Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Autor Subiect: Conspiratia satelitilor  (Citit de 12699 ori)

0 Membri şi 1 Vizitator vizualizează acest subiect.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Conspiratia satelitilor
« : Mai 02, 2008, 12:24:39 p.m. »
Am incercat sa deschid acest topic, ultimul de aici, inca de acum 3 zile...nu se putea accesa aceasta sectiune...

Atat satelitii geostationari cat si cei orbitali (care orbiteaza la o altitudine mult mai joasa decat cea oferita oficial) folosesc Cosmic Ray Device inventat de Nikola Tesla ca sursa de energie.

WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES

A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY

Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:

I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.

A satellite is a complex machine. All satellites are made up of several subsystems that work together as one large system to help the satellite achieve its mission. This simplified illustration shows the key parts of a remote-sensing satellite. The main subsystems are grouped by color.

http://www.smgaels.org/physics/97/MARIN32.GIF
http://www.nuenergy.org/images/gif/img00001.gif
http://www.thetech.org/hyper/satellite/images/anatomy.gif

With such a permanent supply of high quality energy, certainly the satellites are remote controlled from earth to make them go around or stay hovering in a specific place. They don't stay quite or moving because any gravity - which is a lie- but because the energy taken from those layers.

Cateva observatii extrem de interesante despre satelitii sistemului planetar geocentric:

http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf

http://www.fixedearth.com/geosynchronous_sa.htm

This is rather significant, since Kepler’s laws were formulated precisely to support the Heliocentric system, since Copernicancus’ original model of planets going around the sun in circular orbits had more problems than the Ptolemaic system it replaced. So what’s this tell us? That scientists simply have no explanation for why the GSS satellites work.

You asked me later in your letter if there was a “red flag.” Yes there is, but it’s in your camp, obviously, because here you have a satellite that doesn’t obey any of the Keplerian laws of orbiting bodies! But I do have an explanation. The GSS are not orbiting the earth. They are hovering over the earth. The next time you look at one of those satellite weather maps on TV which show a stationary earth but clouds moving across it in time-lapse photography, think about this.

As I said in my answer to your first Challenge, the GPS scientist abandons his Relativity theory in order to use a fixed-Earth for his calculations. You must understand that when they make the calculations for the GPS from a fixed-Earth position, they are not doing it for simulation or practice before they do the real thing. The article in Physics Today I gave you states that they must use fixed-Earth calculations, because they are the only ones that work. This gives me a chance to answer even better your first Challenge question, which concerned the GSS technician who positions the GSS while thinking that it is going 6800 mph. I have a letter from the Office of Satellite Operations in Washington DC concerning the repositioning of a GSS satellite 10.75 degrees, asking this question: “Is the present movement of GOES (a GSS satellite) planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” The answer, written by Lee Ranne from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 11-22-1989 (I have her phone number if you want it) says “Fixed earth.”


Cum sunt modificate/retusate TOATE pozele/imaginile de satelit (Nasa, JPL, US govt., ESA):

Marturia unei foste angajate Nasa care ne spune cum sunt falsificate si manipulate toate fotografiile Nasa inainte de a fi oferite pentru massmedia:

A NASA Cover-Up

A former employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration reveals how NASA covers up and erases UFOs from satelite photos. But first a little bit about this former employee: DONNA TIETZE HARE.

Formerly of NASA, female slide technician, the recipient of numerous space awards including 1969 Apollo Achievement award from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, 1973 Skylab award, a medallion for success on the Skylab-Suez Test project, numerous other awards for her skill as a technical Artist, honors, awards and a 1994 reccomdation by Texas Governor Ann Richards to the Advisory Committee of Psychology Associates. Donna Tietze has spent most of her professional life involved in the Space Program as a technical illustrator. She drew lunar maps, landing slides, she worked in the photo lab, Precision Slide Lab, reducing art work to one inch by one inch drawings. She drew launch sites, landing sites and was employed as a sub-contractor to NASA for over 15 years. She worked on flight manuals for astronauts & has the wonderful ability to put words into images but uniquely, learn to do everything backwards, including mathematical computations, the writing of words, to put it simply, this woman has seen just about all the different kinds of images one could see that are used in Space Programs.

Donna Tietze interviewed on Washington D.C. Radio Station

The following is a partial transcript of a radio talk show that occurred 5/6/95 on WOL-AM in Washington D.C. which is simulcast on WOLB-AM in Baltimore Maryland. The show is broadcast every Saturday night at 12:00am. The show is called 'UFOs Saturday Night'. The guests on that date were Stanley McDaniels, author of the McDaniel Report, Erol Toron, a cartographer and who provided valuable information for Richard Hoagland in preparing his book, 'The Monuments Of Mars'. Also on the program was keith Morgan, Dan Drazon and Donna Tietze, a former employee of NASA in Houston, Texas. The transcript was transcribed by Donald Ratsch, 'Operation Right To Know' (ORTK) from an audio recording of the show. Elaine Douglass (ORTK) host of the show:

Elaine Douglass: This is Elaine Douglass, WOL News-Talk Network, our show is UFOs Saturday night and here in the studio with Keith Morgan and our topic is the Face On Mars. We have a new guest on the air with us, Donna Tietze. Donna, you are also with three scientists who are on the air with us and that would be Stan McDaniels from California, Erol Toron from the east coast and Dan Drason whose in Colorado. The reason that I asked Donna to come on the show, Donna is in Houston, Texas and kind enough to join us tonight to tell us some very interesting things she observed while working at NASA. Donna is an educator and she is working on her Masters in Education. In the past Donna, as I understand it you held a position for 15 years with a contractor at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston. You were a photo technician?

Donna Tietze: Correct!

E.D.: Donna welcome to UFOs Saturday Night. Tell me and tell everyone the incident that you recall as they say in the law court, did there come a time when you walked in a photo lab and someone told you something quite astounding? What happened that day?

D.T.: Yes Elaine, that's true. During the Apollo mission I worked at NASA throughout those Apollo missions and I did leave NASA at the time the space shuttles began. I worked in building eight in the photo lab. I had a secret clearance so I thought I could go anywhere in the building. And I did go into one area that was a restricted area. In this area they developed pictures taken from satelites and also all of the missions, the Apollo missions, flight missions. I went in and I was talking to one of the photographers and developers and he was putting together a mosaic which is a lot of photos, smaller photos into a larger photo pattern. And while I was in there I was trying to learn new methods and new things about the whole organization and I was looking at the pictures and he directed my attention to one area, he said, Look at that. I looked and there was a round oval shaped, well it was very white circular shape of a dot and I, it was black & white photography, so I asked him if that was a spot on the emulsion and he said, well I can't tell you but spots on the emulsion do not leave round circles of shadows.

E.D.: So there was a shadow on the ground?

