Aether Pressure (I) - Inexistenta atractiei gravitationale

Este o surpriza extraordinara ca sa aflam ca in Principia, Newton nu mentioneaza NICIODATA cuvantul "atractie" (attractive/pulling) gravitationala.

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'.

Nu numai atat, DAR NEWTON NU CREDEA NICIDECUM SI IN NICI UN FEL IN CONCEPTUL DE ATRACTIE GRAVITATIONALA, DIMPOTRIVA.

De la bun inceput, Newton a prezentat o teorie a PRESIUNII AETHERICE (AETHER PRESSURE THEORY):

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 the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

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 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.

NOW, THE AETHER PRESSURE THEORY IS AVAILABLE ONLY FOR THE CASE OF A FLAT EARTH SURFACE; OTHERWISE, THE PRESSURE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE WATER OF THE OCEANS/SEAS/RIVERS IN PLACE, ON A ROUND EARTH, WOULD PREVENT ANY BEING FROM GETTING OFF THE GROUND, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE CLOUDS WOULD CRASH IMMEDIATELY, GIVEN THE PRESSURE.

That is why Newton kept these details away from the general public, because he understood what is involved here.

For the movements of the planets and their satellites we have three possible choices of gravitation:

Pulling (attractive) gravitation - completely impossible, see the above demonstration (the link), also see the thread Gravitons do not exist.

Pushing gravitation - impossible, since all it would do is crash both planets and satellites against each other

Rotational gravitation - we hit the jackpot; the rotational aether field is responsible for the orbits of both planets/satellites

And, as you see above, Newton knew these things quite well.

For the force that keeps us (objects, living beings) on this Earth we have three possible choices, with the corresponding choices of the shape of the earth:

1. Round Earth

Pulling gravitation - absolutely impossible, see the above demonstration (the link), denied and dismissed by Newton himself

Rotational gravitation - impossible, it would keep us in a merry go round type of atmosphere, no living conditions

Pushing gravitation - impossible, OTHERWISE, THE PRESSURE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE WATER OF THE OCEANS/SEAS/RIVERS IN PLACE, ON A ROUND EARTH, WOULD PREVENT ANY BEING FROM GETTING OFF THE GROUND, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE CLOUDS WOULD CRASH IMMEDIATELY, GIVEN THE PRESSURE.

2. Flat Earth

We rule out both pulling/rotational gravitational force for the same reasons, and we have the pushing gravitation explanation, we hit the jackpot again. That is why, during all the Nasa space missions, from Gemini to the space shuttle program, THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION (PUSHING GRAVITY) IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, CANNOT EXIST, CANNOT FUNCTION IN REAL LIFE

Now, we have two different forces, for the orbits of the planets/satellites we have a rotational type of gravitation, and for the Earth we have a pushing type of aether gravitation, therefore, THERE MUST BE A BARRIER BETWEEN THE TWO, SEPARATING THESE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.

Mai departe.

Newton nu credea nicidecum si in nici un caz in conceptul de vid cosmic (cosmic vacuum):

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.”


The superb argument (well known to Newton's contemporaries, but hidden from public view and knowledge) which shows that a three body system, composed of a Star (Sun)/Planet/Satellite cannot function based on Newton's gravitational field invention (made up of gravitons), for better visualization we can substitute Jupiter for the Earth, and Ganymede for the Moon...

If gravitons exist, violations of the Law of Conservation of Energy will almost certainly occur.

Brilliance of light = gravitational attraction = (emission of gravitons)

Decreasing Transparency = Increasing Density and Mass

In this thought experiment, we will specify one sun, one earth and one moon. Each will be partially luminous, to simulate their 'output' of gravitons, and each will also be partially opaque, to indicate their 'capturing-of' or their 'reception-of' gravitons. We would then have the following description of the system.

In this imaginary system, the moon orbits the earth, and the earth-moon pair orbits the sun. Since glow will simulate gravity emitted, we could describe this sun as glowing brighter that this earth, and this earth as glowing brighter than the moon.

In addition, the moon would be more transparent than the earth, and the earth would be less transparent than the sun. This would simulate the increasing 'interception' of gravity, with an increase of both the density and mass from the moon, to the earth then to the sun in our imaginary example.

In this example, the light from the sun would 'attract' the earth and the moon (simulating the pull of gravity). The earth would glow less brilliantly than the sun, but still brighter than the moon. The moon would be attracted to both the earth and the sun, but would orbit the earth. The earth moon pair would then orbit the sun together.

In this example, the moon would spend more time in the earth's shadow, and the earth's shadow would be comparatively darker than the moon's shadow. Since the moon would be attracted to the sun only by the light from the sun, and the light emitted by the earth with the sun shining through the less transparent earth would be less than the light emitted by the sun directly, the moon would gain some amount of orbital distance from the sun every time the moon 'hid' in the earth's shadow.

This gain of gravitational energy, simulated in this example with light and transparency, {for visual purposes only}, would violate conservation of energy. If gravitons exist, they must self-condradictingly pass through nearer masses unaffected, so as not to decrease gravity for masses at a further distance, while still interacting with those closer masses at the same time.

Otherwise, we are left with the choice that masses at a distance will randomly gain some gravitational potential energy depending on whether randomly distributed nearer masses create a gravitational 'shadow' effect. We are once again led to the conclusion that gravitons, if they exist, must create violations of conservation of energy. This is hardly a reliable theoretical endorsement of gravitons, when conservation of energy must fall by the wayside in order to allow gravitons to exist. A much more logical conclusion is again, gravitons do not exist, and cannot exist. Some other method of explaining gravitational interactions must be needed.

There is no such thing as ‘gravitons.’ There is no such thing as ‘gravity waves.’ There is no such thing as ‘gravity.’ The scientists really don’t know much about gravity, and they are the first to admit it. Nobody has ever actually detected gravity. Some scientists say that 'Gravity is a word we use in place of our ignorance.' The concept of perpetually expanding matter is much less preposterous than the concept of 10 or 11 unknown physical dimensions in addition to the 3 spatial dimensions and the 1 time dimension that we can directly observe. String theory or ‘M’ theory is false. There are no extra dimensions, and no public funds should be spent in search of such things.

Demonstratia completa a faptului ca nu exista nici un fel de space-time-continuum, inventat de cuplul de conspiratori Minkowsky si Einstein:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/minkowsky-space-time-concept-hoax-t40.htm

Gases, sea tides, mountain massifs, the atmosphere, planets, the Sun, the Moon, meteorites, comets DO NOT OBEY SUCH A "LAW", the complete demonstration:

COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION by Immanuel Velikovsky

The following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:

1. The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.

4. Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions.(5) But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.

5. The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.
“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’” (6)

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

6. Laplace, pondering the shape of the atmospheric envelope of the earth, came to the conclusion that the atmosphere, which rotates with the same angular velocity as the earth and which behaves like a fluid, must be lenticular in form; its polar and equatorial axes must be about 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles above the ground. At these distances from the ground the gravitational force of the earth is just equal to the centrifugal force due to rotation.

From the measurement of the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere, measurement based also on the principles of gravitation, it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but 17 (not 21,000) miles high.

Observations of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches to a height of 130 miles (meteorites) or over 400 miles (polar auroras). Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this method of investigation.

Two computations, both based on the principle of gravitation, differ in the proportion of 17 and 21,000. Direct observations do not justify either of the computed figures.

7. Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.

Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.

Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.

(even at a factor of 12 km/6378 km =~ 0,002, law of "gravity" could not keep the Earth in equilibrium)

9. Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy.() Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains “a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.” (9)

10. Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10) The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.” (11)

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)

11. 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).

14. The Harmonic Law of Kepler views the movements of the planets as depending only on their distance from the sun. According to Newton, the masses of the sun and the planets must also enter the formulas. The Newtonian orbits differ from the Keplerian, found empirically. The Newtonian formula has a sum of masses (instead of a product of masses), and in view of the largeness of the sun, the Newtonian orbits are supposed to not deviate substantially from the Keplerian.(17)

15. Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.

16. The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(1 As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

17. The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

18. The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.(19)

19. The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s formulas.

20. Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: “I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown.” (20) They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.

21. It was found that “the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer ... It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth’s atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception.” (21)

The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.

22. The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).(22)
“What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)

23. The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.(23)

24. Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground, are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere.(24) The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” (25) On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.

Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.” (26)

25. The earth is a huge magnet; it has electric currents in the ground and is enveloped by a number of layers of electrified ionosphere. The sun possesses an electric charge and magnetic poles; also the sunspots are found to be powerful magnets. The ionosphere is permanently charged by particles arriving from the sun; sunspots actively influence terrestrial magnetism, ground currents, the ionosphere’s charge, and auroras. As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state of the sun on the magnetic field of the earth, the ionosphere, the auroras, and the earth currents are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth, and this for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the gravitational principle.

