Galactic Safari

Vizionare completa pe: https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img411/3817/scan0001v.jpg

Primul fizician de renume care si-a dat seama ca datele oficiale despre deplasarea sistemului planetar heliocentric spre steaua Vega sunt complet gresite a fost Oliver Lodge, in 1920:

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.

Asa cum se poate vedea din graficul de mai sus, orbitele planetelor/Soarelui nu sunt compatibile cu legile lui Kepler (adica legile lui Arryabhatia si ale lui T. Brahe, copiate si furate de Kepler), care sunt valabile DOAR in cazul in care sistemul planetar heliocentric ar fi stationar.

Daca teoria Big Bang ar fi fost adevarata atunci intregul sistem solar ar trebui sa efectueze mai multe miscari de rotatie:

1. Prima dintre acestea fiind o deplasare de 20KM/s catre steaua Vega.

2. Cea de a doua fiind rotatia Milky Way Galaxy in jurul propriei axe, 350KM/s.

3. A treia deplasare ar fi rotatia cluster of local group of galaxies (din care ar face parte si Calea Lactee) in jurul centrului Virgo Super Cluster, 627KM/s.

Pentru o vizualizare mai buna puteti accesa

http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/universe.gif

Mai multi astronomi si cosmologisti au cercetat prima dintre aceste miscari ale sistemului solar care s-ar deplasa catre steaua Vega.

Adica asupra fiecarei planete simultan cu fortele care pastreaza planetele in orbita in jurul Soarelui (in versiunea heliocentrica) AR TREBUI SA ACTIONEZE INCA O FORTA DE DEVIERE LATERALA, asa cum se poate vedea din grafic, unde orbitele planetare devin de fapt CURBE ELICOIDALE.

Tinand seama ca soarele impreuna cu planetele sale s-ar deplasa spre steaua vega cu o viteza constanta, egala cu aproximativ 20km/s, prima lege a rosicrucianului kepler este incompatibila cu miscarea soarelui si a intregului sistem solar spre steaua vega.

Traiectoria planetelor in jurul Soarelui ar trebui sa fie plana NUMAI daca 'centrul sistemului solar', cum spunea vicleanul Koppernigk, AR FI IN REPAUS.

Daca insa, 'centrul sistemului solar' este in miscare uniforma spre steaua Vega, atunci aceasta miscare este perpendiculara pe planul elipticei, se compune cu miscarea planetelor din planul orbitelor eliptice - o miscare rezultanta tridimensionala, in care traiectoriile planetelor sunt curbe elicoidale, situate pe suprafetele laterale ale unor cilindri eliptici.

Un alt grafic care ne arata situatia:



Aceste curbe elicoidale NU SUNT COMPATIBILE CU LEGILE LUI KEPLER; daca sistemul nostru planetar heliocentric NU SE DEPLASEAZA CATRE STEAUA VEGA, sau prin Milky Way, atunci toata astrofizica actuala trebuie sa fie modificata.

Again, one of the very best proofs/demonstrations of the fallacies inherent in the big bang theory:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

Red Shift Errors

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html

Missing Doppler effect...

http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html

An extraordinary article about the Doppler effect errors:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

And here is another superb analysis of the Doppler effect errors:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm

Mistakes of Hubble:

http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

From Hubble:

' … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”

Nernst's Interpretation

Hubble made two mistakes:

The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.

The second lay in the hypothesis that his 'law' was 'clearly linear', thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good 'first approximation' of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).

Foarte interesant subiect, sandokhane! Aş fi încântat dacă seriozitatea lui s-ar menţine pe tot parcursul discuţiilor purtate în acest topic.

Poate ca va veti intreba de ce nu mentionez Stroop Theory...adica StringLoop Theory...in legatura cu aceste orbite elicoidale (Tractoid Helical Geodesic Orbits Theory)...

Teoria Twistor dezvoltata de R. Penrose se bazeaza, din nefericire, pe conceptul defectuos (adica catastrofal) de SPATIU-TIMP.

Vezi comentariile lui Nikola Tesla despre space-time continuum (extraordinar de pertinente):

https://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/teorii-ale-conspiraiei-mondiale-f19/minkowsky-space-time-concept-hoax-t40.htm#428

Atat Aether Pressure Theory cat si Space - Time TGR Gravitation Theory sunt teorii gravitationale de PRESIUNE, si nicidecum de atractie (nu exista nici un fel de atractie gravitationala); de aceea aceasta teorie ar fi valabila doar pe un pamant de forma plata, altfel cele 1000 de miliarde de trilioane de litri de apa din oceane/rauri/fluvii nu ar avea cum ramana "lipite" de scoarta terestra...

DA, foarte interesant subiect... dar nu are nici o legatura cu sistemul geocentric, unde Pamantul este ,,buricul '' universului cocnoscibil.

nic, te rog sa intri pe astronomy.ro, unde stimatii nostri colegi discuta despre gravitatie/inelele lui Saturn, fara sa inteleaga ca Newton nu a mentionat niciodata atractia gravitationala. Iata ce spune un astrofizician de top despre Rings of Saturn:

Newtonian gravity theory is challenged by various aspects of planetary behaviour in our solar system. The rings of Saturn, for example, present a major problem. There are tens of thousands of rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is either less dense or essentially absent. The complex, dynamic nature of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanics to explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle.

Presiunea gravitationala NU POATE FI CAUZATA DE NICI UN FEL DE DISTORSIUNE A CONTINUUMULUI SPATIU-TIMP. Gravitatia este cauzata de presiunea aetherului, acest aether este filtrat de partea receptiva a atomului (quarcii + P. Higgs boson = MerKaBa, vezi Occult Chemistry, copiata la greu de insusi Murray Gell-Mann).