D.T.: Right, a round shadow! And I noticed that there were pine trees, now I don't know where this area was or what, you, pretty close to the ground what I saw but I didn't see outline of the continent. But I did notice that thre was shadow under this white dot and I also noticed that the trees were casting the shadows in the same direction as this shadow of the circle of this aerial phenomena because it was higher than the trees but not too much higher than the trees but it was close to the ground and it was spherical but slightly elongated, not very much but slightly. I then said, is it a UFO? And he said, Well I can't tell you. And then I asked him, what are you going to do with this piece of information? And he said, well we have to airbrush these things out before we sell these photographs to the public. So I realized at that point that there is a procedure setup to take care of this type of information from the public.


Demonstratia imposibilitatii rotatiei atmosferei, pamantul nu se roteste cu 444 m/s in jurul propriei axe:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:

If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.
« Ultima Modificare: Noiembrie 16, 2008, 04:27:58 p.m. de Moderator1 »
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #1 : Mai 02, 2008, 12:41:08 p.m. »
Bai Abel...mai studiaza si tu inainte sa-i dai inainte cu miscarea de precesie...

Conform teoriei tale preferate, stim deja care, acum 3.600 de ani steaua cea mai apropiata de Polul Nord ar fi trebuit sa fie Alfa-Dragonis, insa lucrurile nu stau deloc asa.

Daca ai sa accesezi toate documentele din antichitate iti vor spune unul si acelasi lucru: ACUM 3.600 DE ANI CONSTELATIA POLARA ERA URSA MARE, DUPA O PERTURBARE CELESTA, CARE A TRANSFORMAT CONFIGURATIA CERULUI, UNA DINTRE STELELE URSEI MICI A DEVENIT STEAUA POLARA.

Din astronomia indiana: CENTRUL CERULUI SAU PUNCTUL IN JURUL CARUIA SE ROTESTE FIRMAMENTUL ESTE SITUAT IN URSA MARE.

Seneca, Thyeste: ACEEASI AFIRMATIE.

Astronomia egipteana: URSA MARE ERA CONSIDERATA CA FIIND STEAUA POLARA.

Daca pamantul a urmat miscarea regulata pe care o consideram drept teorie corecta astazi, steaua cea mai apropiata de Polul Nord, in urma cu 3.600 de ani, trebuia sa fie Alfa-Dragonis.

Schimbarea a fost brusca. In astronomia hindusa, care prezinta teoria heliocentrica a sectei Surya Yoga, Pamantul s-a departat de locul sau obisnuit de o suta de yojana (aproximativ 800-1500 de km).

Din Ciocnirea Lumilor:

CAUZA DISPARITIEI MAMUTILOR DIN NORD-ESTUL SIBERIEI A AVUT LOC FOARTE BRUSC SI A COINCIS CU SFARSITUL ULTIMEI PERIOADE GLACIARE. IN 1799 IN TUNDRELE DIN NORD-ESTUL SIBERIEI AU FOST GASITE CORPURI INGHETATE, PERFECT CONSERVATE DE MAMUTI. DACA NU AR FI FOST INGHETATE IMEDIAT DUPA CE AU FOST UCISE, PUTREFACTIA LE-AR FI DESCOMPUS. IAR, PE DE ALTA PARTE, ACEASTA GHEATA VESNICA NU OCUPA INAINTE LOCURILE UNDE AU FOST PRINSE, CACI NU AR FI PUTUT SA TRAIASCA LA O ASEMENEA TEMPERATURA. DIN MOMENT CE PROCESELE GEOLOGICE, CONFORM TEORIEI CLASICE, SUNT LENTE, MAMUTII N-AR FI PUTUT SA SE LASE PRINSI IN CAPCANA IN MUNTII IZOLATI; IAR MAMUTII NU AU MURIT DE FOAME, IN STOMAC SI INTRE DINTII LOR AU FOST GASITE IARBA SI FRUNZE NEDIGERATE CARE APARTINEAU UNOR PLANTE CARE CRESC IN REGIUNI AFLATE MULT MAI LA SUD, LA MAI BINE DE O MIE CINCI SUTE DE KM DE ACOLO. A FOST NEVOIE CA SCHIMBAREA DE TEMPERATURA SA FI URMAT IMEDIAT MORTII MAMUTILOR. MAMUTUL TRAIA IN EPOCA OMULUI, DEOARECE ACESTA L-A REPREZENTAT PE PERETII PESTERILOR SI ATUNCI GEOLOGII AU INCERCAT SA FIXEZE O DATA PENTRU ULTIMA MARE EPOCA GLACIARA. IN URMA ACESTOR CALCULE TIMPUL MAXIM CARE S-A SCURS DE LA ULTIMA EPOCA GLACIARA ESTE REDUS LA CINCI MII DE ANI. REZULTATELE CERCETARILOR PALEONTOLOGICE IN AMERICA ADUC O DOVADA CARE CONSTITUIE O GARANTIE CA, INAINTE DE ULTIMA PERIOADA DE GLACIATIUNE, OMUL MODERN, REPREZENTAT PRIN RASA FOARTE DEZVOLTATA A INDIENILOR DIN AMERICA, TRAIA PE COASTA ORIENTALA A AMERICII DE NORD.

TOATE LEGENDELE SI SCRIERILE ANTICE ARATA CA PE TIMPUL DECLANSARII UNEI CATASTROFE CARE A CAUZAT O EPOCA GLACIARA, PAMANTUL, CU OCEANELE SI CONTINENTELE SALE, A SUFERIT O CRESTERE DE CALDURA, IAR PE TIMPUL ACESTOR CATACLISME ASTRII CERESTI, SOARELE IN MOD DEOSEBIT, S-AU OPRIT IN MIJLOCUL CERULUI; IN ANALELE DE LA CUAUHTITLAN ESTE RELATAT FAPTUL CA ACUM 3.500 DE ANI IN CURSUL UNUI CATACLISM COSMIC, NOAPTEA S-A PRELUNGIT FOARTE MULT TIMP; ACEASTA PERIOADA COINCIDE PERFECT CU RELATAREA BIBLICA DIN CARTEA LUI IOSUA CARE DESCRIE CUM SOARELE A RAMAS PE CER O ZI IN PLUS.

Diferitele traditii mentioneaza prelungirea zilei sau a noptii, ori disparitia Soarelui si Lunii, intarziate in diferite puncte ale Zodiacului, in timp ce Pamantul suferea un bombardament cu pietre intr-o lume cuprinsa de flacari. Natiunile si triburile din multe regiuni ale globului, la nord, la sud si la vest de Egipt, au traditii vechi referitoare la un cataclism cosmic, in cursul caruia Soarele nu a luminat. Dar, in unele parti ale lumii, traditiile spun ca Soarele nu a apus un timp egal cu cateva zile. Acest cataclism major, descris si in documentele mayase, a produs explozii vulcanice, trombe de apa care se rostogoleau peste munti; fata Pamantului s-a schimbat, munti intregi s-au prabusit, altii s-au ivit desupra cataractelor torentiale, ridicati din spatiile oceanice, nenumarate rauri si-au parasit albia.