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the “law of laws” which is supposed to know no exception.


To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:

a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in 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.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

c. Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter(2). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.


A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here:

1. The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.

2. The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe”

3. “An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)

Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions,” and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit. (General Scholium to Book III of the Principia) The inertia of the tangential (instantaneous) push has not exhausted itself in all the eons despite the tidal friction between a satellite and its primary, or the sun pulling the satellite away from the primary, or the resistance of matter (meteorites) in space, though all these forces act permanently and therefore with acceleration.

Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass.(30)

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus.(31) Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance.(32)

Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”

Cat despre miscarea de precesie, sa examinam dovezile care ne arata ca in trecut nu numai ca Pamantul, in versiunea heliocentrica, s-a oprit de mai multe ori din rotatia sa in jurul propriei axe, dar si ca steaua cea mai apropiata de Polul Nord era cu totul alta:

Conform stiintei oficiale, 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 vom accesa toate documentele din antichitate ne 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...

Recomand tuturor lectura cartii Ciocnirea Lumilor de I. Velikovsky (ed. Lucman).

Foarte interesante informatiile prezentate aici! Singurul meu regret este ca sunt greu verificabile. Daca eu n-o pot face, sper sa o faca altii. Din observatii "nestiintifice" am constatat ca vechile informatii cuprinse in legende, mituri, scrieri antice, basmele romanilor, etc. au un caracter nevirusat , cinstit. Aceasta trasatura se intalneste cu greu in ziua de azi. Aceasta face ca Mahabharata, Yi Jing, Biblia sau Basmele Romanilor sa ofere mult mai mult adevar decat stirile TVR-urilor de azi.

Maestre MM, aici gasesti bibliografia de la Cosmos without Gravitation, TOTUL ABSOLUT VERIFICABIL, crezi ca eu postez lucruri fara rost? Not now, not ever!

http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

Velikovsky a oferit PESTE O MIE DE REFERINTE BIBLIOGRAFICE PENTRU CIOCNIREA LUMILOR, TE ROG SA FACI ROST DE CARTE, de la Ed. Lucman...totul absolut verificabil...

Hai sa ne oprim la doar cateva detalii de acolo:

The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

#

Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

#

Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.



2. E.O. Hulburt in Fleming’s Terrestrial Magnetism and Electricity, 1939, p.492

3. W.J. Humphreys, Physics of the Air, 1940, p.227

4. Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition, “Atmosphere”


The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

“It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’” (6)

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

6. W.J. Humphreys, op.cit., p.240. Lord Rayleigh is quoted from the Philos. Mag., May 29, 1890.

Ce parere ai de faptul ca Newton nu mentioneaza NICIODATA cuvintele atractie gravitationala in Principia, si ca de fapt credea in teoria presiunii gravitationale? Vezi citatele din:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/aether-pressure-i-inexistenta-atractiei-gravitationale-t44.htm

Ce parere ai de faptul ca Newton nu mentioneaza NICIODATA cuvintele atractie gravitationala in Principia,

Ca a fost destept cu adevarat. Chiar si din acest mic amanunt reiese recunoscuta lui genialitate caci la vremea aceea el se afla pe un teren minat si trebuia sa fie extrem de corect cu el insusi in sensul ca nu putea sa faca afirmatii fara sa le constate efectiv, cumva. Astfel, el a facut permanent diferentierea intre niste notiuni matematice si realitatea (ce ne scapa si noua). N-au facut-o si nu o fac, epigonii lui. De altfel, NICIODATA nu s-a studiat la scoala dupa texte originare de-ale marilor genii ai stiintelor.

Intr-adevar, el a pornit si s-a bazat pe impuls. Adevaratii cunoscatori (m-am mai referit la Onicescu) stiau. Cu epigonii n-ai ce discuta.

Sandokhan, vreau sa-mi exprim inca o data gratitudinea pentru semnalarea lucrarilor lui B.H. a carui "brace principle" am reusit sa o verific cu frumoase rezultate. (Singura reusita verificare dintre atatea alte teorii ce circula pe forumurile astea!).

In ceea ce-l priveste pe Velikovski, argumentul cu gazele din atmosfera Pamantului nu mi se pare convingator (ca dovada a lipsei atractiei g) deoarece la bazele chimiei e si numarul lui Avogadro (22.400 mi se pare) care afirma egalitatea perfecta a numarului de atomi, indiferent de masa lor, ce se gasesc intr-un acelasi volum. Prin urmare nu conteaza masa; se iau la numar, la intamplare. La fel cu ozonul, el se produce sus la interactiunea cu radiatiile, ionizarea, etc. La inaltimi de zeci de km s-au recoltat/gasit si bacterii, spori si chiar... paianjeni(!). Marturisesc ca urmaresc mai greu textele (lungi) in engleza deoarece am studiat-o ca autodidact si nu prea m-am omorat cu studiul.

Newton a prezentat de la bun inceput o teorie a presiunii gravitationale (aetherice) pentru forta exercitata asupra tuturor corpurilor...si o teorie a aetherului in rotatie ca explicatie pentru orbitele planetelor/corpurilor ceresti...deci doua forte distincte...citeste materialul de aici si vei ramane surprins...destept? Vrei sa spui viclean...si-a copiat TOT, din Naya Vaisesika Sutra si din Ibn al-Haytham...

Desi este doar o ipoteza absolut neverificata, si imposibila din punct de vedere stiintific/fizic, atractia gravitationala ne este oferita ca explicatie oficiala pt. misiunile Nasa...

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Legile lui Newton? Nicidecum!!! Newton si-a copiat la greu si diligent, cuvant cu cuvant, din Naya Vaisesika Sutra, toate ideile esentiale din Principia.

Iata sursa notiunilor fundamentale din fizica, din care fizicienii rosicrucieni s-au inspirat pentru toate rezultatele din electricitate-magnetism, fizica cuantica, optica si multe altele:

NAYA-VAISESIKA SUTRA
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread120045/pg1

Tot ce scriu este verificat, ofer cea mai buna bibliografie, cu experimente cu tot, de fiecare data.

Nu s-au gasit la zeci de km, nimeni si nimic nu a ajuns dincolo de aproximativ 20-25 km, nici vreo misiune unmanned JPL, nici vreo misiune Nasa/MIR...citeste materialul aferent despre moartea astronautilor sovietici ucisi din cauza radiatiei uriase (a dat peste cap contorul Geiger) in perioada 1957-1961.

Explicatii precum radiatii/ionizare sunt oferite in extremis pentru a incerca, cumva, sa se lamureasca cum anume acele gaze nu sunt afectate absolut deloc de principiul/ipoteza atractiei gravitationale.

Nu ai citit ce am scris acolo...

The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

“There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)

Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

Si atunci, ce facem?

Citeste si restul materialului din mesajul meu...lucruri care nu se pot explica absolut deloc cu atractia gravitationala...

Imi mentin parerea cu privire la numarul lui Avogadro care pune in umbra argumentul cu neatractia g. asupra moleculelor din aer. Desi sunt de acord ca nu exista atractie g. (in special datorita lui B.H. conform caruia corpurile nu se atrag, doar se comporta "ca si cand"). Chiar daca contraargumentul cu legea lui Avogadro poate ca nu face altceva decat sa sintetizeze neatractia g. Pentru altii insa argumentele sunt interpretabile.

Voi studia materialele pe care le-ai indicat desi nu cred ca o sa fiu in stare sa le parcurg integral (pot sa citesc/traduc un pasaj important care ma intereseaza in mod deosebit dar mi-e f. greu sa citesc mai multe pagini in engl.).

Ma indoiesc ca Newton a avut la dispozitie pe la ~1700 traducerea engleza (sanskrita nu cred ca "circula" pe atunci) dupa Naya Vaisesika Sutra pentru a o "compila". De altfel e normal ca aceleasi descoperiri stiintifice sa fie identice si dupa 5.000-10.000 de ani la (re)descoperirea lor. Si inca de-abia acum urmeaza partea cea mai nasoala din stiinta care se va indrepta din ce in ce mai mult spre (aceeasi) vrajitorie, (vrajitorie pe care niste urmase ale acelor populatii, din acele locuri, mostenind-o, o practica curent). Newton a fost nu un simplu geniu ci unul triplu, in trei domenii (mecanica, mate, optica/astronomie), prin urmare greu de contestat.

Te rog inca o data, cu insistenta, sa citesti mai atent Cosmos without Gravitation, si in special sectiunea cu gazele, nu ai citit-o decat in treacat...voi reveni si la celelalte aspecte de acolo indata...

