Pamantul Stationar - Traiectoria Norilor

RESTORING FORCES PARADOX - PAMANTUL STATIONAR

Traiectoria norilor de pe cer indica clar faptul ca Pamantul nu se poate roti cu 1,600 de kilometri pe ora (la Ecuator) in jurul propriei axe, si nici cu 29 de kilometri pe secunda in jurul unei stele.

Restoring Forces, Dr. Neville Jones

Introduction

It has been shown elsewhere on this site that geostatic and acentric cosmologies are not dynamically equivalent. That they are geometrically equivalent may be true, but physically they are very different systems. It follows that the best way to disprove one of them is by a comparison of some consequence of their respective dynamics.

The alleged rotation of the World, although never having been experimentally demonstrated, is simply taken as read by modern science. However, the World either rotates about an axis or it doesn't. There is no alternative scenario. If the World does spin, then the universe might still be geocentric, although it is doubtful that many would seriously believe it. On the other hand, if the World can be shown not to spin, then the heavens have to be centred on, and revolve diurnally about, an immovable World.

If the claims of the American government agency, NASA, regarding having successfully landed men on the Moon, for instance, are to be believed, then the issue is already settled, for the World must rotate around the north-south polar axis from west to east for this feat to have been achieved in the manner claimed. Again, this is inescapable from the dynamics that would be involved (there is a Guided Tour talk on this issue in Geocentric Universe 3.0 ).

Let us ignore NASA for the moment and examine another area in which undeniable differences would exist between the dynamics of the geostatic and acentric models � atmospheric physics � for whatever the World is doing, rotating or not rotating, its atmosphere has to be doing the same thing and at very nearly the same rate (otherwise what we currently call a hurricane would appear like a light breeze compared to the winds to be experienced as a result of one component of the system rotating and the other remaining stationary).

Now and again, no matter where we are situated on the globe, we will experience a still, calm day. Flags hanging limply, clouds hardly moving, no rustle of the leaves on the trees, and so on.

Inbetween this and the next such calm day, the weather can have been really wild and extreme. Yet if we were to consider only the two tranquil days at either end of the storm, it would be as if nothing had happened.

Whatever dictated the dynamics of the World's atmosphere on the first calm day must have been likewise influential on the second. This fact needs to be examined under each scenario.



Acentric (rotating World) Model

Consider an air molecule in our atmosphere which, on the second calm day, is situated within a local atmospheric envelope that is rotating with the World. In other words, this molecule must be maintaining approximately the same velocity as that of its associated point on the ground.



Figure 1: In a rotating atmosphere, an air molecule has to be forced to move from s1 to s2, even on a calm day, by some hitherto unknown vector field.



Let the position of the air molecule be s1 (see Fig. 1) and its altitude be h, then the coordinates of s1 are

x1 = (R + h) cos ø cos a

y1 = (R + h) cos ø sin a

z = (R + h) sin ø,

where R is the mean radius of the World, ø is the latitude of the point on the World's surface directly under the air molecule and a is its longitude.

The molecule must have a velocity, the modulus of which will be

|v| = 0.262516 (R + h) cos ø per mean solar hour,

taking the mean sidereal day as 23h 56m 4.091s mean solar time (Smart, 1977), and the direction of which must be so as to ensure that the molecule goes from s1 to s2. Hence,

v = f (R, h, a, ø).

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.



Geostatic (non-moving World) Model

Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.



Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force

That we are not consciously aware of this hypothetical field is not in itself proof against its existence, because the same could be said for the gravitational field. Some further comparisons with gravity, however, do offer such proof.

The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.

The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes us back down onto the surface of the World). Indeed, low or zero gravity inside the Russian space station in low earth orbit has been shown to result in the wasting of muscles exposed to this effect for periods of just a few months. Similarly, our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).



Conclusion

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geocentric, or else geobounded.

MAI DEPARTE.

Din cartea Galileo Was Wrong:

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

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

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

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

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

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

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

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

MAI DEPARTE.