In multe locuri din lume, si mai ales la nord, se inalta blocuri enorme; aceste stanci au o compozitie total diferita de cea a rocilor din jur, dar se inrudesc insa cu formatiuni aflate la o departare de cativa kilometri. Aceste blocuri eratice pot sa cantareasca pana la zece mii de tone, aproximativ greutatea a o suta treizeci de mii de oameni. Maree enorme s-au revarsat peste continente si au antrenat mase de pietre, dar ce fenomen ar fi putut sa ridice aceste imense maree la o inaltime atat de mare si sa le precipite pe continente? Transportul maselor de pietre de la ecuator pana spre latitudini superioare, problema insolubila de care se loveste teoria glaciara, se poate explica prin retragerea spre pol a apelor de la ecuator, IN MOMENTUL IN CARE VITEZA DE ROTATIE A PAMANTULUI A FOST REDUSA SAU POLII DEPLASATI.

Traditia indigenilor din Brazilia spune: Fulgerele straluceau, tunetul bubuia, si toti ne-am speriat. Atunci, cerul a facut explozie, si bucatile au cazut si au lovit de moarte toate lucrurile si toate creaturile. Cerul si Pamantul si-au schimbat locurile.

Din istoria epocii imparatului Yao din China antica: Soarele nu a apus timp de cateva zile, padurile au fost devastate de foc, tara a fost acoperita de insecte, un val inalt, urcand pana la cer, s-a revarsat pe uscat, a maturat piscurile si a acoperit vaile timp de multi ani.

Inscriptii vechi egiptene sunt de o claritate absoluta: Harakhte (Soarele de la vest), el, rasare LA VEST. TEXTELE GASITE IN PIRAMIDE SPUN CA ASTRUL A INCETAT SA MAI LOCUIASCA LA VEST SI CA STRALUCESTE, REINNOIT, LA EST. Traditiile popoarelor care locuiau la frontiera de sud a Egiptului spun ca schimbarile miscarii Soarelui si marile cataclisme care au pus capat epocilor lumii au coincis. Inversarea est-vest, combinata cu inversarea nord-sud, ar transforma constelatiile din nord si constelatiile din sud si anotimpurile si-ar schimba ordinea si intensitatea. Traditiile orale ale popoarelor antice din diferitele parti ale lumii pastreaza si amintirea acestei tulburari a miscarii corpurilor ceresti, anotimpurilor, timpului, in cursul unei perioade in care intunericul invaluia Pamantul. Devierea Pamantului din locul sau initial implica o modificare a orbitei sale (duratei anului), o modificare a inclinatiei axei de rotatie pe planul eclipticii (perturbare a anotimpurilor), o deplasare a polilor...

TABLITELE ASTRONOMICE BABILONIENE DIN SECOLUL AL VIII-LEA I.HR. NE FURNIZEAZA DATE PRECISE, CONFORM CARORA ZIUA CEA MAI LUNGA LA BABILON ERA DE 14H 24`, IN TIMP CE CALCULE MODERNE DAU 14H 10`54', DECI BABILONUL ANTIC ERA SITUAT LA O LATITUDINE DE 35 GRADE DE ECUATOR, MULT MAI LA NORD DECAT RUINELE ORASULUI. PTOLEMEU, IN LUCRAREA SA ALMAGEST A FACUT CALCULELE PENTRU VECHIUL SI NOUL BABILON; LA FEL SI SAVANTUL ARAB ARZACHEL, CARE A CALCULAT CA IN VREMURI MAI VECHI BABILONUL ERA SITUAT LA O LATITUDINE DE 35 GRADE DE ECUATOR. JOHANNES KEPLER A ATRAS ATENTIA ASUPRA CALCULELOR LUI ARZACHEL SI ASUPRA FAPTULUI CA INTRE VECHIUL SI NOUL BABILON EXISTA O DIFERENTA DE LATITUDINE. AVAND IN VEDERE CA A EXISTAT UN SINGUR BABILON, SITUAREA LUI IN TIMPURILE TRECUTE LA 35 GRADE LATITUDINE NORDICA INSEAMNA CA, LA LONGITUDINEA BABILONULUI, PAMANTUL S-A INVARTIT SPRE SUD SI CA DIRECTIA AXEI POLARE SAU AMPLASAREA SA GEOGRAFICA ORI AMANDOUA S-AU DEPLASAT.

Lucrarile cercetatorilor au putut sa determine ca doar templele cele mai recente ERAU ORIENTATE SPRE EST, IN TIMP CE FUNDATIILE TEMPLELOR ANTERIOARE SECOLULUI AL VII-LEA I.HR. ERAU ORIENTATE INTR-UN SENS CARE SE DEPARTA IN MOD DELIBERAT DE EST.

Dupa marele cataclisme de acum 3.500 de ani, respectiv 2.700 de ani, polii nu mai aveau aceleasi pozitii. Toate latitudinile au fost deplasate, iar axa si-a schimbat directia. Anul a crescut de la 360 la 365 zile si un sfert; toate ceasurile antice construite inainte de 687 i.hr. au devenit inutilizabile (vezi ceasul gasit la Fayum, in Egipt, la latitudinea de 27 de grade).

Modificarile suferite de Pamant nu sunt rezultatul unui proces lent; regiuni intregi cu o clima moderata s-au pomenit instantaneu transportate in interiorul cercului polar. In America si in Europa, stratul de gheata a inceput sa se topeasca. Exterminarea brusca a mamutilor a fost provocata de un cataclism; ei au pierit prin asfixiere sau prin electrocutare, iar aparitia aproape imediata a continentului siberian in regiunea polara explica starea de conservare a mamutilor. IN CATEVA ORE, PARTEA DE NORD-EST A AMERICII ALUNECA DIN ZONA POLARA INTR-O REGIUNE MODERATA, IN TIMP CE PARTEA NORD-ESTICA A SIBERIEI EFECTUA DEPLASAREA INVERSA.

INAINTE DE A NUMARA 365 DE ZILE SI UN SFERT, AVEM NUMEROASE MARTURII CARE ATESTA CA ANUL AVEA DOAR 360 DE ZILE; DE ASEMENEA INCLUDEA DOAR ZECE LUNI. DE JUR-IMPREJURUL GLOBULUI, IN ANII CARE AU URMAT LUI 687 I.HR., TOATE POPOARELE AU LUCRAT LA REFORMA CALENDARULUI. INTRE 747 - 687 I.HR., CALENDARUL SUFERISE DE O CONFUZIE HAOTICA, INTRUCAT LUNGIMEA ANULUI, A LUNII SI PROBABIL SI A ZILEI SE SCHIMBA PERMANENT.

