ascending slope either.

Let us increase the distance to 55 km, and the curvature to 59 meters (Lake Toronto, Grimsby to Toronto)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53...b83b96bd_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/#

Again, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km, no 59 m midpoint visual obstacle.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...psca4ccfc6.jpg

Photo by Ms. Kerry Ann Lecky-Hepburn, no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km.

From the very same spot, Ms. Lecky-Hepburn used a reflector telescope for this zoom:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...psc4f7927e.jpg

Another photograph signed Mrs. Lecky-Hepburn:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps743773f9.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/3...682e2d8a_o.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrab...hy/312939439/#

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever, a perfectly flat surface of the water.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetr...in/photostream

No curvature whatsoever, from Hamilton to Lakeshore West Blvd: no visual obstacle, just a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to the other shoreline.

Some formulas for you...

Curvature of a spherical Earth...

R = earth radius, 6378.164 kilometers
@ = s/R
s = arclength between the two points measured on the surface
C = curvature

Earth Curvature

C = R(1 - cos[@/2])

For example:

s = 13 km (Strait of Gibraltar), C = 3.31 meters
s = 34 km (English Channel), C = 22.4 meters
s = 53 km (Lake Ontario, Grimsby - Toronto), C = 55 meters
s = 1000 km (Irkutsk - Tungusk), C = 19.5 km

A more complex formula, taking into account the height of the photographer, and the height of the visual target:

BD = (R + h)/[[RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R]] - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF [] that is, the square root of [2Rh + h^2]

For example, s = AB = 53 km, AE = 2 meters, we get BD = 180 meters, that is, we could see nothing under the altitude of 180 meters, standing on the beach at Grimsby or St. Catharines...

AE = h = height of observer

BD = height of visual target

No curvature across lake Michigan, best proofs:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...59&postcount=2

 truthspoon 17-11-2014 01:42 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lionson (Post 1062306753) What is gravity? As I see it gravity is just the relationship between the electric force and magnetic force. Let us look at an atom. The nucleus is positively charged with protons and attracts electrons which forms a magnetic orbit and absorbs numerical information which then forms a particular element. Everything is math when broken down but this is another subject. This is how I see our planetary system as well.
I go with Einstein that gravity is a ripple in space-time (4d) and hence 3d objects fall into 4d gravity wells.

Your theory is interesting, but does it account for the gravity of inert rocky objects like our moon and asteroids and the like, which have zero magnetic activity?

Good post tho.

 sandokhan 17-11-2014 01:58 PM

There is no such thing as the space-time continuum.

Here is the step by step demonstration.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'

G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.

http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikiped...urface_log.jpg

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath...m/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...

EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.

EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/200903091...p5/relativ.htm

REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/201202051...ein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)

EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html

“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”

ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/200406121...rne/docs/b.htm

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/E...OrIllusion.pdf (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html...nIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)

Einstein’s relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: ‘Many physicists who believe Einstein’s theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einstein’s relativity.’ Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’ Thomas Phipps writes: ‘The (politically obligatory) claim that Einstein’s theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.’

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einstein’s relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einstein’s theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory – like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.

G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: ‘The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere “brain-mind” constructions or phantasies.

In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: ‘There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.

In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einstein’s] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a ‘mathematical pipe-dream’.

Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as ‘science fiction or pseudoscience’. She writes: ‘Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations.’ Al Kelly comments: ‘Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?’

Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was “either irrelevant or inconclusive.”70 This was over “half a century after the inception of special relativity”. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.

Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf

With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD “we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

“Einstein‟s theory of relativity” is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/201202051...ein_wrong.html (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)

Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/...z_ether_c.html

The pressure of subquark strings governs gravity on Earth.

For the heavenly bodies we a second kind of gravity: ROTATIONAL GRAVITATION, due to the very high density of aether/ether which keeps planets/stars in motion above the flat earth.