Liquids behave differently than gases. Ask any physicist to explain HOW an iron (nickel or any other metal) core could possibly attract anything, and you will not get a clear answer. There is still no proof that gravitation is an attracting force, not after more than 300 years after Principia. From where would the posited graviton particle come? From the protons/neutrons of the iron core? A theory becomes law when its cause is well established, as such, the gravitational hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis.

Please try to understand. Gravitation would attract a molecule, NOT make it rotate WITH the rotating Earth. For the rotation of the atmosphere, a different, as yet undiscovered (called restoring forces field) force would have to exist. Friction might come into interplay with low down winds, and will not determine a layer of atmosphere to come along for the ride; friction might be called upon if we take into consideration solids, not gases.

Consider an air molecule. He's going around with the atmosphere, which is itself rotating with the World. A wind springs up, due to thermal variations caused by the rate of heating of different parts of the land and sea. Suddenly our molecule collides
with a wind molecule, and ends up going in a totally different direction. WHAT IS IT THAT IS GOING TO BRING OUR MOLECULE BACK INTO LINE?

"Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules
interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is
conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection
currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know
all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These
convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these
are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called 'closed system' is
invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different
components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon
composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged
angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule
will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of
angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE
CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE
SYSTEM. Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if
such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not
conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular
momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of
theoretical 'closed system.' The second reason is closely tied to the first. As
I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies.
That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have
the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how
far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases,
nor, in general, to fluids."

As for the oceans, there are other things there that are taken for granted. Now, the classic theory tells us that all objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth (unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case, but this is another topic).

If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field, supposing Newton's hypothesis to be true, which it is not.

But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant, which completely defies the gravitational hypothesis.

GAZELE DIN ATMOSFERA NU ASCULTA DE NICI UN FEL DE ATRACTIE GRAVITATIONALA:

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.” 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.”

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.” 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.

MASURATORILE FACUTE DE STIINTA OFICIALA ARATA CLAR CA NU EXISTA ATRACTIA GRAVITATIONALA INVENTATA DE ROYAL LONDON SOCIETY:

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.

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. 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.”

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.

Here is our old friend Newton telling us there is no vacuum actually...

“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.”

Linkul pentru Restoring Forces Paradox:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Nu stiu daca aici este locul cel mai potrivit pentru acest articol, zic eu interesant, pe care l-am inceput cu ceva timp in urma si pe care abia acum am reusit sa-l finalizez. Rog administratoul acestui forum si pe Sandokhan sa-l mute unde considera ca este mai relevant.
---------------------------------------------------

Norii nu cad!

de Dharmapada Dasa


Imaginea si rolul omului de stiinta modern este asemanator cu cea a unui preot sau perceptor din vechime. Ei sunt medici moderni care ne ilumineaza si ne explica fenomenele naturii. Din analizele lor se nasc filozofii.

Dar exista de fapt, lacune evidente de intelegere care ne sunt transmise de catre oamenii de stiinta. Incompatibilitati exista chiar si in ceea ce priveste procesele naturale de zi cu zi, care sunt suficiente pentru a ne face sa ne intrebam despre adevarata lor responsabilitate asupra cunoasterii cat si a interpretarii acesteia.

Cauza gravitatiei, asa cum suntem condusi sa credem, este cu siguranta una din aceste zone de necongruenta. Prin expunerea deficientelor conceptului de gravitatie Newtoniana ca fiind o forta de atractie, noi desfasuram terenul pentru confirmarea stiintelor subtile pe care le vedem descrise in literatura Puranica, cum este levitatia yoginilor.

Un bun exemplu de examinat sunt norii. Gravitatia se pare ca se comporta diferit in cazul norilor, deoarece acestia nu cad. Retineti ca norii nu sunt de natura gazoasa. Ei sunt compusi din picaturi de apa, de multe ori mai grele decat atmosfera care le cuprinde. Acestia tind sa stea uniti chiar si in vant. Trebuie sa admitem ca comportamentul norilor este un pic diferit de cel al aburului care este eliberat la fierbere, zilnic in bucataria noastra.