CALENDARELE, HARTILE CERESTI, CADRANELE SOLARE SI CLEPSIDRELE ANTERIOARE LUI 687 I.HR. AU DEVENIT INUTILIZABILE INCEPAND DE LA ACEASTA DATA. TOATE CIFRELE STABILITE DUPA 687 I.HR. AU RAMAS PRACTIC NESCHIMBATE PANA IN ZILELE NOASTRE, CU EXCEPTIA CATORVA RECTIFICARI DE DETALIU. NICI O MODIFICARE NU A MAI FOST OBSERVATA PE CER; DIN ACEST MOTIV, AVEM INCREDEREA ILUZORIE CA TRAIM INTR-UN UNIVERS UNDE DOMNESTE ORDINEA.

(din capitolele Intr-un Univers Imens, Originea Sistemului Planetar, Originea Cometelor, Planeta Pamant, Epocile Lumii, Epocile Soarelui, Perioadele Glaciare, Estul si Vestul, Rasturnarea Polilor Pamantului, Deplasarea Punctelor Cardinale, Smulgerea Polilor, O Emisfera se Deplaseaza spre Sud, Anul de 360 de Zile, Perturbarile Lunilor, Anii de Zece Luni, Reforma Calendarului)


Daca pamantul s-ar fi oprit din rotatia sa (absolut inexistenta), s-ar fi prabusit IMEDIAT in spatiu...

Mai citeste si documenteaza-te...

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #2 : Mai 02, 2008, 12:44:39 p.m. »
Stiai mey Abel ca in istorie au avut loc ECLIPSE SIMULTANE SOLARE SI LUNARE? Nu?

Dovezile istorice ale eclipselor lunare/solare simultane:

Plinius Secundus in the Chapter XIII, Of Eclipses, in his SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE:

Also that the Sunne and Moone twice in thirtie daies were darkened above the earth: howbeit seene this was not equally in all quarters, but of divers men in divers places: and that which maketh mee to marvell most of all in this wonder, is this, that when agreed it is by all, that the Moone light is dimmed by the shaddow of the earth, one while this eclipse happeneth in the West, and another while in the East: as also, by what reason it happened, that seeing after the Sunne is up, that shaddow which dusketh the light of the Moone, must needs be under the earth: it fell out once, that the Moone was eclipsed in the West, and both planets to be seen above the ground in our horison. For that in twelve daies both these lights were missing, and neither Sun nor Moone were seene: it chaunced in our time, when both the Vespasians (Emperors) were Consuls, the father the third time, and the son the second.

Plinius Secundus did not realize that given the simultaneous nature of the solar/lunar eclipses, the Earth could not be the cause of the lunar eclipse (see also the chapter in Rowbotham's book).


The Report of Pilate to Caesar

And him Herod and Archelaus and Philip, Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me, making a great uproar against me that I should try him. I therefore ordered him to be crucified, having first scourged him, and having found against him no cause of evil accusations or deeds.

And at the time he was crucified there was darkness over all the world, the sun being darkened at mid-day, and the stars appearing, but in them there appeared no lustre; and the moon, as if turned into blood, failed in her light. And the world was swallowed up by the lower regions, so that the very sanctuary of the temple, as they call it, could not be seen by the Jews in their fall; and they saw below them a chasm of the earth, with the roar of the thunders that fell upon it. (1) And in that terror dead men were seen that had risen, as the Jews themselves testified; and they said that it was Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses and Job, that had died, as they say, three thousand five hundred years before. And there were very many whom I also saw appearing in the body; and they were making a lamentation about the Jews, on account of the wickedness that bad come to pass through them, and the destruction of the Jews and of their law.

Din nou din jurnalul de bord al lui Cristofor Columb:

From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.


Mahabharata:

. . in course of the same month both the Moon and the Sun have undergone eclipses on the thirteenth days from the day of the first lunation. The Sun and the Moon therefore, by undergoing eclipses on unusual days, will cause a great slaughter of the creatures of the earth.
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Abel Cavaşi

  • Experimentat
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 882
  • Popularitate: +7/-111
    • Blogul meu
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #3 : Mai 02, 2008, 02:48:23 p.m. »
Mulţumesc pentru posturile în română. Pe restul nu m-am chinuit să le citesc şi nici n-o voi face vreodată pentru că nu am timp de tradus bazaconii din engleză în română. Dacă ai demonstra că textul merită citit, aş face-o cu mult interes, dar aşa...
Ok, deci tu zici că polul nord s-a schimbat brusc. Ei bine, nu cred.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #4 : Mai 02, 2008, 09:37:03 p.m. »
Ce politicos esti...sa-ti traiasca...un eveniment cam rar la tine...dar remarcabil...

Cum adica nu crezi? De cand te-am sfatuit sa citesti Ciocnirea Lumilor (http://www.librariaeminescu.ro/carte/7212/Immanuel-Velikovsky__Ciocnirea-lumilor)...peste o mie de referinte bibliografice din toate popoarele (si Romania) despre faptul ca acum 3,600 de ani pamantul, in varianta heliocentrica (adica aia falsa), s-a oprit din rotatia sa din jurul propriei axe...

Vezi si Datarea cu C14...dinozaurii au disparut acum vreo 4,300 de ani, cataclismul fiind provocat de doi sateliti ai lui Saturn...peninsula Yucatan si insula Pastelui...



"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Adi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 11301
  • Popularitate: +15/-7
    • Site personal Adrian Buzatu
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #5 : Mai 03, 2008, 12:42:58 a.m. »
Sandokhan, multumesc ca ai pus si aici descrierea viziunii tale despre conspiratia despre sateliti, ma pregateam sa o copiez si eu de pe siteul neogen unde o pusesei initial. Cred ca ai nimenit o vreme cand siteul era foarte foarte incet si ti s-a parut ca nu se poate adauga text niciunde. Acum merge iarasi mai rapid, asadar este mai bine.

Am citit rapid textul tau si am gasit raspunsul la care ma asteptam. Satelitul geostationar pluteste la suprafata Pamantului, deasupra unui singur loc. Gravitatia il trage vertical in jos, dar el se mentine la acea inaltime datorita energiei pe care o acumuleaza de la radiatiile cosmice. Am inteles bine ceea ce zice textul tau? Te rog sa imi confirmi.

Acum, spui ca Tesla spunea urmatoarele: "All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons." Ei bine, nu cred ca un om atat de bun in stiinta ca Tesla ar fi numit o particula incarcata electric "neutron". Texul e scris in 1932, anul cand parca s-a descoperit si neutronul. Ce stim noi acum in stiinta este ca radiatiile cosmice vin intr-adevar pe Terra, dar nu putem extrage energie in de ele, energia este foarte joasa. Prin radiatii cosmice ma refer la particule cu sarcina electrica, protoni in special, nuclei usori de asemenea, iar nu fotoni. Fotonii vin de la soare si aduc cu ei multa energie, intreaga viata pe Terra se sustine din acea energie.