Here is Newton himself telling that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of ether:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Perhaps we will get into a discussion on the Moon's real size (diameter, orbiting altitude)...

 truthspoon 17-11-2014 02:09 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sandokhan (Post 1062309114) There is no such thing as the space-time continuum.
Of course there is. It is a 4d hypersphere. Every side of a hypershere is another 3d point of our reality in time.

If you travel through a 4d hypersphere in 4d, then you experience time travel.

Of course we can't do this, but to a limited extent, our higher 4d selves can.

There is obviously a higher dimension to ours, therefore it must transcend time, because the dimension above always transcends the limitations of the previous ones.

Quote:
 Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.
Newton is correct, but it's unlikely he could visualise higher dimensions. If he could he would have observed that our space is invisibly curved and that matter displaces space, and causes gravity wells like a heavy object on a table cloth. Since space is curved, then we're all just here rolling around on the surface of a giant 4d beach ball. The 4d centre of which marks the beginning of the universe. Though in 4d there is no apparent beginning because everything is instantaneous and the universe appears as it is, as it was and as it will be.

 lionson 17-11-2014 09:10 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by edelweiss pirate (Post 1062309099) I go with Einstein that gravity is a ripple in space-time (4d) and hence 3d objects fall into 4d gravity wells. Your theory is interesting, but does it account for the gravity of inert rocky objects like our moon and asteroids and the like, which have zero magnetic activity? Good post tho.
I do believe all matter is magnetic and certain elements are more magnetic than others. A higher density would also imply a higher level of magnetism. I believe it is the relationship with electricity and magnetism that creates orbits and what we call gravity. Again I can only theorize but I find Einstein theories illogical. I think physicists are highly intelligent but are operating in a false paradigm of mathematics and laws. Just my opinion though.

 truthspoon 17-11-2014 10:25 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lionson (Post 1062309610) I do believe all matter is magnetic and certain elements are more magnetic than others. A higher density would also imply a higher level of magnetism. I believe it is the relationship with electricity and magnetism that creates orbits and what we call gravity. Again I can only theorize but I find Einstein theories illogical. I think physicists are highly intelligent but are operating in a false paradigm of mathematics and laws. Just my opinion though.
I think density is the wrong word. Higher dimensions would not be denser, 3d forces would all be resolved and likely unified as innate properties of matter. Besides, there are 4d forces at work. Perhaps what we perceive as separate forces are really just one 4d force which applies itself differently in the material world.

But 4d would transcend matter as we know it.... so your argument, despite being a good one, may not necessarily be true... Or course, we can't know for sure, we can only extrapolate from available data.

Though I think you're taking a slightly bold step refuting Einstein.....

I think he was pretty much on the money in most cases. A smart guy with a powerful imagination. Very rare in a scientist. Only the best scientists have imaginations.

 lionson 17-11-2014 11:05 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by edelweiss pirate (Post 1062309685) I think density is the wrong word. Higher dimensions would not be denser, 3d forces would all be resolved and likely unified as innate properties of matter. Besides, there are 4d forces at work. Perhaps what we perceive as separate forces are really just one 4d force which applies itself differently in the material world. But 4d would transcend matter as we know it.... so your argument, despite being a good one, may not necessarily be true... Or course, we can't know for sure, we can only extrapolate from available data. Though I think you're taking a slightly bold step refuting Einstein..... I think he was pretty much on the money in most cases. A smart guy with a powerful imagination. Very rare in a scientist. Only the best scientists have imaginations.
I see the 4th dimension as a consciousness and we exist in the physical which splits our consciousness into two; the other being the subconscious. I also believe everything is subject to our creators consciousness, which is beyond my understanding but would be imprinted in the design establishing the laws of physics. As I see it the physical world is here for a deeper experience; the reason for the separation.