O persoana poate argumenta ca norii sunt mentinuti sus de vascozitatea aerului sau de rezistenta acestuia, dar acestea pot doar sa diminueze rata de cadere; nu exista nimic in atmosfera care ar putea mentine norii sus. Norii sfideaza legea de plutire a corpurilor.

Este comportamentul norilor greu de inteles? Poate nu. La pagina 144 din cartea "The Awesome Life Force" (n.t. The Awesome Life Force) scrisa de Joseph H. Carter, acesta puncteaza "A fost stabilit ca un camp gravitational respinge sarcinile negative. A fost aratat ca asa este. Laboratoarele RCA din Princeton, New Jersey, pretind ca au demonstrat aceasta in 1959. Ei se presupune ca au des-coperit ca sarcinile negative tind sa urce in loc sa coboare, asa cum ar fi fost de asteptat. Este evident motivul pentru care nu s-a mai auzit nimic despre aceasta. Unele din experimentele lui Reichenbach, care urmeaza sa fie discutate in Partea a IV-a, de asemenea indica faptul ca acesta este cazul. Acest efect a fost prezis pe baze pur teoretice de catre autor, inainte de cunoasterea acestor confirmari. Un fenomen foarte cunoscut de asemenea demonstreaza faptul ca sarcinile negative sunt respinse de campul gravitational. Cand parului de pe capul cuiva i se da o sarcina negativa puternica, acesta va avea tendinta de a sta drept in sus. Acest lucru devine deosebit de pronuntat in cazul in care cineva sta langa un generator Van de Graf, cand acesta genereaza mari concentratii de electroni. Multi dintre electroni se ataseaza parului si tind sa traga parul cu ei, in timp ce acestia sunt respinsi in sus." Electricitatea statica, tipul care poate fi anulata de o tesatura moale, este un exemplu de sarcina negativa care creeaza un camp gravitational. In acest fel, norii sunt impregnati cu o incarcatura negativa, in acest fel ei devening FARA GREUTATE si levitand. Aceasta intelegere face ravagii cu idea ca gravitatia este o forta de atractie care isi are originea in masa, in special atunci cand consideram ca unei planete goale ar fi mult mai usor de gestionat de catre fortele electrostatice.

O intelegere corecta porneste cu realizarea faptului ca materia, moleculele si atomii, poseda in mod natural o sarcina pozitiva. Extragerea sau adaugarea electronilor la un atom ii va ajusta acestuia proprietatile de inertie. Marii atomi au inertie mai mica decat oricare din micii electroni care ajuta la alcatuirea atomului. Asa ca inertia nu este proportionala cu masa - altfel atomul, care este mai mare decat electronul, ar trebui sa prezinte inertie mai mare.

Joseph H. cater ne spune ca el a fost "bucuros sa invete ca un fost castigator al premiului Nobel, Gabriel Lippmann, a confirmat acest principiu in secolul al XIX-lea. Lippman a constatat ca corpurile in stare incarcata, ofera o mai mare rezistenta la accelerare decat in stare neincarcata. El a denumit aceasta ca fiind inertia electricitatii statice". (n.t. Bulletin de la Société philomathique de Paris (1864)). Nu este surprinzator ca aceasta descoperire a fost ignorata, deoarece ameninta cu rasturnarea nepretuitelor concepte fizice. In mod ironic, Lippmann a primit mai tarziu premiul Nobel pentru o alta descoperire comparativ insignifianta.