Citezi asa de mult din Tesla ca ma faci curios sa citesc viata lui mai bine si poate chiar operele lui complete, sa vad daca chiar sunt acolo textele care i le atribui tu. Cred ca spui prea mult ce credea unul sau altul. Ca Einstein nu credea in eter, ca Newton nu credea in gravitatie ca 1/r^2, ca Tesla nu credea in cutare. Nu conteaza ce credeau ei, conteaza ce e adevarul, ce teorii au dezvoltat. Ori teoria lui Einstein se baza pe faptul ca eterul nu exista, iar teoria lui Newton tocmai ca spunea ca oricare doua corpuri din unives se atrag in 1/r^2. Nu stiu de unde le scoti.

O sa le citim rand pe rand, cand ne facem timp. Iti multumesc pentru participare si te mai asteptam, ai spus ca te retragi ca ai spus cam tot ce aveai de spus si te cred, ai spus foarte mult, pe multe subiecte.

Cu bine,
Adi
Pagina personala: http://adrianbuzatu.ro

Offline Abel Cavaşi

  • Experimentat
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 882
  • Popularitate: +7/-111
    • Blogul meu
Saturn are sateliţi?
« Răspuns #6 : Mai 03, 2008, 03:05:13 p.m. »
Cum adica nu crezi? De cand te-am sfatuit sa citesti Ciocnirea Lumilor (http://www.librariaeminescu.ro/carte/7212/Immanuel-Velikovsky__Ciocnirea-lumilor)...peste o mie de referinte bibliografice din toate popoarele (si Romania) despre faptul ca acum 3,600 de ani pamantul, in varianta heliocentrica (adica aia falsa), s-a oprit din rotatia sa din jurul propriei axe...
Numai o mie de referinţe? Păi crezi că-mi ajung?  ;D Şi crezi că ajunge să citesc o singură carte pentru ca tu să-mi răspunzi direct la o întrebare? ;D

Când vei înţelege că nu trebuie să faci abuz de asemenea referinţe? Când vei înţelege că nu se poate purta o discuţie trimiţând de la Ana la Caiafa? Bine că nu mi-ai spus ceva de genul: „De când te-am sfătuit să citeşti întreaga Wikipedie...”! Să fim serioşi... Nu eşti în stare să dai răspunsuri directe la întrebările pe care ţi le punem? Ai venit aici să arunci mii de lincuri încoace şi încolo? Tu vrei să discuţi cu noi sau ce vrei? Pe tine te interesează părerea noastră sau nu? Dacă te interesează părerea noastră, ai face bine să fii atent la întrebările pe care ţi le punem şi să te străduieşti să cauţi răspunsul.

Să presupunem că te interesează părerea mea. În cazul acesta, îţi spun că părerea (dealtfel, convingerea) mea este că Pământul este rotund, se roteşte şi mai are în plus chiar şi are o mişcare de precesie (ştii tu, acea mişcare a axei de rotaţie care descrie un con) cu o perioadă de vreo 26000 ani. Ok, asta este părerea mea. Poţi ţine seama de ea? Îţi pasă puţin de ceea ce cred eu?

S presupunem acum că ai înţeles ce cred eu despre mişcarea Pământului. În cazul acesta tu trebuie să-mi explici mie, pe înţelesul meu, ţinând seama de ceea ce cred eu, de ce Soarele dispare periodic, de ce există Internet, televiziune, etc.
Tu zici că Pământul nu se roteşte. Atunci cum se explică eroziunea neuniformă a căilor ferate sau a malurilor râurilor, datorată forţei Coriolis? Dar succesiunea zi-noapte?

Răspunde-mi cu posibilităţile şi cuvintele tale, nu altfel. Nu am nevoie de niciun linc. Trebuie să fii capabil să sintetizezi tot ceea ce ai citit şi să-mi răspunzi concis la întrebări. Sau nu eşti? Dă-mi răspunsuri directe la întrebările puse. Dacă vrei să mai vorbim. Sau nu vrei? Poate ai vrea să tăcem din gură şi să te lăsăm să postezi tot felul de asemenea aberaţii? Ei bine, nu! Eu unul n-am să te las să spui la nesfârşit ceea ce eu şi milioane ca mine considerăm că sunt prostii. Mai ales că tonul tău este din cale-afară de insuportabil, având în vedere că propui o teorie ciudată pe care, nu doar că nu o poţi susţine răspunzându-ne frumos la întrebările pe care ţi le punem, ci mai ai şi tupeul să ne-o impui cu un limbaj grosolan fără să ne dai explicaţiile de care avem nevoie.

Citat
Vezi si Datarea cu C14...dinozaurii au disparut acum vreo 4,300 de ani, cataclismul fiind provocat de doi sateliti ai lui Saturn...peninsula Yucatan si insula Pastelui...
Chiar, Saturn are sateliţi? Şi ei sunt menţinuţi în aer tot cu nişte raze descoperite de marele Tesla? Şi, apropo, tu chiar spui că sateliţii artificiali sunt menţinuţi în aer cu razele lui Tesla? Fii bun şi tradu-mi, că eu mă îngrozesc...

Mai am şi alte întrebări! Abia aştept să văd cum răspunzi la ele, cât de direct şi de clar!
« Ultima Modificare: Mai 03, 2008, 03:09:21 p.m. de Abel Cavaşi »

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #7 : Mai 03, 2008, 06:40:23 p.m. »
Adi, cerceteaza cronologia si faptul ca am postat textul exact al conspiratorului rosicrucian J. Chadwick (experimentul facut de el a avut loc in Mai 1932, articolul lui Tesla a fost publicat in Iulie 1932...).

Toate descoperirile lui Tesla re: Cosmic Rays au fost clasificate drept secret de stat de US Govt.; de aceea nu gasesti informatiile necesare in manualele de fizica contemporane.

http://www.scientia.ro/forum/index.php?topic=131.0 Possible Existence of a Neutron, analiza devastatoare a disertatiei lui Chadwick care nu a descoperit de fapt absolut nimic

Adu-ti aminte ce a spus de fapt Chadwick: The difficulties disappear, however, if it be assumed that the radiation consists of particles of mass 1 and charge 0, or neutrons.

Iar Tesla spune: so small a charge, adica aproape zero, la ce s-a referit de fapt? La faptul ca neutronul, care nu este deloc o particula, dar este very slightly magnetic, si deci can be affected by the electromagnetic force, the force of attraction or repulsion between electrically charged or magnetic objects.

MAI MULT: The fact that the neutron possesses a magnetic moment suggests that it has an internal structure of electric charge, although the net charge is zero. LA ASTA S-A REFERIT TESLA...

Acum sa revedem din ce credea Newton de fapt, o teorie a aetherului si nicidecum a vreunei atractii universale...:

In Newton's student notes on Descartes a rather Aristotelian downward impulsion of gravity is compared with the centrifugal force of the (Cartesian) solar vortex:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.17 His student notes showed him mulling over the design of a perpetual-motion engine to harness the downward flow of the gravity-ether.18 Later on in the 1670s he was to write to the Royal Society about its properties.