Acum sa ne ocupam de sarlatanul Newton...da-mi voie sa-ti pun la dispozitie cea mai buna bibliografie, de unde vei afla ca Newton, Galilei, Gregory, Wallis, Euler, fratii Bernoulli, si ceilalti si-au copiat totul, de la A-Z din sutrele indiene...credeam ca ai citit deja tot ce scriu eu pe subiect...eu nu fac afirmatii gratuite, de fiecare data aduc cele mai formidabile dovezi...asa cum bine stiti...

Toate rezultatele din analiza matematica occidentala (A-Z) au fost copiate din sutrele indiene ale scolii din Kerala (limit passage to infinity, integral and differential calculus, infinite series, continued fractions).

Newton si-a copiat cele trei legi din mecanica din scripturile vedice (la fel procedand si rosicrucianul Leibnitz; lovitura data de rosicrucienii a fost geniala: oferirea unui presupus conflict in vazul lumii, intre Newton si Leibnitz (amandoi initiati rosicrucieni), astfel incat atentia publicului sa fie deturnata de la intrebarile esentiale care ar fi trebuie sa si le puna privind sursa adevarata a conceptelor de analiza matematica pe care acestia le-au publicat...si nu au fost singurii...John Wallis, James Gregory au publicat si ei rezultate inexplicabile, fara demonstratii, din analiza matematica, care coincideau perfect cu alte lucrari publicate mai bine de o mie de ani inainte), legaturile comerciale dintre orasul unde exista cea mai mare scoala de matematica/fizica a antichitatii/evului mediu si Europa fiind binecunoscute de peste 3.000 de ani...fratii Bernoulli si-au copiat rezultatele din manualele de analiza matematica indiene...multe din rezultatele lui L. Euler sunt copiate din aceste manuale, si din care s-a inspirat pentru restul teoremelor sale...primele rezultate cu adevarat originale au aparut abia 150 de ani mai tarziu la scoala de matematica de la Gottingen, C.F. Gauss si G.F. Riemann...

Dr. Joseph George Gheverghese from the University of Manchester said there was strong circumstantial evidence that the Indians passed on their discoveries to mathematically knowledgeable Jesuit missionaries who visited India during the 15th century.

That knowledge may have eventually been passed on to Newton himself, he said.

'It's hard to imagine that the West would abandon a 500-year-old tradition of importing knowledge and books from India and the Islamic world. But we've found evidence there was plenty of opportunity to collect the information as European Jesuits were present in the area at that time,' Dr Joseph said.

'They were learned with a strong background in maths and were well versed in the local languages. And there was strong motivation: Pope Gregory XIII set up a committee to look into modernising the Julian calendar. On the committee was the German Jesuit astronomer/mathematician Clavius, who repeatedly requested information on how people constructed calendars in other parts of the world. The Kerala School was undoubtedly a leading light in this area.

'Similarly there was a rising need for better navigational methods including keeping accurate time on voyages of exploration and large prizes were offered to mathematicians who specialised in astronomy.

'There were many such requests for information across the world from leading Jesuit researchers in Europe. Kerala mathematicians were hugely skilled in this area,' he said.

Toate dovezile pe sectiunea History of the Calculus pe:
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yuktibhasa.pdf (pg. 28-31)

(b) A relevant epistemological question is this: did Newton at all understand the result
he is alleged to have invented? Did Newton have the wherewithal, the necessary
mathematical resources, to understand infinite series? As is well known, Cavalieri in
1635 stated the above formula as what was later termed a conjecture. Wallis, too, simply
stated the above result, without any proof.65 Fermat tried to derive the key result above
from a result on figurate numbers, while Pascal used the famous “Pascal’s” triangle66
long known in India and China. Though Newton followed Wallis, he had no proof
either,67 and neither did Leibniz who followed Pascal. Neither Newton nor any other
mathematician in Europe had the mathematical wherewithal to understand the calculus
for another two centuries, until the development of the real number system by Dedekind.
(c) The next question naturally is this: if Newton and Leibniz did not quite understand
the calculus, how did they invent it? In the amplified version of the usual narrative,
how did Galileo, Cavalieri, Fermat, Pascal, and Roberval etc. all contribute to the
invention of a mathematical procedure they couldn’t quite have understood? The
frontiers of a discipline are usually foggy, but here we are talking of a gap which is
typically 250 years.
(d) Clearly a more natural hypothesis to adopt is that the calculus was not invented
in Europe, but was imported, and that the calculus took nearly as long to assimilate as
did zero. Since authoritative Western histories of mathematics are replete with wild
claims of transmission from Greece, an appropriate standard is needed for the evidence
C. K. Raju Computers, mathematics education, Yuktibhâsâ 28
for transmission. I have suggested that we follow the current legal standard of evidence,
by establishing (i) motivation, (ii) opportunity, (iii) documentary evidence, and (iv)
circumstantial evidence.

Motivation (a) : Europe had strong motivation to import mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the 16th and 17th centuries CE, because mathematics and astronomy were widely regarded as holding the key to navigation which was the route to prosperity hence the critical technology of the times. As is now widely known, Europe did not have a reliable technique of navigation, and European governments kept offering huge prizes for this purpose from the 16th until the 18th century CE. Indeed, the French Royal Academy, the Royal Society of London etc. were started in this way in an attempt to develop the astronomical and mathematical procedures needed for a reliable navigational technique.

The first navigational problem concerned latitude: right from Vasco da Gama, Europeans attempted to learn the Indo-Arabic techniques of determining latitude through instruments like the Kamâl. The Indo-Arabic technique of determining latitude in daytime assumed a good calendar, and this led to the Gregorian calendar reform. As a student and correspondent of Pedro Nunes, Clavius presumably understood that reforming the calendar, and changing the date of Easter was critical to the navigational problem of determining latitude from the observation of solar altitude at noon, as described in widely distributed Indian mathematical-astronomical texts, and calendrical manuals.

Opportunity: On the other hand, right from the 16th century there was ample opportunity for Europeans to collect Indian mathematical-astronomical and calendrical texts. The Jesuits were in India, with their strongest centre being Cochin, from where a copy of the Tantrasangraha or Yuktibhâsâ could easily have been procured. Each Jesuit was expected to know the local language, and Alexander Valignano declared that it was more important for the Jesuits to know the local language than to learn philosophy. They could hardly have functioned without a knowledge of the local calendar and days of festivity. One of the earliest Jesuit colleges was at Cochin, and it typically had an average of about 70 Jesuits during the period 1580–1660. Prior to this period, printing presses had already been started in languages like Malayalam and Tamil, and Malayalam was
being taught at the Cochin college at the latest by 1590.

Documentary evidence: Moreover, the Jesuits were systematically collecting and translating local texts and sending them back to Europe. In particular, Christoph Clavius, head of the Gregorian Calendar Reform Committee changed the mathematics syllabus
of the Collegio Romano, to correct the Jesuit ignorance of mathematics, and from the first batch of mathematically trained Jesuits he sent Matteo Ricci to Cochin to understand
the available texts in India on the calendar, and the length of the year.

Motivation (b): Pedro Nunes was also concerned with loxodromic curves, the key
aspect of Mercator’s navigational charts, which involved a problem equivalent to the
fundamental theorem of calculus. Pedro Nunes obtained his loxodromic curves using
C. K. Raju Computers, mathematics education, Yuktibhâsâ 29
sine tables, which tables were later corrected by Christoph Clavius and Simon Stevin.
Thus, precise sine values were a key concern of European astronomers and navigational
theorists of the time. The infinite series expansion as used by Madhava to calculate
high-precision sine values, the coefficients used for efficient numerical calculation of
these values, and the 24 values themselves were incorporated in a single sloka each, the
last two found also in the widely distributed calendrical manuals like Karanapadhati.
Motivation (c): Europeans could not use Indo-Arabic techniques of longitude determination
because of a goof-up about the size of the earth. Columbus, to promote the
financing of his project, downgraded the earlier accurate Indo-Arabic estimates of the
size of the earth by 40%. But this size entered as a key parameter in the Indo-Arabic
techniques. Nevertheless, Europeans remained interested in the Indo-Arabic techniques
of longitude determination, and when the French Royal Academy ultimately developed
a method to determine longitude on land, it was a slight improvement of the technique
of eclipses mentioned in the texts of Bhaskara-I, and the tome of al Biruni.
Circumstantial evidence: Once in Europe the imported mathematical techniques
could easily have diffused, and there is circumstantial evidence that many
contemporary mathematicians knew something of the material in Indian texts.
For example, Clavius’ competitor and critic Julian Scaliger introduced the Julian
day-number system, essentially the ahârgana system of numbering days followed
in Indian astronomy since Aryabhata. Galileo’s access to Jesuit sources
is well documented, as is that of Gregory and Wallis. Cavalieri was Galileo’s
student, and Gregory does not claim originality for his series. Marin Mersenne
was a clearinghouse for mathematical information, and his correspondence
records his interest in the knowledge of Brahmins and ‘Indicos’. Fermat, Pascal,
Roberval were all in touch with him, and part of his discussion circle. There is
other circumstantial evidence to connect Fermat to Indian mathematical texts,
for instance his famous challenge problem to European mathematicians, and
particularly Wallis, involves a solved problem in Bhaskara’s Beejganita.69
‘Julian’ day-number, “Fermat’s” challenge problem, and “Pascal’s” triangle cover only
some of the circumstantial evidence of the inflow of mathematical and astronomical
knowledge into Europe of that period, but I will not examine more details here, since I
regard the above as adequate to make a strong case for the transmission of the calculus
from India to Europe in the 16th and 17th c. CE.