Incarcatura negativa a campului gravitational al Pamantului este produsa de o portiune a spectrului electromagnetic foarte penetranta (prezenta in lumina soarelui), care se intinde intre cele mai de jos frecvente de infrarosu si cele mai inalte frecvente din banda radar." Aceste radiatii penetreaza in crusta Pamantului de unde acestea induc campul gravitational prin ajustarea incarcaturii la un nivel atomic"

Acum, desigur, nu se considera ca lumina solara penetreaza foarte adanc in suprafata Pamantului, asa ca sunt necesare cateva explicatii. Sa luam in calcul explicatia lui Carter in transformarea mai sus mentionatelor frecvente, in frecvente mult mai joase si mai penetrante. "Legea redistribuirii energiei, nespecificata in nici o carte, joaca un rol vital in beneficiile pe care orice planeta le primeste de la un soare. Pe scurt, acesta afirma ca atunci cand energia electromangentica radianta interactioneaza cu materia, radiatia rezultanta, in ansamblu este de o frecventa mai joasa decat lumina (n.t. frecventa) originala. Efectul Raman, denumit astfel dupa fizicianul care l-a descoperit, C.V. Raman, partial confirma acest principiu. Cateva dintre aspectele efectului Raman se parea ca violeaza aceasta lege, atunci cand parti din lumina rezultanta era de o frecventa mai mare decat cea originala. Aceasta lumina a fost produsa prin eliberarea inaltelor energii continute in atomi pe durata experimentului lui Raman si nu a fost parte din lumina originala." (Pagina 143). Retineti ca lumina aceasta de joasa frecventa este cea asa penetranta.

Cu alte cuvinte, este lumina de joasa frecventa, nerecunoscuta de stiinta, care contine radiatia care induce gravitatia din lumina soarelui - sunt acestea si doar acestea care sunt penetrante. Deci, fortele electrostatice care compun gravitatia nu ajung sub aceasta forma - exista o transformare de la inalta la joasa frecventa care penetreaza crusta Pamantului si care duce la aparitia fortelor electrostatice si a sarcinilor electrice.

Aceste forte electrostatice care iau nastere sub platourile continentale, care actioneaza ca un condensator, si care conduc deriva continentala, cauzeaza cutremure si sunt sursa de energie care incalzeste lava.

Modelul modern geologic care specifica ca exista o astenosfera sub manta, care este fierbinte si fluida, nu este fezabila. Cutremurile de mare adancime exista prin toate aceste straturi, si depind de rocile fragile. Cutremurele de mare adancime exista prin toate aceste straturi, iar cutremurele depind de rocile fragile. Asa ca exista o mare nepotrivire care este de ajuns pentru negarea fiecarui model. Acest model alternativ, oricum, implicand radiatii de joasa frecventa care penetreaza crusta Pamantului si induce forte electrostatice este in cele din urma un model corespunzator.

Mai multe scrise de Carter pe acest subiect: "Concentratia de sarcini negative, rezultata din penetrarea particulelor moi (lumina de joasa frecventa) de la Soare, si radiatia materiei din interiorul Pamantului, se combina pentru a produce forte tensionale. Acest gen de forte care se manifesta in crusta Pamantului cauzeaza ruperea si alunecarea precum si plierea straturilor unele peste altele. Fortele gravitationale care mentin Pamantul pe orbita sa, produc de asemenea tensiuni in crusta, care se adauga la aceste forte laterale.

Originea cutremurelor este acum evidenta. Exista perioade cand concentratia de sarcini atinge o stare critica. Atunci apare O descarcare de particule. O descarcare brusca de electroni grei produce o explozie. Deoarece particulele grele sunt partial blocate, sunt eliberate forte uriase care scutura Pamantul. Un fenomen similar produce fulgerul. Multe din particulele descarcate isi gasesc drumul lor inapoi catre suprafata. Unele dintre ele i-si desfac fotonii constituenti si produc efecte colorate, care uneori preced un cutremur. Animalele si oamenii sensibili pot simti aceste energii. Aceste descarcari ar putea fi un mijloc pentru prezicerea cutremurelor.

[Cater despre vulcani:]
"Explicatia academica pentru activitatea vulcanica este destul de vaga. Deoarece temperatura lavei topite aruncata de vulcani este asa mare, punctul de vedere ortodox este ca lava topita ar trebui sa provina de la mii de km de sub suprafata. Inca nu este clar cum lava i-si gaseste calea catre suprafata de la asemenea adancimi, atat timp cat Pamantul este considerat a fi o bila solida."