The thing with Einstein is his theories open the door to concepts I believe are false. Interstellar travel, wormholes, multiverses. I believe these ideas are only relative to the 4th dimension. I think we apply these two worlds in ways that don't interconnect and miss the part where they do; influence of intent, thought and beliefs.

 truthspoon 18-11-2014 02:29 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lionson (Post 1062309710) I see the 4th dimension as a consciousness and we exist in the physical which splits our consciousness into two; the other being the subconscious. I also believe everything is subject to our creators consciousness, which is beyond my understanding but would be imprinted in the design establishing the laws of physics. As I see it the physical world is here for a deeper experience; the reason for the separation.
Now you're being a little less scientific....

Consciousness exists here. It also exists in 4d. But our reality is only a by-product of higher realities. 4d exists because we experience phenomenon which we cannot explain, which are 4d causes with 3d effects.

So saying 'it's consciousness' doesn't cover enough ground and is too general a statement. Likely 4d has its special geometries and forces which are at play.... Probably very interesting place to be.... We shall see what it's all about when I snuff it... in the meantime I only get glimpses... when the light's right.

 sandokhan 18-11-2014 12:46 PM

The space-time continuum concept invented by Minkowsky and Einstein does not exist in reality: it is a mathematical pipe dream.

"Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ..."

The Kaluza-Klein theory is also a mathematical pipe dream.

Let me explain what this hyperspace actually is.

There are no other/extra dimensions: there subtler levels of vibrations:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/chaptr01.htm

"The scientific hypothesis is that all space is filled with a substance called aether, as to the constitution of which many apparently contradictory statements are made. It is thought to be infinitely thinner than the thinnest gas, absolutely frictionless and without weight, and yet from another point of view far denser than the densest solid. In this substance the ultimate atoms of matter are thought to float as motes may be seen to float in the air, and light, heat and electricity are supposed to be its vibrations."

The first plane of vibration is the boson itself.

Then, we have bosons linked together in strings of various densities.

"If we assume one bubble to be what corresponds to an atom on the seventh or highest of our planes and then suppose the law of multiplication to begin its operation. so that 49 bubbles shall form the atom of the next or sixth plane, 2,401 that of the fifth. and so once find that the number indicated for the physical atom (49^6) corresponds almost exactly with the calculation based upon the actual counting of the coils."

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig005a.gif

Modern physics has mistakenly attributed the concept of multiple dimensions in order to describe the vibrations of the strings composed of bosons.

http://www.scientificexploration.org...4_phillips.pdf (Dr. Stephen Phillips of UCLA, Cambridge)

Read the sections: Superstrings, Compactification, UPA as Subquark State of Superstring

Here is another famous example.

http://www.smphillips.8m.com/news.html

Geoffrey Hudson observing the Higgs boson in the 1950s...

"G. Hudson was able to notice vortical motion around the basic units of matter of numerous, smaller particles filling all space as a "field" five years before physicists proposed this type of particle and decades before string theorists discovered vortex solutions in the Higgs field in their analysis of the confinement of quarks by the string model version of QCD. These vortices are the non-abelian counterparts of the magnetic flux vortices, or Abrikosov vortices, known to permeate Type II superconductors, forming a lattice.

The key phrases used by Hodson, namely (referring to UPAs) "They're surrounded by a field of spinning particles going around them" and "mist or field round it of at least half its own dimension, of particles spinning in the same direction much smaller than itself" are beyond dispute. The word "spinning," of course, refers here not to any intrinsic spin of these particles (Higgs bosons are spinless) but to the "mist or field" of these particles circulating around UPAs in the same sense that the latter spin on their axes (notice that his words "spinning rapidly" appear in parentheses before this phrase in the first quotation, clearly indicating that Hodson was referring not to individual particles but to a conglomerate of particles, which he aptly described as a "mist or field" that revolved rapidly around a UPA in the same direction that it was spinning.

