E=mc^2

[Ben2503]

static?

I think that no matter how you want to view electricity, it HAS something to do with the ether. A highly charged capacitor therefor has a certain ether condition which differs from a un-charged capacitor. By causing an extremely quick change between these two conditions we must produce some effect in the surrounding ether.
The capacitor is surrounded by insulators which do not easily convey ether-action so if we hold a metal rod (conductor) near the surface, we are facilitating the transfer of ether-action towards the capacitor. Thus at the tip of the metal rod this transfer is much denser than elsewhere on the oil surface.
Ether is not dense enough to "push" visibly on the oil surface, but air is. And the air is dragged along with the ether movement, causing a small dent in the oil surface when the capacitor discharges.
I have done many variations of this experiment in order to convince myself. Many different rods, conducting and non-conducting, without rods, with the rods at different positions etc.
This experiment is to the layman the least interesting of all my experiments, but if you understand the implications, this is by far the most fascinating experiment.
It is in fact an experiment copied (and slightly altered) from... you guessed right... Tesla.
Tesla used a submerged coil, but I thought a capacitor is much more interesting and I am sure Tesla must have done the same, but decided not to write about it.
because... (you fill in the blanks)

Ernst.

Hi Ernst.
Indeed interesting experiment.
Why do you think that ether, which seem to cause the rotation of the sun and the earth, causes gravity etc.., is not able to make a dent in the surface?
I just wonder how we can rule out electrostatic effects? As the rod has a point at the end, its a perfect static accumulator / discharger. Did you try a wooden stick.

take care

[Ben2503]

unified field

No matter how much evidence I present for my unified field or against the standard models of gravity and E/M, my critics prefer to ignore everything I have said up to now and concentrate on things I haven’t yet discussed.
http://zaslike.com/files/sq5pkqpbl7py7bo52mxu.jpg

Could you please explain this unified field?
Thanks,
Ben

[Ben2503]

I have an even more amazing picture.
How would you explain this?

or this?
also amazing!
real first man on the moon.
astronaut food.
truly amazing!
Do you know where the moon is during the day?
right here!


The world is full with mysteries!

Ernst.

Hear hear

[Ernst]

Hi Ernst.
Indeed interesting experiment.
Why do you think that ether, which seem to cause the rotation of the sun and the earth, causes gravity etc.., is not able to make a dent in the surface?
I just wonder how we can rule out electrostatic effects? As the rod has a point at the end, its a perfect static accumulator / discharger. Did you try a wooden stick.

take care

Who can tell how many years were needed before the planets moved at the same speed as the ether? Or perhaps they were formed in their current state of motion. But I really do not have a good reason to think that ether could not do it. It is a gut feeling considering the density, structure and electrical properties of oil and air, combined with the fact that Tesla said so. I would like to repeat the experiment in a vacuum, but I do not have the means yet.
I have tried... plastic, glass, wood, pencil, iron, aluminium, copper, platinum, tungsten.
All metals show the effect, the pencil (with graphite core) does not and neither do the insulators. The rod is held in a cork-covered holder, iron stand, which is standing on a plexiglass sheet.
I have also tried it with a non-quenched spark-gap in which case no effect was seen.
But I think this is getting a bit off-topic.

Glad you liked it!

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

Ernst, i knew that you are smart guy, i just haven't realized how smart you really are up until now, and now i see that you are really, really smart guy. With such a smart guys like you our progress is 100 % guaranteed, there is no doubt about that at all...

Apollo you say, ha?
Hahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3pjw_p8mB4&t=0m24s





Question and the stupidest answer ever about the meaning of Apollo missions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_Z...W1FM-&t=51m40s


[/QUOTE]

2,5 seconds enough to inform astronaut on the "Moon" piece of his valuable backpack's content just dropped off...NO TIME DILATION AT ALL!!!



It must be something in your food that makes you so smart, let me guess, gmo???