Acest lucru este interesant deoarece intr-un model al Pamantului solid, ar trebui sa existe presiuni imense la adancimi mari, asa ca orice deschidere pe unde lava ar putea curge ar trebui sa se inchida imediat. Si daca lava se afla la adancimile la care zic ei, atunci ar trebui sa se raceasca in momentul cand aceasta atinge suprafata.

Cater atribuie caldura care conteaza pentru activitatea vulcanica razelor solare care penetreaza suprafata Pamantului. Cum se face aceasta este explicat de catre teoria fizicii particulelor moi, asa ca fotonii de energie-mica de la lumina solara (de frecventa joasa) creaza ceea ce Cater denumeste particule moi. Aceste particule penetreaza Pamantul mult mai usor decat fotonii normali.

Cater ne spune: "Acest proces [redistribuirea/penetrarea luminii de frecventa joasa] de penetrare a scoartei terestre de catre radiatia solara continua. Frecventele joase [de lumina] sunt transformate usor in radiatie infrarosie care produce cresterea temperaturii... Cele mai multe din particulele moi care se dezintegreaza [radiaza] pe durata acestui proces sunt alcatuite din fotoni aflati mai jos de domeniul vizibil al spectrului electromagnetic." Asa cum deja am mentionat legat de cutremure, particulele moi concentrate de-a lungul platourilor (n.t. continentale) si crapaturilor sunt cele care actioneaza ca si condensatoare, creand si stocand electricitatea/caldura. Apoi acesta devine mecansimul care incalzeste piatra si care produce lava. Acum putem intelege fenomenul de levitatie asa cum este el descris in atat de multe povesti si legende Puarnice.

"Devine acuma aparent ca gravitatia este un efect electrostatic, nu o curbura a spatiului sau o forta misterioasa cu proprietati imponderabile asa cum este ea descrisa de fizicienii ortodocsi. Ceea ce urmeaza este ca daca materia este impregnata cu suficiente cantitati de incarcaturi negative, in special electroni moi, aceasta va deveni fara greutate si chiar va levita. Cativa adepti ai artele oculte (yogini) au demonstrat aceasta abilitate cu diferite ocazii. In ciuda acestui fapt, si a evidentelor experimentale care arata ca sarcinile negative sunt respinse de campul gravitational, teoreticienii conformisti continua sa le ignore, si presupun ca gravitatia actioneaza fara discriminare pe toate lucrurile la fel. In ca o data, aceasta este ceea ce se asteapta. Daca savantii ortodocsi recunosc realitatea unor asemenea lucruri, acestia automat v-or trebui sa renunte aproape la toate conceptele care le sunt atat de dragi. ( The Awesome Life Force, chapter 32, by Cater )"

Astfel o confirmare a stiintelor Vedice - stiintele subtile care manipuleaza eterul, apoi fotonii, apoi atomii - inseamna o deschidere catre intelegerea adevratei naturi a gravitatiei. Aceasta intelegere a gravitatiei ca o forta electrostatica, deasemenea deschide calea unei intelegeri coerente a proceselor geologice si chiar pentru corecta intelegerea a planetei noastre. (aceasta este goala).

Intelegerea adevaratei naturi a gravitatiei deasemenea conduce la calatorii rapide si ieftine, aproape gratuite, intre multe alte lucruri. Daca aceste cunostinte prolifereaza, orice persoana va deveni libera si nemanipulabila de catre ordinul acestei lumi. Structurile de putere si economice vor cadea, la fel si industria petroliera. Nu doar structurile de putere vor deveni nefericite sa vada o asemenea dezvoltare, dar probabil ca si "semizeii" nu vor fi asa de incantati sa vada ca materialismul va deveni chiar si mai suparator si eficient in pacatosenia lui.