Vezi de asemenea si:

http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yuktibhasa.pdf

Ce zici maestre MM? Stiai de astea? Sa mergem mai departe...cu voia ta...si a lui electron...

A key development of pre-calculus Europe, that of generalisation on the basis of induction, has deep methodological similarities with the corresponding Kerala development (200 years before). There is further evidence that John Wallis (1665) gave a recurrence relation and proof of the Pythagorean theorem exactly as Bhaskara II did. The only way European scholars at this time could have been aware of the work of Bhaskara would have been through Islamic scholars (see Bhaskara: Influence) or through Keralese 'routes'.

Although it was believed that Keralese calculus remained localised until its discovery by Charles Whish in 1832, Kerala had in fact been in contact with Europe ever since Vasco da Gama first arrived there in 1499 and trade routes were established between Kerala and Europe. Along with European traders, Jesuit missionaries from Europe were also present in Kerala during the 16th century. Many of them were mathematicians and astronomers, and were able to speak local languages such as Malayalam, and were thus able to comprehend Keralese mathematics. Indian mathematical manuscripts may have been brought to Europe by the Jesuit priests and scholars that were present in Kerala.

In particular, it is well-known that Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit mathematician and astronomer who is generally credited with bringing European science and mathematics to China, spent two years in Cochin, Kerala after being ordained in Goa in 1580. During that time he was in correspondence with the Rector of the Collegio Romano, the primary institution for the education of those who wished to become Jesuits. Matteo Ricci wrote back to Petri Maffei stating that he was seeking to learn the methods of timekeeping from 'an intelligent Brahman or an honest Moor'. The Jesuits at the time were very knowledgeable in science and mathematics, and many were trained as mathematicians at the Jesuit seminaries. For a number of Jesuits who followed Ricci, Cochin was a staging point on the way to China. Cochin (now known as Kochi) was only 70km away from the largest repository of Kerala's mathematical and astronomical documents in Thrissur (Trichur). This was where, 200 years later, the European mathematicians Charles Whish and Heyne obtained their copies of manuscripts written by the Keralese mathematicians.

The Jesuits were expected to regularly submit reports to their headquarters in Rome, and it is possible that some of the reports may have contained appendices of a technical nature which would then be passed on by Rome to those who understood them, including notable mathematicians. Material gathered by the Jesuits was scattered all over Europe: at Pisa, where Galileo Galilei, Bonaventura Cavalieri and John Wallis spent time; at Padua, where James Gregory studied; at Paris, where Marin Mersenne, through his correspondence with Pierre de Fermat, Blaise Pascal, Galileo and Wallis, acted as an agent for the transmission of mathematical ideas. It is quite possible that these mathematical ideas transmitted by the Jesuits included mathematics from Kerala.

Other pieces of circumstantial evidence include:

James Gregory, who first stated the infinite series expansion of the arctangent (the Madhava-Gregory series) in Europe, never gave any derivation of his result, or any indication as to how he derived it, suggesting that this series was imported into Europe. (See Infinitesimal Calculus - How and why it was imported to Europe.)
Kerala's established trade links with the British East India Company, which began trading with India sometime between 1600 and 1608, not too long before Europe's scientific revolution began.
There was some controversy in the late 17th century between Newton and Leibniz, over how they independently 'invented' calculus almost simultaneously, which sometimes leads to the suggestion that they both may have acquired the relevant ideas indirectly from Keralese calculus.

Bhaskara (1114-1185) expanded in his treatise Siddhanta-Shiromani, where he mentioned the law of gravity, discovered that the planets don't orbit the Sun at a uniform velocity, and accurately calculated many astronomical constants based on this model, such as the solar and lunar eclipses, and the velocities and instantaneous motions of the planets. Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it's quite likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas.

Prasastapada also noted that at any given instance, a particle was capable of only a single motion (although a body such as a blowing leaf composed of multiple particles may experience a more complex pattern of motion due to different particles moving in different ways) - an important concept that was to facilitate in later quantifications of the laws of motion.

In the 10th C. Sridhara reiterated what had been observed by Prasastapada, and expanded on what he had documented. Bhaskaracharya (12th C), in his Siddhanta Siromani and Ganitadhyaya, took a crucial first step in quantification, and measured average velocity as v=s/t (where v is the average velocity, s is distance covered, and t is time).


An Indian mathematician, Bhaskara (1114-1185), developed a number of ideas that are foundational to the development of calculus, including the statement of the theorem now known as 'Rolle's theorem', which is a special case of one of the most important theorems in analysis, the Mean Value Theorem. He was the first to conceive of the derivative. The 14th century Indian mathematician Madhava, along with other mathematicians of the Kerala school, studied infinite series, convergence, differentiation, and iterative methods for solution of non-linear equations. Jyestadeva of the Kerala school wrote the first differential calculus text, the Yuktibhasa, which explores methods and ideas of calculus repeated in Europe only in the seventeenth century.

Johannes Kepler si-a copiat cele trei legi despre sistemul planetar heliocentric din lucrarea Aryabhatiya:


gravitation law concept origin in Hindu astronomy

The Indian astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (476–550), was also the first to discover that the light from the Moon and the planets were reflected from the Sun, and that the planets follow an elliptical orbit around the Sun, and thus propunded an eccentric elliptical model of the planets, on which he accurately calculated many astronomical constants, such as the times of the solar and lunar eclipses, and the instantaneous motion of the Moon (expressed as a differential equation).
Arabic translations of Aryabhata's Aryabhatiya were available from the 8th century, while Latin translations were available from the 13th century, before Copernicus had written De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, so it's quite likely that Aryabhata's work had an influence on Copernicus' ideas.

Madhava, another member of the Kerala School, invented the theory of infinite series and the basis for calculus (it is now believed that Jesuit missionaries took this material back to Europe, and that Leibniz and Newton possibly got their ideas on the calculus therefrom).


origin of calculus
hindu calculus treatise 12th century

Madhava of Sangamagrama (1350–1425) was a prominent mathematician-astronomer from Kerala, India. He was the founder of the Kerala School of Mathematics and is considered the founder of mathematical analysis for having taken the decisive step from the finite procedures of ancient mathematics to treat their limit-passage to infinity, which is the kernel of modern classical analysis. He is considered as one of the greatest mathematician-astronomers of the Middle Ages due to his important contributions to the fields of mathematical analysis, infinite series, calculus, trigonometry, geometry and algebra.

It was not until the 1940s however, that historians of mathematics verified Whish's claims, proving that the Kerala school developed much of differential calculus well before Newton or Leibniz. Some historians propose these ideas may have been transmitted to Europe by the 17th century on the basis of methodological similarities, communication routes and a suitable chronology for transmission but there has been no evidence of direct transmission of manuscripts.

In 1835, Charles Whish published an article in the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, in which he claimed that the work of the Kerala school 'laid the foundation for a complete system of fluxions.'