Such collective, rotational excitations of the Higgs field were unknown to particle theorists in 1959 when this crucial observation was recorded by Dr Lyness. Indeed, the Higgs field had not even been proposed then! So nothing in the scientific literature of the time could have influenced Hodson to make his observation, just as Babbitt could not have been influenced by Lord Kelvin's model of atoms as vortex rings in the aether, which was published 11 years earlier in 1867 (see here), for he described UPAs not as such rings but as having a vortex of particles circulating around it — something that is conceptually entirely different.

It constitutes, therefore, irrefutable evidence that Hodson detected in a paranormal manner the Higgs particles pervading space years before they were postulated by physicists and 53 years before the Large Hadron Collider at CERN provided statistically significant data consistent with their existence, although not yet establishing it with certainty. Any alternative interpretation of the points of lights filling space that were visible to him "all the time" must be rejected as wrong because it cannot account for the way the particles change their motion in the vicinity of UPAs to a circulation around them indicative of vortices — a feature that only their identification as Higgs particles can explain in the context of the String Model."

The hyperspace is the aether itself, through which waves of ether travel (ether = subquark strings).

 truthspoon 18-11-2014 02:04 PM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sandokhan (Post 1062310117) The space-time continuum concept invented by Minkowsky and Einstein does not exist in reality: it is a mathematical pipe dream. The hyperspace is the aether itself, through which waves of ether travel (ether = subquark strings).
Lol.....You can't discredit Einstein then bang on about ether and the Earth being flat and expect to be taken seriously dude..

Sorry......

You're gonna have to do a lot better than that.

Time is simply the sequence of events in the 3d universe..... the unfolding of events certainly exist, and appear to unfold in a linear fashion in 3d.

This is space-time..... nothing funny about it. It's a fact of life.

It's not a mathematical pipe dream, it is a concrete fact..... the point you're missing is that it is rather hard to represent space-time mathematically because space-time is 'the medium' of our known universe and it is rather easier to quantify the things within the medium, than the medium itself.

In 4d you transcend 3d space AND time and could conceivably travel to any point in the universe past or future.... the outer bounds of the 4d hypersphere which is our universe is marked by the its beginning and it's end.

So anyway.... tell us all about that ether of yours and the flat-earth....cue Twilight Zone music... ;)

 lionson 19-11-2014 03:56 AM

http://s30.postimg.org/six60oaql/aus...eef_14_jpg.jpg

http://s21.postimg.org/9fwfep2ib/Oce...ers_Photos.jpg

http://s15.postimg.org/gl2ekb6av/Sto...1268017010.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/hx33pt78v/1109807.jpg

http://s27.postimg.org/uytdtel0v/aus...rne_beach1.jpg

I believe your images lack the height and depth to perceive any curvature. These images all show curvature to some degree.

 sandokhan 19-11-2014 12:21 PM

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'

ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.

In 4d you transcend 3d space AND time and could conceivably travel to any point in the universe past or future.... the outer bounds of the 4d hypersphere which is our universe is marked by the its beginning and it's end.

You are describing an abstract mathematical setting with no connection to reality.

There is no such thing as the curvature of space-time.

Here is a very simple proof: the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Albert Einstein,Relativity, The special and the general theory, 11th ed., 1936, p.64:

“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.”

Dr. Thomas Townsend Brown proved the fallacy of Einstein's statetment; also the Biefeld-Brown effect shows that terrestrial gravity and antigravity are electrical forces of opposite spin.

lionson, your photographs prove nothing: you need to specify the distance, the description of the visual target, the altitude from which the photograph was taken, exactly as I have done.

Here are photographs which prove the opposite of what you stated:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070220...ater/fig19.jpg

I believe your images lack the height and depth to perceive any curvature.

Is this supposed to be joke?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53...b83b96bd_b.jpg

The curvature from Beamer Falls to Toronto is 59 meters on a round earth.

There is no ascending slope, no midpoint huge curvature of 59 meters, the other shoreline can be seen entirely.

Now, the highest elevation point in Beamer Falls is some 100 meters. Even from there you couldn't miss the curvature.