Some early notes by Newton on lunar theory appear on two folio sheets of his copy of Vincent Wing's Astronomia Britannica, published in 1669. They described how a terrestrial vortex, carrying the Moon round, was 1/43rd of the strength of the solar vortex. The pressure of the solar vortex deformed the lunar orbit within the terrestrial one, thereby accounting for certain known inequalities in its lunar motion. His notes queried whether the Earth's ‘endeavour of receding' from the Sun might affect the Moon's orbit, ‘unless the moon also shares in the same endeavour.'

The Ether theory published

In the following decade, and deriving from his alchemical studies, Newton came to develop his views on the workings of the gravity-ether. As communicated to the Royal Society in December of 1675 and written up in their History, it went as follows:

So may the gravitating attraction of the earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other such like aetherial spirit, not of the main body of phlegmatic aether, but of something very thinly and subtilely diffused through it, perhaps of an unctious, or gummy tenacious and springy nature.

A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679, wherein ‘ye cause of gravity' was to be found, not as earlier in a flux of downward-rushing particles, but in a static gradient of texture in an aether, from grosser particles above to subtler ones below. The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards. Two points should be noted about this second aether-gravity model communicated by Newton: if the 1675 version encoded an inverse-square principle, as was averred a decade later, then that principle has here been dispensed with; and, its gravity-field clearly continued down through Earth's crust as far as Earth's centre, a matter which remained equivocal in the earlier version.

At the outset of his 'Principia,' Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word 'attraction' with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his 'Principia' (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, 'Scholium'), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses. In section XI. (Introduction) he expresses the opinion that 'there is some subtle spirit by the force and action of which all movements of matter are determined' (see Mod. Mater., by Rev. W. F. Wilkinson); and in his third Letter to Bentley he says:

 'It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact, as it must do if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. . . . That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action 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.


At this, even Newton's contemporaries got frightened -- at the apparent return of occult causes into the domain of physics. Leibnitz called his principle of attraction 'an incorporeal and inexplicable power.' The supposition of an attractive faculty and a perfect void was characterized by Bernoulli as 'revolting,' the principle of actio in distans finding thus no more favour then than it does now. Euler, on the other hand, thought the action of gravity was due to either a Spirit or some subtle medium. And yet Newton knew of, if he did not accept, the Ether of the Ancients. He regarded the intermediate space between the sidereal bodies as vacuum. Therefore he believed in 'subtle spirit' and Spirits as we do, guiding the so-called attraction. The above-quoted words of the great man have produced poor results. The 'absurdity' has now become a dogma in the case of pure materialism, which repeats, 'No matter without force, no force without matter; matter and force are inseparable, eternal and indestructible (true); there can be no independent force, since all force is an inherent and necessary property of matter (false); consequently, there is no immaterial creative power.' Oh, poor Sir Isaac!

Newton's Principia had one major problem, however. How could two objects attract each other across a vacuum? This was a theory like that of Aristotle's, but now a stone did not have just a 'natural tendency' to fall to Earth, far more incredibly it had a 'natural tendency' to be attracted to every other object in the universe. Descartes had a rational explanation for why stones fell to Earth and why planets orbited the Sun. Newton's theory, however, was based on some magic power of matter to be attracted to all other matter and this was anything but rational.

How did Newton answer the critics who asked: how is action at a distance possible? He did not try to. Rather he said that he was explaining how things worked but not attempting to explain why they worked that way. For some this was good enough, for others this was such an unsatisfactory state of affairs that they had to reject Newton's theory.

And the sticking point was that Newton had no mechanism for the action of gravity, indeed he had dispensed with the Cartesian ether as a mechanism of action. Gravity was effectively 'spooky action at a distance' which upset people no end. Even Newton was bothered a bit by it.

In fact, we have written evidence, that Newton used a pushing gravity hypothesis in the first place in order to arrive at the inverse square law. 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 consiquently its force will be recoiprocally 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 thr hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'




« Ultima Modificare: Mai 03, 2008, 06:43:00 p.m. de sandokhan »
"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #8 : Mai 03, 2008, 06:53:37 p.m. »
Abel, nu ti-ai facut temele...iar stilul asta pompos prin care incerci sa manevrezi cu smecherie in jurul faptului ca ti-am pus la dispozitie material suficient (poze/video, daca tot nu esti convins, le postam si aici din nou) care iti dovedesc corectitudinea teoriei pamantului plat, nu-ti merge cu mine...ti-o spun din nou...

Nu ai citit ce am scris la Despre Pendulul lui Foucault, am inclus tot ce trebuie re: Coriolis Force @ co., cu cine crezi ca stai de vorba aici?

Cat despre zi-noapte, chiar atat de lipsit de inspiratie este incat sa nu intelegi cum stau lucrurile? Trebuie sa-ti explic iarasi ca unui copil (de 42 de ani)? Soarele orbiteaza, impreuna cu toate planetele/stelele in jurul Polului Nord, luminand pe rand partile/teritoriile corespunzatoare:


Orbits of stars around the North Pole:








Orbita Soarelui deasupra Pamantului Plat:









"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Abel Cavaşi

  • Experimentat
  • ***
  • Mesaje postate: 882
  • Popularitate: +7/-111
    • Blogul meu
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #9 : Mai 03, 2008, 07:30:08 p.m. »
Aştept răspunsuri directe la toate întrebările pe care ţi le-am pus. Până când nu-mi răspunzi direct la toate întrebările pe care ţi le-am pus, nu mai discut cu tine. Punct.

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #10 : Mai 03, 2008, 07:57:10 p.m. »
Abel, ai nevoie sa CERCETEZI k lumea un subiect...ai nevoie, si ti-o spun fara rautate, de cateva sute de carti si de vreo 5,000 de linkuri, ca sa ajungi la un nivel mai inalt...eu ti-am oferit TOT ce ai nevoie ca sa-ti raspunzi, si singur, la intrebarile tale...eu nu sunt aici sa te dadacesc, sau sa accesez eu pentru tine linkuri si citate, pana cand gasesti raspunsurile cautate...asta e treaba ta, si nu a mea...

Asa cum ai vazut nu exista nici un fel de curbura peste Stramtoarea Gibraltar, Canalul Manecii, Lacul Ontario, distanta Mangalia-Varful Toaca; daca tu alegi sa crezi mai departe intr-un pamant de forma sferica, eu nu te opresc...

Mai multe detalii despre descoperirile lui Tesla, si cum l-a vizitat in Germania pe H. Hertz pentru a il informa despre greselile pe care acesta le-a comis despre natura undelor E/M lui Maxwell:

Maxwell’s Equations
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.

Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.

Tesla’s introduction to the phenomena of Radiant Energy began with early observations by linesmen working for Thomas Edison, Tesla’s former employer

DC Anomalies
Before Tesla’s invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.

Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure?