Some of Bhaskara's contributions to mathematics include the following:

A proof of the Pythagorean Theorem by calculating the same area in two different ways and then canceling out terms to get a2 + b2 = c2.
Proved that anything divided by zero is infinity in addition to establishing that infinity divided by anything remains infinity. (dubious assertion—see talk page)
In Lilavati, solutions of quadratic, cubic and quartic indeterminate equations.
Solutions of indeterminate quadratic equations (of the type ax2 + b = y2).
Integer solutions of linear and quadratic indeterminate equations (Kuttaka). The rules he gives are (in effect) the same as those given by the renaissance European mathematicians of the 17th Century
A cyclic, Chakravala method for solving indeterminate equations of the form ax2 + bx + c = y. The solution to this equation was traditionally attributed to William Brouncker in 1657, though his method was more difficult than the chakravala method.
His method for finding the solutions of the problem x2 - ny2 = 1 (so-called 'Pell's equation') is of considerable interest and importance.
Solutions of Diophantine equations of the second order, such as 61x2 + 1 = y2. This very equation was posed as a problem in 1657 by the French mathematician Pierre de Fermat, but its solution was unknown in Europe until the time of Euler in the 18th century.
Solved quadratic equations with more than one unknown, and found negative and irrational solutions.
Preliminary concept of mathematical analysis.
Preliminary concept of infinitesimal calculus, along with notable contributions towards integral calculus.
He conceived differential calculus, after discovering the derivative and differential coefficient.
Stated Rolle's theorem, a special case of one of the most important theorems in analysis, the mean value theorem. Traces of the general mean value theorem are also found in his works.
Calculated the derivatives of trigonometric functions and formulae. (See Calculus section below.)
In Siddhanta Shiromani, Bhaskara developed spherical trigonometry along with a number of other trigonometrical results.
Bhaskara (1114-1185), also called Bhaskara II and Bhaskara Achārya ('Bhaskara the teacher') was an Indian mathematician-astronomer. He was born near Bijjada Bida (in present day Bijapur district, Karnataka state, South India) in Deshastha Brahmin family and became head of the astronomical observatory at Ujjain, continuing the mathematical tradition of Varahamihira and Brahmagupta.

In many ways, Bhaskara represents the peak of mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the 12th century. He reached an understanding of calculus, astronomy, the number systems, and solving equations, which were not to be achieved anywhere else in the world for several centuries or more.

calculus imported in Europe from india

The calculus has played a key role in the development of the sciences, starting from the“Newtonian Revolution”. According to the “standard” story, the calculus was inventedindependently by Leibniz and Newton. This story of indigenous development, ab initio,is now beginning to totter, like the story of the “Copernican Revolution”. The English-speaking world has known for over one and a half centuries that “Taylor” series expansions for sine, cosine and arctangent functions were found in Indian mathe-matics/astronomy/timekeeping (jyotisa) texts, and specifically in the works of Madhava,Neelkantha (Tantrasangraha, 1501CE), Jyeshtadeva (Yuktibhâsâ, c. 1530 CE) etc. Noone else, however, has so far studied the connection of these Indian developments to European mathematics.



The Hindu-Arabic numeral system reached Europe in the 11th century, via Andalusia, together with knowledge of astronomy and instruments like the astrolabe, first imported by Gerbert of Aurillac. They came to be known as 'Arabic numerals'. The Italian mathematician Fibonacci or Leonardo of Pisa was instrumental in bringing the system into European mathematics in 1202, stating:

After my father's appointment by his homeland as state official in the customs house of Bugia for the Pisan merchants who thronged to it, he took charge; and in view of its future usefulness and convenience, had me in my boyhood come to him and there wanted me to devote myself to and be instructed in the study of calculation for some days. There, following my introduction, as a consequence of marvelous instruction in the art, to the nine digits of the Hindus, the knowledge of the art very much appealed to me before all others, and for it I realized that all its aspects were studied in Egypt, Syria, Greece, Sicily, and Provence, with their varying methods; and at these places thereafter, while on business. I pursued my study in depth and learned the give-and-take of disputation. But all this even, and the algorism, as well as the art of Pythagoras, I considered as almost a mistake in respect to the method of the Hindus. (Modus Indorum). Therefore, embracing more stringently that method of the Hindus, and taking stricter pains in its study, while adding certain things from my own understanding and inserting also certain things from the niceties of Euclid's geometric art.

Ai mentionat optica...NEWTON SI-A COPIAT TOT MATERIALUL DIN OPTICKS DIN OPERA MARELUI OM DE STIINTA IBN AL-HAYTHAM...IATA DOVEZILE:

What is Taught: Isaac Newton's 17th century study of lenses, light and prisms forms the foundation of the modern science of optics.

What Should be Taught: In the 11th century al-Haytham determined virtually everything that Newton advanced regarding optics centuries prior and is regarded by numerous authorities as the 'founder of optics. ' There is little doubt that Newton was influenced by him. Al-Haytham was the most quoted physicist of the Middle Ages. His works were utilized and quoted by a greater number of European scholars during the 16th and 17th centuries than those of Newton and Galileo combined.

newton derived/copied optics work from ibn al-haytham

Ibn al-Haytham evolved his theories of optics through the study of light rays, and his investigations revealed a number of important properties: that light travels in a straight line; that every point of a luminous object radiates light in every direction; and that light weakens as it travels from its source. He studied these characteristics of light from a variety of light sources, i.e., self-emitting (the moon and reflecting bodies on earth).
This seemingly trivial experiment is in fact an early example of what is known as the 'scientific method.' Ibn al-Haytham designed an experiment to test a hypothesis, namely, that light travels in a straight line. His experiment was arranged to avoid the possibility of the experimenter's bias affecting the conclusions. Today, it seems obvious that light travels in straight lines, yet there was a time when intelligent men thought it obvious that the sun travels arounthe earth. The most advanced and sophisticated theory in modern physics, the Theory of Relativity, is derived from a refutation of ideas that are based on our everyday experience. Performing experiments to test and verify theories is at the heart of all modern scientific methods.
Ibn al-Haytham's experiments have even greater significance. By using the sun, the moon, lamps, fires and a variety of other light sources in his experiments, he was saying that light is light, regardless of its source. In this sense, he anticipated the universal laws of seventeenth century scientists.
We have described only the simplest of Ibn al-Haytham's experiments on the properties of light rays, but there are many others that were considerably more sophisticated. Ibn al-Haytham foresaw the works of later scientists not only in his use of experimentation but in the use of instrumentation: devices to help make measurements, the key to all modern science. He designed and constructed a variety of instruments, pipes, sheets, cylinders, rulers and plane, concave and convex mirrors in order to conduct his tests.
In addition to his studies of reflection, he also studied refraction, a phenomenon in which light rays bend when traveling from one medium to another, such as from air to water. The effect causes an object to appear to be in a location other than where it actually is, making him the first scientist to test a property of refraction that seems so obvious today. He demonstrated that a ray of light arriving perpendicular to the air-water boundary was not bent at all and showed that this was true for light passing through not just two, but several media. Clear parallels exist between his work and that of Isaac Newton six centuries later.

Ibn al-Haytham demonstrated that the prism made the colors visible by bending rays of different colors in varying amounts, thus producing the familiar spectrum.
Ibn al-Haytham's explanation of how a lens worked required a similar leap of intellect. He contended that magnification was due to the bending, or refraction, of light rays at the glass-to-air boundary and not, as was thought, to something in the glass. He correctly deduced that the curvature of the glass, or lens, produced the magnification; thus, the magnifying effect takes place at the surface of the lens rather than within it.
This distinction is, of course, critical to the design of lenses, and without the ability to design lenses, we would have no cameras, movies, television sets, satellites, eyeglasses, contact lenses, telescopes, or microscopes—life would be very different for the human race.
Although he did not build a telescope, it is known that Ibn al-Haytham did construct parabolic mirrors. incoming parallel rays of light, such as those from the stars, are focused at a point so that such mirrors can be used to obtain unblurred images of celestial bodies and remote objects on the earth. Today, these are used in the world's great telescopes.

Deci, Newton stia bine de tot de Naya Vaisesika Sutra...chiar foarte bine...nu-ti da de gandit TEXTUL COPIAT CUVANT CU CUVANT, CARE A DEVENIT THE THREE OF LAWS OF MOTION OF NEWTON?

Nu numai Newton a copiat la greu din Vaisesika...iata dovezile...Lagrange a copiat tot materialul care ulterior a devenit Calculus of Variations...

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Legile lui Newton? Nicidecum!!! Newton si-a copiat la greu si diligent, cuvant cu cuvant, din Naya Vaisesika Sutra, toate ideile esentiale din Principia.

Iata sursa notiunilor fundamentale din fizica, din care fizicienii rosicrucieni s-au inspirat pentru toate rezultatele din electricitate-magnetism, fizica cuantica, optica si multe altele:

NAYA-VAISESIKA SUTRA
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread120045/pg1


vedic physics
The Naya-Vaiseshika Sutra consists of 373 Sutras and is composed of 12 chapters. It's main postulates are:

1. All of the universe is composed of the 5 mahabhuttas and the 4 non physicals: that is Fluid, Atomic elements, fields/force, energy, ether and space, time, mind and soul.