HOW would the water of the lake stay curved, if terrestrial gravity is actually a force of PRESSURE and is not attractive?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/3...682e2d8a_o.jpg

No ascending slope, no midpoint curvature whatsoever: the surface of Lake Ontario is completely flat.

The explosion at Tunguska was seen instantaneously from London:

Moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.

The trajectory itself was seen for some ten minutes: 7:00 - 7:10 (local time), on June 30, 1908 - and it was observed from London (the explosion occurred at 7:15 - 7:20 local time, at an altitude of some 7 km)

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps4429f436.png

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

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

 sandokhan 19-11-2014 12:53 PM

Let us now visit the English Channel: 34 km distance from Cap Gris Nez to Dover, a curvature of some 22.4 meters on a round earth.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...psca05a303.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps552e2c17.jpg

The original webpages, as they were posted on flickr.com

The photographers located between Cap Blanc Nez and Cap Gris Nez: we will ascend to 30 meters.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps53cfec2d.jpg

And now the photograph itself: no curvature whatsoever, all the way to the other shoreline, the Dover cliffs seen in their entirety (on a round earth, from 30 meters, we could not see anything under 16.5 meters from the other side), the ship is not part of an ascending/descending slope, no midpoint curvature of 22.4 meters:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...pse4522974.jpg

Another photograph taken right on the beach of Cap Gris Nez: no curvature over a distance of 34 km:

http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg

Dover cliffs:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4070/4...2971e62065.jpg

 reverendjim 19-11-2014 11:37 PM

ever since men traveled the sea they saw the land "sink" below the horizon. i spent a lot of time at sea. i have definitely experienced the curvature of a round earth. flat earth? i dont think so.

 sandokhan 20-11-2014 01:03 PM

The lower portion of an object (ship, train) will also disappear first on a flat earth.

Ask yourself a very simple question: if the gases in the atmosphere DO NOT obey an attractive law of gravity, HOW then will the water of the sea (lake) stay curved?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...11&postcount=2

Let us go to St. Catharines, 50 km distance from Toronto.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...psbaa59b40.jpg

https://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/...n/photostream/

BD = (R + h)/[[RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R]] - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF []

R = 6378.164 km

h = AE = height of observer/photographer

s = distance at the surface, for example 34 km between England and France across the English Channel

BD = height of observable visual target on a round earth

Data for St. Catharines, Lake Ontario, distance to Toronto, 50 km:

2 meters (observer) - 158 meters (visual obstacle)

3 - 150.5

5 - 138

10 - 117.5

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/re...tm#Terrestrial (online terrestrial refraction calculation)

Height of Sky Dome: 90 meters, the building itself can be seen without any terrestrial refraction in the photograph, but we will include 10 meters, for the sake of the discussion; that is, the influence of the refraction will be some 10 meters...

Two other photographs, taken right there, on the same beach:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploa...-ship-5137.jpg
http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploa...-lake-5112.jpg

The altitude of the photographer can be easily estimated to be at or around 10 meters (if we would ascend to some 20 meters, that would mean that we are on top of a five-story building; certainly not the case here, as we can see from the photographs themselves; I would estimate some 5 meters, but we will go to 10 meters).

On a round earth, taking refraction into account, and ascending to some 10 meters, it would still be impossible to see the rooftop of the Sky Dome.

Now, the fact that the lower portion of a building/ship cannot be seen in some photographs is a result of the quality of the camera used:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/ (CN Tower barely visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (with a better camera, more details become visible)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/1...n/photostream/ (and the rooftop of the Sky Dome very visible, completely impossible on a round earth)

On a flat earth the lower portion of an object (visual target) will disappear first, before the upper portion.

The surface of the entire earth is completely and absolutely flat.