Quarcii sunt instabili in raport cu timpul, prin observarea lor experimentala, nu sunt stabili in raport cu propria noastra realitate. Mediul in care se propaga (aetherul) NU SE AFLA in realitatea noastra, dar are totusi o anumita legatura cu aceasta, caci ei pot fi partial detectati (quarcii). Quarcii + P. Higgs boson (MerKaBa) SUNT PUNTEA INTRE AETHER SI LUMEA FIZICA.

Insa din nefericire, din cauza greselilor inimaginabile comise de profesorasul din Noua Zeelanda, E. Rutherford, si intarite de fabulatiile lui N. Bohr, mecanica cuantica are la baza exclusiv teoria probabilitatilor, adica descrierea comportamentului particulelor in termeni statistici/probabilisti.

Acum, constanta gravitationala nu este deloc o constanta, sa vedem experimentele facute pana acum pe acest subiect:

In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Eötvös in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent ‘fifth force’. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition. His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Crémieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth’s surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.

Unexpected anomalies continue to turn up. Mikhail Gersteyn has shown that ‘G’ varies by at least 0.054% depending on orientation of the two test masses relative to the fixed stars.8 Gary Vezzoli has found that the strength of gravitational interactions varies by 0.04 to 0.05% as a function of an object’s temperature, shape, and phase. Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorption capacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically energizing it, it is attracted to the earth at a rate less than g. Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes not altering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual state. A team of Japanese scientists has found that a right-spinning gyroscope falls slightly faster than when it is not spinning. Bruce DePalma discovered that rotating objects falling in a magnetic field accelerate faster than g.

As mentioned above, measurements of gravity below the earth’s surface are consistently higher than predicted on the basis of Newton’s theory. Sceptics simply assume that hidden rocks of unusually high density must be present. However, measurements in mines where densities are very well known have given the same anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673 metres in a homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock.

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

Modificarea greutatii atomilor prin electricitate

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher of France. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage.When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.

Biografia profesorului Nipher:

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/scripts/data/database.cgi?ArticleID=0000301&file=Data&report=SingleArticle


Din experimentele lui Charles Brush:

http://www.rexresearch.com/brush/brush.htm

Efectul Biefeld-Brown:

Efectul Biefeld-Brown (un condensator puternic incarcat electric tinde catre polul pozitiv) explicat in mod exceptional in cartea http://www.edituraobiectiv.ro/cuprins/c24.html (Armele Secrete), pg. 137-137, 147-155, 156-159.

Vezi si:

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

Colegii nostri de pe astronomy.ro nu inteleg ca forma rotunda (cvasi-sferica) a unei planete este COMPLET NEEXPLICABILA DATE FIIND LEGILE FIZICII ACTUALE.

Aici veti gasi de exemplu cum au fost falsificate zborurile Apollo, cu tot cu poze incendiare despre machetele folosite la crearea iluziei aselenizarii:

http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

Dintr-o masa gazoasa discoidala care pune in actiune o forta centrifuga de rotatie, ar fi fost imposibila atingerea unei forme sferice pentru Soare si pt. celelalte planete. Pornind de la o forma de disc aplatizat (si nu discutam aici argumente prostesti de genul bombardamentelor cu meteoriti, care ar produce doar explozii aleatorii, fara a modifica FORMA initiala de la disc la sfera), ar fi fost nevoie de o presiune puternica (tangentiala pe planul ecuatorial) din EXTERIOR, care sa provoace o ingustare radiala, adica un gen de inginerie cosmica incredibila.

Mai mult, masa acelui conglomerat trebuie sa fi fost concentrata DOAR INTR-UN MIC SECTOR AL ACELUI INEL DE MATERIE, pentru ca altfel particule de materie aflate la o distanta de peste 100 milioane de km nu ar fi cum sa se atinga.

O nebuloasa inzestrata cu rotatie nu ar putea sa produca sateliti avand miscari de revolutie de sens contrar (satelitii lui Uranus, 3 din cei 11 sateliti ai lui Jupiter, 1 din 9 ai lui Saturn, 1 dintre satelitii lui Neptun). VENUS SE ROTESTE IN JURUL AXEI SALE IN SENS CONTRAR SENSULUI DE ROTATIE AL CELORLALTE PLANETE, ceea ce nu poate fi explicat in astrofizica actuala (o coliziune ar fi distrus complet conglomeratul incandescent care se rotea in perioada dintre 4.6 - 4.5 miliarde de ani).

Newton nu credea deloc in vreo teorie de atractie gravitationala.

De la o excentricitate extrem de apropiata de unitate (c = 0.99995), a conglomeratului de materie initial in forma de elipsoid (sectiunea transversala fiind in forma de elipsa), nu am fi avut cum sa ajungem la o excentriciate de 0.314 (cea a pamantului rotund).

Forma sferica asa cum ne este oferita din imaginile oficiale este absolut inexplicabila, data fiind presiunea extrem de joasa atmosferica a gazelor solare, si mai ales a petelor solare; forta centrifuga de rotatie ar fi format de la bun inceput un soare plat.

PS Am notat cu placere prezenta lui Iedidia pe stiintaazi.ro/forum; m-a ajutat mult de tot pe forumcrestin...voi reveni cu poze din Etobicoke, Lacul Ontario...

Domnilor, aceste imagini le-am mai vazut;
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
INTREBARI:
-cine are interes la nivel planetar sa ascunda adevarul despre realitatea noastra?
-daca cineva o face, indiferent cum s-ar numi, cu ce scop?
-Sandokhan, crezi ca TOTUL privind zborurile in cosmos sunt false? ce spui despre sateliti?