2. Except ether, all of the physical elements are made of discreet and distinct paramanus or atoms

3. Space-time is a frame in which the physical universe exists

4.there are seven categories of experience, which are substance, quality, activity, generality, particularity, inherence, and non-existence.

5. Energy and mass are equivalent.

The Vaiseshika Sutras deal with the investigation, observation and mechanics of the universe and the elements and the theory of space and time. A lot of the modern sciences are covered, including laws of motion, gravitation, thermodynamics, waves, hydrostatics and magnetism among others.

Here are some of the Sutras(Source) The source is from an Indian microbiologist.

Force is that which displaces, holds together or moves things apart.V.S 1.1.20
In the absence of a force, a particle of matter experiences no change. V.S 1.1.6
The forces to be considered are an external force, gravity, that with causes attraction of particles, that which causes repulsion of particles and the internal movements of them in matter.
Thus, vaisheShika aims at understanding a substance in terms of the effect of external forces that act on it including gravity and the internal forces on its particles that cause their attraction, repulsion and vibrations. Then the text makes a rather interesting statement: V.S 1.1.13
Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18
The diversities of the movement of an arrow are due to the consecutive changes in the components of the acting forces. The stored energy provides the propulsion to the arrow and this causes it move further to a high point. This component keeps reducing while that of gravity increases resulting in its fall.Once the work against gravity ceases then the body reaches an energy-less state falling under gravity. - V.S 1.1.27
The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13
In the absence of all other forces (saMyoga-bindings) gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7
The “guna” of forces (direction) prevents a magnitude from being obtained - V.S.1.1.20a
The nature of physical changes in matter is the terms of work being done on the basic particles that constitute matter. .V.S 2.1.14
The particular nature of air is suggested by the mixing of gases that occurs on their collision.
despite of being made of atoms and occupying space air fails show orderly movement so its form cannot be perceived: V.S 4.1.8
Solids occupy space and assume form due to conglomeration of the constituent particles: V.S 4.1.6
The (fluid’s) particles possess energy. This causes them to possess the property of fluidity. The heat bearing rays provide the particles with energy to form a gas and rise. The heated particles of air impact the vapor and with this energy it mixes with it. Freezing and melting of a liquid as being a result of heat being taken up or given up by its particles V.S 5.2.9
Some apparently solid substances like ghee, lac and wax are in reality liquids, as their particles are naturally “heat-conjoined” or disorganized as in water. Other true solid substances such as tin, lead, iron, silver and gold need their atoms to be supplied with external heat to disorder them before they become a fluid V.S 2.1.6-7
Any body’s mass needs to be wholly explained in terms of its constituent particles. V.S 1.1.8-9
A substance can only emerge from another substance and not on its own eventhough its properties change from one to another. V.S 9.1.9
Any fundamental particular entity can be a constituent multiple substances: V.S 1.1.22
Any substance comprising of two or more primary particle types requires a chemical reaction to generate it- the conjoining and break up of prexisting molecules: V.S 1.1.23
The “molecules” are stated as emerging from combinations between the fundamental entities: V.S 1.1.25
Forces are necessary to bring about combination and break up of molecules: V.S 1.1.28
The combinations of particles to produce molecules result in substances with states very different from those of the original particles: V.S 4.1.9



origin of calculus of variations

Lagrange si-a copiat toate informatiile despre calculul variatiilor din Naya Vaisesika Sutra...

Prashastpada, 5th century commentator on VS mentiond two forms of physical force:

1. vega (mechanical)
2 sthitisthApakatA (elasticity)


Prashastpada has defined ‘vega’ in the following ways: -

1. It is as a result of mechanical force that action is produced.
2. vega is proportional to the work produced and works in a given direction.
3. vega opposes combination of matter and sometimes one vega produces other vegas in sequence.

The inference of the above definition is as follows:-

1. vega (mechanical force) is a special cause for action.
2. vega is proportional to the action produced and works in a given direction.
3. vega is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction

Kanadas laws:

1: In the production or increment of karma (i.e. motion), the root cause is force. In other words, there is incremental or decremental change in motion.

2: This law is a law of the measure of force. According to this, so long mechanical force works, there is change in motion i.e. there is momentum. To find its value, it is calculated how much work it produces in a unit time.

Mathematically, the rate of change in momentum i.e. the increment in work in unit time is proportional to the force in action. Also, this change is in the direction of the force.

Suppose that the mass of an object is 'm' and in time interval 't', the velocity of the object changes from 'u' to 'v' due to the force acting on it. Then,

Initial momentum = mu
Final momentum = mv
Change in momentum = m(v-u)

Therefore, the rate of change of momentum = m(v-u)/t = ma (from Kanada's first law)

From Kandas second law,
force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum.
Or, p k ma
Or, p = kma (where k is a constant)

If m=1 and a=1, then
1 = k*1*1 or k = 1
Or, p = ma

Therefore, unit force is the one that produces unit acceleration in an object of unit mass.

The VS then goes to say that force is a result of work and is not a physical quantity. Which is superior to Newtons law that measures it as a physical quantity.

Deci, MM, cand vine vorba de istoria scrisa si nescrisa stiintifica/ezoterica, nu vei gasi pe cineva mai bine informat ca mine...ai incredere in ceea ce scriu...

Sa revenim la Velikovsky...

Sectiunile 8-13...

8. The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.

(chiar si la un factor de 12 km/6378 km =~ 0,002, in ceea ce priveste grosimea stratului din problema, legea 'gravitatiei' nu ar avea cum sa pastreze in echilibru sfera care s-ar roti prin spatiu; Pamantul ar fi trebuit sa se roteasca cu Polul Nord spre Soare...)

9. Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy.() Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains “a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.” (9)

10. Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10) The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.” (11)

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)

11. 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).

Sectiunile 15-17:

15. Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.

16. The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(1 As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

17. The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites - all the heavenly host - air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the “law of laws” which is supposed to know no exception.


To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:

a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in 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.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

c. Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter(2). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.

d. Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

Deci, MM, nu exista nici un fel de atractia gravitationala; acest concept este doar o DOGMA, o spalare de creieri care nu mai inceteaza de trei sute de ani incoace...

De la bun inceput, Newton a prezentat o teorie a PRESIUNII AETHERICE (AETHER PRESSURE THEORY):

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 the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

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 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.

DE CE CONCEPTUL DE AETHER ATAT DE OCULTAT? PENTRU CA ESTE ECHIVALENT CU TEORIA PAMANTULUI PLAT; PRESIUNEA AETHERICA NU FUNCTIONEAZA DECAT IN CAZUL UNUI PAMANT DE FORMA PLATA:

For the movements of the planets and their satellites we have three possible choices of gravitation:

Pulling (attractive) gravitation - completely impossible, see the above demonstration (the link), also see the thread Gravitons do not exist.

Pushing gravitation - impossible, since all it would do is crash both planets and satellites against each other

Rotational gravitation - we hit the jackpot; the rotational aether field is responsible for the orbits of both planets/satellites

And, as you see above, Newton knew these things quite well.

For the force that keeps us (objects, living beings) on this Earth we have three possible choices, with the corresponding choices of the shape of the earth:

1. Round Earth

Pulling gravitation - absolutely impossible, see the above demonstration (the link), denied and dismissed by Newton himself

Rotational gravitation - impossible, it would keep us in a merry go round type of atmosphere, no living conditions

Pushing gravitation - impossible, OTHERWISE, THE PRESSURE REQUIRED TO KEEP THE WATER OF THE OCEANS/SEAS/RIVERS IN PLACE, ON A ROUND EARTH, WOULD PREVENT ANY BEING FROM GETTING OFF THE GROUND, NOT TO MENTION THAT THE CLOUDS WOULD CRASH IMMEDIATELY, GIVEN THE PRESSURE.

2. Flat Earth

We rule out both pulling/rotational gravitational force for the same reasons, and we have the pushing gravitation explanation, we hit the jackpot again. That is why, during all the Nasa space missions, from Gemini to the space shuttle program, THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION (PUSHING GRAVITY) IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE, CANNOT EXIST, CANNOT FUNCTION IN REAL LIFE

Now, we have two different forces, for the orbits of the planets/satellites we have a rotational type of gravitation, and for the Earth we have a pushing type of aether gravitation, therefore, THERE MUST BE A BARRIER BETWEEN THE TWO, SEPARATING THESE TWO DIFFERENT FORCES.

Mai departe.

Newton nu credea nicidecum si in nici un caz in conceptul de vid cosmic (cosmic vacuum):

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.”

Prin urmare, trebuie sa fii ABSURD, IGNORANT SAU CHIAR LIPSIT DE JUDECATA, IN CUVINTELE LUI NEWTON HIMSELF, SA CREZI IN NEBUNIA VIDULUI IMACULAT DIN SPATIU.