This is what our Universe really looks like, the very reason why Nasa/Esa/Mir have faked all of their "space" missions:

http://www.freewebs.com/raacoz/enclosure3[1]4.jpg

(not drawn to scale)

http://www.oneism.org/images/INCA_TREE_OF_LIFE.jpg

http://www.oneism.org/images/createzoom.jpg

This is the real map of the Flat Earth, the global Piri Reis map:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090831...ricabrazil.gif

The real orbit of the Sun above the Flat Earth:

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n...psfb67a5fa.jpg

Let us remember that the solar eclipse IS NOT caused by the Moon, full analysis, the Allais effect:

From the Solar Paradoxes thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum...0#.VG3z-zSsWCo ), the ISS solar transit videos:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum...4892#msg994892

And the photographs, no 148,000,000 km between the Sun and the ISS/Atlantis (no one aboard of course, both the shuttle and the station are maneuvered by remote control):

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...15_964x709.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg

http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle.jpg

 sandokhan 21-11-2014 12:35 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...59&postcount=2

A summary.

Grand Haven Daily Tribune April 3, 1925

Captain Wm. J. Preston and his U. S. Coast Guard crew at Grand Haven harbor witnessed a strange natural phenomenon last night, when they saw clearly the lights of both Milwaukee and Racine, shining across the lake. As far as known this is the first time that such a freak condition has prevailed here.

The phenomena was first noticed at shortly after seven o’clock last night, when the lookout called the keeper’s attention to what seemed to be a light flaring out on the lake. Captain Preston examined the light, and was of the impression that some ship out in the lake was “torching” for assistance.

Launch Power Boat

He ordered the big power boat launched and with the crew started on a cruise into the lake to locate, if possible, the cause of the light. The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer. The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

Captain Preston decided that the flare came from the government lighthouse at Windy Point at Racine. Being familiar with the Racine lights the keeper was able to identify several of the short lights at Racine, Wis.

Saw Milwaukee Also

A little further north another set of lights were plainly visible. Captain Preston knowing the Milwaukee lights well, easily distinguished them and identified them as the Milwaukee lights. The lights along Juneau Park water front, the illumination of the buildings near the park and the Northwestern Railway station were clearly visible from the Coast Guard boat. So clearly did the lights stand out that it seemed as though the boat was within a few miles of Milwaukee harbor.

Convinced that the phenomenon was a mirage, or a condition due to some peculiarity of the atmosphere, the keeper ordered the boat back to the station. The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.

DISTANCE GRAND HAVEN TO MILWAUKEE: OVER 80 MILES (128 KM).

The lighthouse stands 108 feet (33 m) tall

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

Using the well known formula for the visual obstacle, let us calculate its value:

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

h = 20 meters BD = 984 METERS

h = 50 meters BD = 827.6 METERS

h = 100 meters BD = 667.6 METERS

No terrestrial refraction formula/looming formula can account for this extraordinary proof that the surface across lake Michigan is flat.

Moreover, as we have seen, the light from Windy Point was continuously observed, during the approach, and during the return to the station:

The power boat was headed due west and after running a distance of six or seven miles the light became clearer, but seemed to be but little nearer. The crew kept on going, however, and at a distance of about ten and twelve miles out, a beautiful panorama of light unfolded before the eyes of the coast guards.

The keeper ordered the boat back to the station. The lights remained visible for the greater part of the run, and the flare of the Windy Point light house could be seen after the crew reached the station here.

Oh, say can you see? (from the Holland Sentinel, 2003, May 28, 2003) - full article here http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...59&postcount=2

Lights from Racine and Milwaukee seen from Holland, across a distance of 128 km.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

THE TALLEST BUILDING IN RACINE IS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, 40 METERS; IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE THIS COURTHOUSE FROM 128 KM DISTANCE, FROM HOLLAND.

Positively and absolutely, there is no curvature whatsoever across lake Michigan.

 elshaper 04-01-2019 01:00 PM

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MTY1Kje0yLg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:51 PM.