Missing Theory

Tesla didn’t give us his own physical theory, but with his numerous experiments, he created the basis for a new understanding of electromagnetism based on resonance. He considered that the World is a uniform, continuous electromagnetic medium and that matter is one of the manifestations of organized electromagnetic oscillations described by mathematical algorithms. He considered that the law of resonance is the most general natural law, which overcomes time and distance, and that all relations between phenomena are established only by means of various simple and complex resonances, i.e. consistent vibrations of physical systems, mainly of electromagnetic nature.

Finally, instead of Newton’s integrals, Leibniz’s differentials and Maxwell’s theory as expressed in his field equations, Tesla used the simple mathematics of the Ancient Greek mechanical geniuses, mainly Archimedes, making an analogy between mechanics and electromagnetism. It is not possible to fully evaluate the significance of this method of thinking, which points directly towards a necessity of a full physical interpretation of elementary mathematical notions.

Parts of the structured ether can be in resonance or not. In the first case, a condensation of subatomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons takes place. These particles appear by means of resonant synthesis of photons, according to the same principles as during formation of photons as specific particles of the ether. Asynchronous, non-resonant parts of Ether form a space, in which resonating photons form matter.

Tesla’s Wardenclyffe Tower was a “ Pythagorean” oscillator. The mathematical description of transmission of particular electromagnetic waves was identical with the Pythagorean creative method. Signs used by Tesla in his equations have a single-meaning physical interpretation. The principles of Tesla’s ether technologies belong to the level of cosmic existence, where it is possible to control space and time. The principle of resonance and harmonic oscillation of the ether seems to be so clear that all problems of modern physics, especially problems of energy conversion, will be solved with its development.

By means of his vacuum tube Tesla obtained protons, electrons and neutrons directly from the physical continuum (ether) and reproduced them at any distance. Instead of providing for a bundle of protons to move freely through space to some place, he created the conditions for the immediate appearance of an arbitrary quantity of particles in the given place. The quantity of protons, neutrons and electrons was unlimited and the difference in their quantity was stipulated by creating a shift in time.



Dynamic Ether:

http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/phys1.htm

Tesla Technology:

http://www.icorp.net/users/kev/tesla/link.htm

Etherul devine vizibil in fotografiile Kirlian si observabil in fenomenul fulgerului globular (ball lightning)...

kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html

Automobilul cu ether al lui Tesla:

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm

supersite Nikola Tesla (va pot oferi aici doar icing on the cake, restul linkurilor despre atomul aetheric, implozia atomului, altadata sau never):

http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/tesla.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~drestinblack/teslatoc.htm

"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Adi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 11301
  • Popularitate: +15/-7
    • Site personal Adrian Buzatu
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #11 : Mai 03, 2008, 08:17:25 p.m. »
Sankdohkan, ai corectat acum si ai spus ca de fapt neutronul nu are sarcina electrica totala, dar este compus de chestii mia mici care au sarcina electrica, iar aceasta rotindu-se dau un camp magnetic total al neutronului. Foarte corect, exact aceasta crede si stiinta oficiala despre neutron. Acesta este format din trei cuarci si are camp magnetic. Dar daca are camp magnetic, nu este influentat de componenta electrica a campului electromagnetic, in special nu poate fi accelerat sau franat, ci doar influente mai slabe ale mecanicii cuantice intra in activitate.

Soarele este circular, sau este si el tot plat?
Pagina personala: http://adrianbuzatu.ro

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #12 : Mai 04, 2008, 05:53:52 p.m. »
Adi...hehehe...nu am spus deloc asa ceva...neutronul ESTE UN VORTEX CARE PROVINE DIN AETHER si nicidecum o particula, NU EXISTA CUARCI (QUARKS), un concept inventat pentru a ascunde existenta aetherului si tachyonilor.

Soarele este de forma unui disc aplatizat, la fel ca si Luna. Daca ai citit Imposibilitatea big bang/string theory, ai sa vezi ca nu ar fi avut cum sa se formeze vreo stea de la bun inceput, nici macar vreun colt; citeste si Helium Gap 5 paradox.

Acum sa vedem cum nu ar fi putut sa se formeze nici un fel de stea/soare de forma sferica:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

12. Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

13. If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).



Un citat de al lui Einstein, de care, iarasi nu stiai:

"All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question: What are light quanta?" December, 1951

Tesla stia de existenta neutronului, neutrinului, protonului, pozitronului si electronului inca din 1899, de aceea stia bine de tot ce spune in acel articol.

Electronul este un vortex care, iarasi provine din aether; Murray Gell-Mann A CREZUT ca a descoperit ceea ce mai tarziu au fost numiti quarks, de fapt descoperise un sistem complex de vortex-uri.

Nu exista fotoni; light is made out of waves, unde ale aetherului.

Un proton este compus dintr-un vortex aflat in centru (pozitron), inconjurat de sase electroni (iarasi vortex-uri), in forma de octahedron, deci a compound vortex composed of other vortices.


The “photon”, as has been mentioned, does not exist, being completely replaced by the phi-wave-modulation model.  Einstein invented it on the basis of:

(a) Planck’s black body radiation formula, and

(b) the photoelectric effect, using

(c) Compton scattering as confirmation.

Planck’s formula, though, was really just an empirical one that he had fitted and tried to interpret, making some implausible assumptions about heat and matter.  Planck himself objected to the idea of the photon[30].  The actual experiments supposed to confirm Einstein’s photoelectric theory did not involve single photons or electrons and Millikan, the experimenter who did the definitive versions, described Einstein’s interpretation as “reckless”.  Compton scattering was interpreted in terms of photons and electrons only, as far as I can discover, because, after Einstein’s acclamation by the media regarding the gravitational bending of light, such ideas were in vogue. Schrödinger and others worked on alternative, wave, explanations.  The people who are now regarded as the Founding Fathers of quantum theory resisted the photon idea on the basis of the facts – as true now as they were then – that it cannot explain interference effects and has no real place for the concept of frequency.  I could go on!  The photon idea has led to some absurd interpretations of a great number of experiments, and to the inability of modern theorists to make any mental distinction between “energy” and “frequency”.







"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck

Offline Adi

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Mesaje postate: 11301
  • Popularitate: +15/-7
    • Site personal Adrian Buzatu
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #13 : Mai 05, 2008, 03:44:40 a.m. »
Adi...hehehe...nu am spus deloc asa ceva...neutronul ESTE UN VORTEX CARE PROVINE DIN AETHER si nicidecum o particula, NU EXISTA CUARCI (QUARKS), un concept inventat pentru a ascunde existenta aetherului si tachyonilor.
Daca este asa cum spui tu, cum explici experimentele ce au loc zi de zi, cate o suta pe secunda, la acceleratoarele de particule din intreaga lume? Sunt cel putin vreo 10 acceleratoare de particule. Si ei sunt in o teorie a conspiratiei?