Am reusit sa mai rasfoiesc materialele pe care le-ai prezentat aici, d-le Sandokhan si drept iti spun ca m-au cam uimit. Nu stiam nimic despre aceste subiecte decat ce facusem in scoli, Galilei, Newton, Einstein (si deloc/ioc Tesla, Odobleja, Gogu Constantinescu, etc. si care nici azi nu sunt pomeniti in cele scoli). Desi autorii respectivi si-au prezentat ca ipoteze ideile respective, mi se par totusi foarte probabile fara a preciza "cat de" . Cu iezuitii nu prea era de glumit (seful lor se si numea general, cu sens de general de armata mai mult decat alt inteles) si intr-adevar cam misunau pe acolo prin cele tari orientale cu scopuri utilitare secrete.

Am citit mai multe paragrafe cu (ne)gravitatia si intr-adevar sunt inexplicabil de multe semne de intrebare. Subiectul nu ma mai interesa deoarece am acceptat "brace principle" (care mi-e suficient din motive ca se verifica in domeniul meu profesional si acolo mai stiu cate ceva), prin urmare sunt convins ca nu exista o atractie propriuzisa intre corpuri in sensul invatat la scoala. De altfel sunt f. convins ca "stiintele noastre exacte" nu sunt de loc in stare sa explice lumea situandu-se extrem de departe de ce ne trebuie si de ceea ce s-ar putea face. Impardonabila situatie si eventual perfect explicabila prin "conspiratie" ori surorile ei dintre care numesc doar spiritul de oaie (era sa zic turma).

Nu credeam ca detii surse de informare atat de corecte, documentate. In functie de timpul disponibil voi urmari mai atent materialele postate aici.

Apreciez mesajul tau...thank you for your kind words...hai sa mergem un pic mai departe...

Newton si-a copiat TOTUL, de la analiza matematica la optica la fizica din sutrele indiene FARA SA LE VERIFICE; preotii lui Akhenaton, creatorii analizei matematice, au comis insa o greseala teribila de la bun inceput, aceasta greseala a ramas neobservata timp de secole, dupa ce adoratorul Soarelui Yajnavalkya a introdus analiza matematica in India, prin Surya Yoga...

In 1881, Henri Poincare a descoperit cu stupoare, cu groaza, ca sistemul de ecuatii diferentiale inventat de Newton pentru a descris un sistem planetar heliocentric, nu poate functiona in lumea reala...acest fapt a fost ascuns bine de tot, fiind deghizat in teoria haosului (chaos theory), aici vei gasi citatul original al lui Poincare:

As he experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable… but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare’ discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.'

Aici vei gasi tot mesajul, Inexistenta numerelor irationale, material fascinant...

http://www.neogen.ro/group/36777/view-posts/83312

Nu am studiat/verificat niciodata informatia (si persoana) provenita de la giganticii Galilei, Newton, Einstein, datorita inocularii din scoala, increderii oarbe si absurditatii evidente unei asemenea intreprinderi. Ca sa nu mai vorbim de respect, lungul nasului, etc. Si totusi stiam din practica profesionala ca nici o teorie nu rezista in "practica", stiam cat de impardonabil este sa neglijezi un cat de mic aspect din intregul lant al demersurilor pe care le faci cand rezolvi o problema (tehnico-st. in cazul meu) practica de intindere limitat-definita! Cand nu-mi ieseau rezultatele la masuratori trebuia uneori sa verific tot, nu numai executia ci si proiectarea , gandirea, actiunile umane, ordinea lor, ba si formulele serioase luate din carti tehnice f. solide. Nu o data am constatat ca aceeasi formula de calcul era de trei feluri in trei carti diferite si dadea trei rezultate diferite intre ele cat si fata de masuratori. Evident, autorii cartilor nu erau suficient de "in tema", scuzabili, fiecare avea poate alt obiectiv, alta pregatire, etc. Recunosc insa ca niciodata nu am mers pana la a-l verifica pe Newton, nici vorba sa verific ca de unde atata geniu dintr-o data, unul "triplu", dupa propria-mi exprimare, cand alte genii "simple" si-au ars o viata intreaga pentru o idee unica...!

Tocmai datorita acestei manii pe care mi-am capatat-o - de a verifica orice informatie, dau acum curs incredibilei banuieli ca Newton s-a "inspirat" din sutre. In fond si la urma urmei Wiener nu s-a inspirat oare, pentru un mic premiu Nobel, daca nu ma insel, cu principiile ciberneticii, identice (evident intamplator) cu lucrarea necunoscutului Odobleja, aflata sub tipar (simultan si intamplator) la tiparnita fratelui sau Wiener din Romania? Personal, am trait de doua ori aceasta situatie cand au aparut inovatii in regula "comise" de niste grupuri de autori, pe un proiect (al carui singur autor eram), intr-un caz, si pe seama unui mers de calcul/metoda de proiectare elaborat de mine, un alt caz; in ambele cazuri s-a considerat ca nu este necesara includerea numelui meu printre autorii inventiilor respective. Si atunci de ce sa ma mir?

Mi se pare acum nefireasca "inventarea" simultana a calculului infinitezimal de catre Newton si Leibniz. Mai treaca-mearga o idee care apare simultan in doua capete destepte dar o matematica intreaga?....Da, acum e un semn de intrebare pentru mine. Se leaga niste lucruri, cu iezuiti, cu "initiatii", etc. Nu-mi venea insa sa o iau istoric de la Platon, desi stiam ca a fost initiat. Incep sa inteleg si conceptul de Renastere, care, instinctiv, mi s-a parut cam tras de par. Intrucat nimic nu e intamplator, metoda TV de "popularizare" a anumitor personaje este "nepoata" Renasterii. Curent filozofic, stiintific, artistic, paralel cu diversele societati secrete... Hmm. Incredibila documentare, incredibile dezvaluiri, multumesc, Sandokhan! Cer iertare, in acelasi timp deoarece, cu tot respectul, uneori eram convins ca bati campii. Sper sa nu ajung totusi si un adept al Pamantului Plat plasat sub o cupola transparenta... Mici bacterii antropoide crescute in laboratoarele miniaturizate prin tehnica contractiei "Lorenz" a spatiului si timpului.... Cupole energetice invizibile pentru organele de simt ale micutelor bacterii ganditoare.... Trebuie sa iau o pauza

Cu numerele irationale, e interesant dar as prefera ca Abel sa-si dea cu parerea in aceasta problema. Eu nu pot decat sa fac legatura cu ideea ca "totul e vibratie" care ar putea cere in consecinta o frecventa de baza-intregul si frecventele derivate din ea conform unor rapoarte de numere intregi (vezi coarda vibranta si lungimile de unda "armonice" aflate in anumit raport cu lungimea initiala). Citez: "Mai tarziu, s-a vazut ca daca vom considera egala cu unitatea lungimea sonometrului care produce pe do , lungimile pentru celelalte note sunt mai mici decat 1, dar totdeauna exprimate prin numere rationale ca rapoarte de numere intregi. Si anume s-au gasit ca pentru scara muzicala a lui Pitagora, avem urmatoarea corespondenta: sunetele(lung. coarda) = do(1) ; re(8/9) ; mi(64/81) ; fa(3/4) ; sol(2/3) ; la(16/27) ; si(128/243) ; do(1/2) " . [G. Andone, Varia Mathematica] La fel frecventele corespondente, tot rapoarte de numere intregi.

In privinta piramidei (Keops) am facut si verificat tot felul de calcule; am cateva carti despre subiectul acesta. Vreau sa spun ca piramida aceea este erodata cam 10 metri pe fiecare muchie a ei, prin urmare nimeni nu are dimensiunile ei (foste, initiale) si se pot face orice fel de ipoteze si calcule. Doi autori, de ex. au calculat cele patru sferturi ale piramidei cu patru (!) numere PI. Diferite! Intr-adevar, am vazut si eu niste fotografii facute din avion la o anumita ora a zilei care puneau in evidenta faptul (altfel cu totul invizibil) ca fiecare fata a piramidei e formata din doua plane (de inclinatii usor diferite) ce se intersecteaza dupa apotemele ce pornesc din varf. [b]

Pe tema Marea Piramida un clasic care ne ofera multe informatii de baza:
Secretul Marii Piramide de G. Barbarin

Ceea ce tu mentionezi in paragraful #4, este de fapt Teoria Octavelor, nu?