Retineti - norii nu cad!
-------------------------
Articolul original, in limba engleza il gasiti aici: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0006/ET13-6016.html

Te felicit nu numai pentru acest articol formidabil, dar si pentru inteligenta si curajul de care dai dovada ca sa ne arati greselile inimaginabile din fizica oficiala. De asemenea tu ai tradus aici materialul despre experimentul lui Airy:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t132-experimentul-lui-gb-airy-1871-documentatie#3018

Norii sfideaza orice lege de atractie gravitationala, iar traiectoriile lor ne arata ca atmosfera nu se roteste deloc, si, deci, nici pamantul nu se roteste in jurul vreunei axe.

Cei care isi doresc date experimentale clare de tot, pot citi mesajul lui sadang de mai sus...

Aici, videourile cu cloudscape timelapse, traiectorii ale norilor filmate in direct, absolut imposibile pe un pamant care s-ar roti in jurul propriei axe cu 1600 km/hr (sau cam vreo 900 de km la latitudinea noastra):

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t83-cloudscape-timelapse

Geocentric Coriolis Force, Mach's Principle:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg953747#msg953747

Clouds can have a height ranging from 50 meters to over 5 km, and a length ranging from 100 meters to 1000 km; a cumulus cloud, 1 kilometer in diameter, will weigh 5 MILLION TONS, or about the weight of 1 million cars. A cumulonimbus cloud, 5 kilometers in height, and having a diameter of 15 kilometers, will actually weigh 1 BILLION TONS.

A clear evidence that clouds simply defy any attractive gravitation (which does not exist); on a round earth we could not have a pressure type of gravitational force, since the force required to keep the 1000 trillion billion liters of water "glued" to the surface would crush the clouds and any living being which would attempt to move upon this surface.

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.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCY69fT6cXA (Apollo 11, o poza cu Pamantul lipita de hublou, lumina stinsa si apoi filmata si oferita publicului ca fiind o inregistrare in spatiu a echipajului; film recuperat din arhivele Nasa, marcate cu Not For Public Use; doar cateva minute au fost prezentate, apoi, pentru massmedia)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE (Apollo 16, arata cum astronautii erau suspendati de cabluri, filmati slow-motion; spre final, unul dintre acesti astronauti se impiedica si cade jos fiind apoi tras din spate de doua fire care pot fi vazute)


Falsificarea programului spatial american:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=606


Falsificarea programului spatial sovietic/rus:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=606#p26271


Falsificarea programului space shuttle:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=606#p26272


Despre pendulul lui Foucault:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374


Explozia de la Tunguska vazuta de la Londra, Antwerp, Stockholm, Irkutsk:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t87-tungusk-1908-tesla-new-findings (obstacol vizual de peste 5680 km, explozia avand loc la o altitudine de aproximativ 7 km)

Inca o data, sadang, felicitari pentru traducere si pt. articol...

Despre deplasarea norilor si in general despre atmosfera aflam cu greu cate ceva. Cater este un autor interesant care indrazneste sa puna la indoiala teoriile acceptate. Articolul contine f. multe intrebari, nedumeriri pe care le avem si noi, in cea mai mare parte fara raspuns.

Bunaoara, e greu de imaginat sau de explicat cum de urmaresc norii miscarea de rotatie a Pamantului, mentinandu-se (uneori nemiscati) deasupra unui loc, zona geografica, legea inertiei care tine aerul in miscare odata cu pamantul nemaiputand sa explice de ce masele de aer scendente nu se deplaseaza (viteza tangenta la traiectorie crescand cu raza) spre vest fata de suprafata pamantului.
Explicatiile propuse, respectiv antrenarea prin frecare sau chiar un Pamant stationar nu sunt singurele explicatii posibile. In acest sens sunt demne de retinut parerile unor oameni de stiinta care afirma ca fortele ce antreneaza in miscare de rotatie Pamantul se afla in chiar straturile externe ale acestuia, incepand cu atmosfera.