Un citat de al lui Einstein, de care, iarasi nu stiai:

"All these 50 years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question: What are light quanta?" December, 1951

Einstein nu a crezut niciodata in mecanica cuantica. In plus aici se refera la aspectul fundamental, filosofic, al mecanicii cuantice, pe care nu il intelege nimeni. Cine crede ca intelege cu adevarat mecanica cuantica, se inseala. Asta au zis-o si continua sa o zica fizicieni mari. Asta nu inseamna ca mecanica cuantica nu e corecta, o verificam in experimente zi de zi.

Tesla stia de existenta neutronului, neutrinului, protonului, pozitronului si electronului inca din 1899, de aceea stia bine de tot ce spune in acel articol.
M-ai facut curios cu Tesla. In fizica oficiala, in 1899 se stia doar electronul, nu se stia nici macar ca exista protoni si nu nucleu. Te rog spune-mi exact in ce carte sau articol stiintific sa caut ca ar fi vorbit Tesla despre neutron, proton, neutrino, electron si pozitron. Pozitronul a aparut abia in 1932 ca si concept, parca. Intuitia animateriei nu putea sa vina pe vremea lui Tesla, cand noi nu stiam nici macar atomul ce este.

Electronul este un vortex care, iarasi provine din aether; Murray Gell-Mann A CREZUT ca a descoperit ceea ce mai tarziu au fost numiti quarks, de fapt descoperise un sistem complex de vortex-uri.
Dar esti de acord ca exista trei entitati distincte in un proton sau in un neutron? Ca tu le zici vortexuri, ca noi le zicem cuarci, nu conteaza. Dar esti de acord ca sunt trei, sau crezi ca fizicenii din fizica particulelor mint zi de zi?

Nu exista fotoni; light is made out of waves, unde ale aetherului.

Doar aspectul corpuscular explica fenomenul fotoelectric si efectul Compton.

Un proton este compus dintr-un vortex aflat in centru (pozitron), inconjurat de sase electroni (iarasi vortex-uri), in forma de octahedron, deci a compound vortex composed of other vortices.
Deci protonul e un fel de atom, format din 3 vortexuri (cuarci) sau e format in sapte vortexuri (unul de pozitron si sase de electroni)? Daca ar fi asa, nu ar trebui sa fie sarcina electrica a unui proton egala cu (+1)+(-5), adica -5 valoarea absoluta a sarcinii electronului?

The “photon”, as has been mentioned, does not exist, being completely replaced by the phi-wave-modulation model.  Einstein invented it on the basis of:

(a) Planck’s black body radiation formula, and

(b) the photoelectric effect, using

(c) Compton scattering as confirmation.
In sfarsit, ceva corect ...

Planck’s formula, though, was really just an empirical one that he had fitted and tried to interpret, making some implausible assumptions about heat and matter.  Planck himself objected to the idea of the photon[30].  The actual experiments supposed to confirm Einstein’s photoelectric theory did not involve single photons or electrons and Millikan, the experimenter who did the definitive versions, described Einstein’s interpretation as “reckless”.  Compton scattering was interpreted in terms of photons and electrons only, as far as I can discover, because, after Einstein’s acclamation by the media regarding the gravitational bending of light, such ideas were in vogue. Schrödinger and others worked on alternative, wave, explanations.  The people who are now regarded as the Founding Fathers of quantum theory resisted the photon idea on the basis of the facts – as true now as they were then – that it cannot explain interference effects and has no real place for the concept of frequency.  I could go on!  The photon idea has led to some absurd interpretations of a great number of experiments, and to the inability of modern theorists to make any mental distinction between “energy” and “frequency”.[/b]
Formula lui Planck explica in o singura formula fapte experimentale care inainte erau explicate prin doua formule. Formula introducea faptul ca energia ar fi multiplii intregi de h niu. Era o idee asa de noua, bazata pe nici un alt fapt experimental sau teoretic, incat era normal ca Planck sa o priveasca cu scepticism. Era un profesor german, riguros, aproape de 50 de ani, avea reputatia de aparat. Schrodinger a dezvoltat ecuatia functiei de unda, adica a probabilitatii ca o particula sa se afle in un loc la un moment dat de timp. In sensul asta e o unda, nu o unda de lumina.

Ce experimente contrazic ideea de foton? Eu stiu ca toate experimentele sustin ideea de foton. Iar faptul ca exista o unitate intre energie si frecventa este genial, treptat tot mai multe notiuni vor fi adunate si explicate cu cat mai putine notiuni.

Astept raspunsurile tale. Cu bine,
Adi







[/quote]
Pagina personala: http://adrianbuzatu.ro

Offline sandokhan

  • Junior
  • **
  • Mesaje postate: 118
  • Popularitate: +0/-1
Re: Satellite conspiracy
« Răspuns #14 : Mai 05, 2008, 08:22:08 p.m. »
Adi, mi-ar fi facut placere sa-ti raspund cu mai multe detalii, dar deocamdata I have to take care of things elsewhere, vad ca esti de acord cu limbajul folosit de electron, sa vedem ce ai sa zici de al meu.

Ti-am scris deja pentru ce sunt folosite si ce sunt de fapt acceleratoarele de particule; Tesla contruise primul accelerator in 1893, vezi cartea pe care ti-am recomandat-o, bineinteles ca ar trebui sa discutam despre asta mult mai mult, sa vin aici cu toate informatiile necesare, dar nu acum...asa cum ai vazut, nivelul forum-ului tau scade mult atunci cand lasi copii de genul electron sa posteze aici...ca sa-mi pierd timpul cu asa ceva, nu se merita...sper ca esti de acord aici...

Antimateria este constituita din tachyoni, adica campul aetheric; pozitronii sunt particule yang, electronii particule yin. Poti gasi tot materialul relevant pe tema Tesla, si ceea ce stia despre vortex-urile energetice inside the atom, eu nu fac afirmatii gratuite, pot sa dovedesc cu exactitate tot ce spun.

Cerceteaza subiectul Compton effect si ai sa descoperi lucruri extraordinare; cum poate fi explicat pe baza undelor din ether si a campului etheric...

Nu poti aduna asa sarcina negativa a electronilor care compun protonul, nu mai e vorba de un efect cumulativ; e vorba de mult mai mult, din nou, daca stiai cum sa manevrezi forum-ul, si sa scapi de gunoaie, as fi fost inclinat sa vin aici cu tot materialul...cu toate detaliile...la fel si despre inexistenta fotonului...

Ce pot sa-ti spun este ca ai nevoie de mai multa experienta ca moderator, si poate mult mai mult timp pentru asa ceva; iti urez succes in toate experimentele si studiile tale, sunt sigur ca vei ajunge foarte departe, poate si pe malul lacului Ontario (destul de aproape de tine, small vacation), Grimsby sau Niagara, cu o luneta, ca sa vezi Toronto fara curbura...



"An important scientific innovation
rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its
opponents: What does happen is that
the opponents gradually die out."
M. Planck