In aether nu exista timp; timpul este un concept abstract sau un sistem de referinta abstract folosit in lumea fizica; este si mai incredibil cum profesorii nostri (si cei din strainatate) au inghitit cu carlig, momeala si undita cu tot, smecheria lui Minkowsky, care a sters cu buretele variabila x4 din Riemannian space (inventat pentru un alt motiv) si l-a inlocuit cu t, timpul...detalii complete, precum si comentariile acide ale lui Tesla despre nebunia conceptului de spatiu-timp pe:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/minkowsky-space-time-concept-hoax-t40.htm

Nu am cartea lui Barbarin.

Teoria octavelor e cam mult spus fiind de fapt vorba de o insignifianta parte din Teoria Muzicii. Exista nenumarate octave , cvinte, cvarte, terte si la ora actuala practic s-a cam renuntat la ele folosindu-se ca baza scara temperata (seria geometrica cu ratia 2^(1/12)) care e perfecta pentru instrumentele electronice. O parte din vechile instrumente continua sa se acordeze dupa scara netemperata. Atentie, in scara temperata toate intervalele (dintre note) in afara de do - do (octava) sunt numere irationale ! Data trecuta m-am referit la scara netemperata, a lui Pitagora, cu rapoartele de numere intregi. Pitagora era un "initat", initierea o avea din Shambala, dupa cate am citit.

Tesla a fost integru si nu a acceptat "artificiul de calcul" , denumit pompos TR, decat ca artificiu. Din cate se vede din postarile tale, (ca opera romanului Tesla nu exista in literatura stiintifica romaneasca), Tesla facea diferenta intre viteza si frecventa ori intre realitate si notiunile matematic abstracte de spatiu si timp.

Măi, cate amanunte stia si Sandokhanul acesta ! Pacat ca a
disparut de pe forumul nostru si n-am citit raspunsurile lui
când m-am inscris.
Mai scurtam Mecanica FOIP. Fiindca presiunea eterului este
cam acelasi lucru. Sau sunt convergente.
Stiti daca mai scrie undeva ? Macar ca nu apreciaza prea mult
limba romana. Poate l-au "descurajat" unii mai suparati sa mai
scrie.
Multumesc pentru linkul postat azi, Eugen.
Exista si aether pressure (I) ? Voi dedica un timp istoriei
forumului.
Motiv de mirare: pe 20 Dec.2008, ora 17;39, Sandokhan a scris:

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;

Anale in America Precolumbiana care nu avea scriere? Hmmm...
Or fi scris anale cu noduri pe sfoara ?
Ma straduiesc si eu sa raman realist.

virgil_48 a scris:. . . . .
Motiv de mirare: pe 20 Dec.2008, ora 17;39, Sandokhan a scris:

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;

Anale in America Precolumbiana care nu avea scriere? Hmmm...
Or fi scris anale cu noduri pe sfoara ?
Ma straduiesc si eu sa raman realist.

Am aflat explicatia pentru cele scrise in citat:
Dupa ocuparea Lumii Noi, au ajuns acolo calugari spanioli pentru
a-i crestina pe indieni. Dar acestia au facut si o fapta buna.
Au cules amintirile si legendele bastinasilor si le-au consemnat in
limba spaniola. Uneori treaba aceasta au facut-o chiar indieni
crestinati si instruiti. Analele amintite de Sandokhan, pot face
parte din categoria acestor documente.
Revin cu întrebarea daca ati mai vazut in ultima vreme numele
acestui Sandokhan roman pe internet.

.  Absolut exceptional, acest sandokhan!!!

.  Am recitit o parte din postarile de pe acest topic si am fost surprins de exceptionalele informatii oferite de sandokhan, in urma cu zece ani. Nu mai putin surprins sunt - si jenat - de curajul meu de a-i raspunde. "Curaj" bazat pe nestiinta mea, la ora aceea, si in general, numita in mod delicat naivitate (de fapt, una din denumirile prostiei).
.  Odata in plus, se reliefeaza de la sine butada cu istoria scrisa de-stim-noi-cine sau -in mod stiintific criminal- uitata sau nescrisa, neluata in seama, etc.

.  Eventualele critici pot fi luate in considerare ca opacitati intentionate interpuse informatiilor de valoare oferite de sandokhan. Exceptionale, dupa cum am mai spus. Orice forum din lumea aceasta nu ar putea fi decat onorat de postarile lui sandokhan.

mm a scris:.  Absolut exceptional, acest sandokhan!!!

.  Am recitit o parte din postarile de pe acest topic si am fost surprins de exceptionalele informatii oferite de sandokhan, in urma cu zece ani. Nu mai putin surprins sunt - si jenat - de curajul meu de a-i raspunde. "Curaj" bazat pe nestiinta mea, la ora aceea, si in general, numita in mod delicat naivitate (de fapt, una din denumirile prostiei).
Odata in plus, se reliefeaza de la sine butada cu istoria scrisa de-stim-noi-cine sau -in mod stiintific criminal- uitata sau nescrisa, neluata in seama, etc.
Eventualele critici pot fi luate in considerare ca opacitati intentionate interpuse informatiilor de valoare oferite de sandokhan. Exceptionale, dupa cum am mai spus. Orice forum din lumea aceasta nu ar putea fi decat onorat de postarile lui sandokhan.

De acord cu dvs. Dar daca este sustinator al "pamantului plat"
la modul serios, ce mai spunem ?
Va dati seama ca nu este un om pe care sa-l scoti dintr-ale lui.
Noi in nici un caz.
Mai intreb odata poate stie cineva raspunsul: partea I-a a acestui
topic a existat ? A fost radiata ? Mai exista dosita pe undeva ?

Este cum am banuit. Cu mai putin de o pagina, topicul Aether
Pressure (I) exista. A fost postat in aceeasi zi ca si AP(II), la 6
minute inaintea lui. Este foarte ciudat, mai ales ca AP(I) nu
apare in lista de topice din sectiunea Teorii ale conspiratiei
mondiale. Si nici nu este reluat in AP(II).
Are numarul de raspuns 377  
https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t44-aether-pressure-i-inexistenta-atractiei-gravitationale#377
Il putem ruga pe Abel sa la adune la un loc. Sa apara AP(I + II).
Interesul meu este mai mult pentru ordine. Cu atata redactare
in limba engleza, accesul meu este limitat. Dar mi se par a fi
niste informatii deosebit de importante. In special cele care
privesc gravitatia, chiar daca ar putea considera cineva ca au
constituit sursa mea de inspiratie pentru FOIP. Era bine sa fie
asa.

Ce tampenie asta cu presiunea eterului. Cum sa exercite eterul o presiune asupra lui insusi ?

sandokhan a scris:Este o surpriza extraordinara ca sa aflam ca in Principia, Newton nu mentioneaza NICIODATA cuvantul "atractie" (attractive/pulling) gravitationala.
. . . . .
Nu numai atat, DAR NEWTON NU CREDEA NICIDECUM SI IN NICI UN FEL IN CONCEPTUL DE ATRACTIE GRAVITATIONALA, DIMPOTRIVA.

De la bun inceput, Newton a prezentat o teorie a PRESIUNII AETHERICE (AETHER PRESSURE THEORY):. . . . .

Re: Aether Pressure (II) - Inexistenta atractiei gravitationale
Scris de gafiteanu Astazi la 00:13
Ce tampenie asta cu presiunea eterului. Cum sa exercite eterul o presiune asupra lui insusi ?

Aerul, apa si toate celelalte fluide cum exercita ? Se numeste
presiune hidrostatica si o stiu si elevii . Iar o presiune
dinamica, nu statica cum este cea din fluide, o exercita si un flux
omogen izotrop de particule. Nu se poate masura cu manometrul,
fiindca se manifesta concentric in orice punct, dar ea exista.
Daca fluxul acela este eterul Universului, presiunea lui concentrica
produce in anumite conditii gravitatia.
Nu spun mai mult fiindca ai urmat cursul despre FOIP.
Nota: Acesta este topicul care deduc ca in anul 2008 i-a disparut
lui Sandokhan dupa ce l-a scris(?), iar el a fost nevoit sa continue
cu AP(II).
P.S. I-am adresat lui Abel rugamintea de a comasa cele doua topice
AP intr-unul singur. Sper ca nu este o problema de netrecut.
Consider raspunsurile lui Sandokhan niste diamante, numai putine
false, de pe topicul nostru. Daca numai 50% din ce scrie omul acesta
este adevarat, noi suntem intr-un Univers Paralel. Si am motive sa
il cred. Interesele materiale ne indeparteaza treptat de adevarul
stiintific, iar cei ce se vor oameni de stiinta, reusesc acceptand
niste minciuni. Sau poate ca ei nici nu constientizeaza asta, fiindca
s-au nascut in Universul Paralel(cu Adevarul).