In ce priveste apa ce "pluteste" in atmosfera, pot confirma din surse directe (planoristi) ca in nori se gasesc nu numai picaturi ci chiar si "bolovani de gheata cat capul". Din relatarile unor participanti la un concurs de planorism, desfasurat in Iugoslavia (candva), am aflat ca un pilot a murit iar un altul a scapat (dintr-un asemenea nor ascendent) aterizand cu gauri mari in fuzelaj, de ordinul zecilor de cm. Pentru cei care nu sunt familiarizati, era vorba de niste fenomene meteo puternice - nori cumulonimbus care se intind chiar pana la 12 km inaltime, si pe care pilotii ii cauta datorita fortei ascensionale f. mari. Daca acesti nori sunt peste masura de "activi" ei devin periculosi pentru pilotii care intra in ei pentru a castiga altitudine iar la concursul respectiv desi pilotii au fost preveniti asupra pericolului sigur ca unii nu au ascultat caci ii impingea dorinta de a se "ridica" deasupra celorlalti.
In acesti nori, bolovani mari de gheata circula in sus si in jos cu viteze mari si pot ciurui un planor usor, facut din "foita". Sigur ca este greu de inteles cum pot acesti nori cu mase de milioane de tone de gheata sa "stea" (fiind nori de convectie) deasupra unui loc in timp ce locul se misca spre est cu viteza de ~1.178 km/h la paralela 45^o. Sigur ca se pune intrebarea fata de cine consideram noi ca se misca pamantul (raspunsul superficial este ca fata de un sistem de coordonate oarecare).

Totusi, explicatia unui pamant stationar nu este singura explicatie posibila pentru norii stationari, fiind contestata de piloti, sateliti si chiar de mecanica clasica verificata de experienta practica seculara, in special in privinta miscarii corpurilor macroscopice.

Salut,
… și totuși, teoria pământului plat și staționar are mai multe motive plauzibile de luat în seamă fată de Teoria ; Legea Fundamentala a Creatiei", GEOMETRODINAMICA ELICOIDALA (relativitate generalizata pentru oricine) a lui Dan Preda.
Știu, am fost educați, învățați ca fiind ceva revoluționar fata de vechea teorie geocentrism spre o noua teorie heliocentric, dar nimic nu ne obliga sa nu gândim sa suspectam în necorectitudinea ei, o teorie oricare ar fi ea…

… nu sunt un adept al geocentrismului, dar sunt multe întrebări prin care heliocentrismul nu le răspunde.
- dacă pământul se rotește în jurul sau, având o viteza la ecuator de aproximativ 1600 km/h, cine și ce antrenează atmosfera fata de pământ?
- dacă pământul se rotește în jurul soarelui pe o orbita având o viteza de peste 100 de mii pe ora , timp de un an. De ce Steaua Polara rămâne aproape nemișcată?
- Și ar mai fi multe întrebări…

Nu exista atractie gravitationala, gravitonii nu au fost si nici nu pot fi descoperiti pentru ca nu exista...un sistem Stea - Planeta - Satelit (Soare, Pamant, Luna) NU poate functiona pe baza unui flux de gravitoni, vezi demonstratia de mai devreme...

nic, invata engleza numai sau chiar pentru a citi ce am scris aici:

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t62-despre-problema-rotaiei-atmosferei-terestre

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t87-tungusk-1908-tesla-new-findings#1001

Fulgerul globular a fost evidentiat pentru prima data la noi in tara prin experimentele facute la INCREST de dr. ing. Radu Dornean, lt.col.dr. ing. Florin Zaganescu, si dr. ing. Constantin Bursuc in 1988; timp de aproape un minut fulgerul globular a sfidat orice fel de lege de atractie gravitationala, indreptandu-se apoi pe o traiectorie spiralata spre cer prin geamul deschis al laboratorului...daca luam in calcul doar 10 secunde, si cele 29 km/s ale vitezei pamantului prin spatiu (orbita din jurul soarelui), fulgerul globular din laborator ar fi trebuit sa dispara instantaneu...in linkul de mai sus, alte exemple bine documentate despre fulgerele globulare...alte dovezi ca pamantul nu se roteste in jurul soarelui, sau in jurul propriei axe...