[Ernst]

At the time, I really believed in that (Apollo project).
Recently I found more and more info that made me doubt this story.
There are quite a bit of inconsistencies in the stuff that you can get through official channels.
They lied to you once, and have probably done so quite a bit more often. But to start disbelieving everything they say... that is not a sign of supreme intelligence.
If they say the sky is blue, then it must be red and on internet you will find supporting evidence....
"Proceed with caution", seems to me a more appropriate way to deal with such things.

BTW I never said Apollo (not in this thread, that is).

We seem to get off topic time and time again.
Time to move on.

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

@ Ernst, you just don't get it, do you?

NASA . . . Never A Straight Answer : 2012 Transit of Venus Is Proof That Planet X (Nibiru) Exists!

In above article you have to ignore classical suggestions and meanings attached to "planet X" most common interpretations, because what "planet X" could be, it's still uncertain, but of course whatever it is, it's not anything like giant planet or dark star etc...what "planet X" very probably (in fact almost certainly) really represents, is existence of one or even more then just one publically unannounced and by scientists officially unconfirmed (but by army of amateur astronomers and even just occasional spectators well documented) self luminous heavenly bodies which from time to time clearly shows up in the sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4vqKGXH_is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wW-...layer_embedded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idV5Iejm7C8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLZ...eature=related
'Two Suns Video' Unexplained By Science | Double Sunset Optical Illusion | Sun Photos & Sunsets | Space.com
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/201...sun-phenomena/
Mystery of two suns in Chinese sky leaves scientists puzzled

Listen this: The Sun is Not What we We Have Been Told.... Eric Dollard reveals 3 secrets about the Sun
Look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzwIc7_65cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MZgy1yTYL8

Inuit People on Sun Wrong ,Stars Wrong , Earth Tilting on Axis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR7IlDKzd90

And of course it's not that Earth has been tilted on it's axis, it's something completely different, totally different scientific paradigm, paradigm of Flat Earth and Geocentric Universe!!!

[Ernst]

@ Ernst, you just don't get it, do you?

No, cikljamas, there are indeed things that I will never get.

But here is for your flat liners club:

On the surface of the Earth, I can travel the shape of a triangle with 3 corners of 90 degrees. How would that fit on your map?
How would you explain the trouble that the 16th century sailors had, making good maps?
Better still, why don't you try to draw a flat Earth map with correct dimensions everywhere?
How would you explain Coriolis forces north and south of the equator, and at the equator?
...

As I have said before, I am not interested in discussing obvious nonsense. I will gladly leave that to you. Also I do not see the connection between these things and the topic of this thread.

Ok, Scotty, beam me up, no intelligent life signs down here!

Ernst.

[aljhoa]

If the sky is clear just after midnight Tuesday, April 15, a full moon with a reddish tinge will shine above Southern California, the first of four total lunar eclipses in the next 17 months.

From 12:06 a.m. until 1:24 a.m. Pacific time Tuesday, Earth’s shadow will block the light of the sun from reaching the moon. The red color is the light cast by all of the sunrises and sunsets occurring throughout the world.
RED MOON: April 15 lunar eclipse is first of series of four | Local News | PE.com


Al

[cikljamas]

@ Ernst, how do you think you could possibly give us satisfiable explanation (using RET (round earth theory)) of bare fact which says that Inuit People now have two hours of winter daylight for hunt instead of just one hour (that was just recently maximum time for winter hunt)? Try to explain that with Earth Tilt Theory and you will soon figure out utter fruitless of your efforts...

Concerning your ...triangle-sailors good map making... questions maybe this is something you have to read first:
LATITUDES AT DIFFERENT LONGITUDES:
http://zaslike.com/files/23gphhstckkuiqgexmt.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/ksaunf1rfz2qxjs8v7z5.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/z2ee1fraq86opr19jpt.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/tf8n0setbqenztxvkfo.jpg
Lieut. Wilkes sailing southern seas:
http://zaslike.com/files/1pybutohfcj07nbwx3x1.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/4zk4i236twtyg5kvyh5u.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/ccah417b3y4jtupv0oq.jpg
NORTH POLAR STAR - POLARIS:
http://zaslike.com/files/5vzr8ia9ileb0tgy4wyy.jpg
http://www.zaslike.com/files/wem6038vkweh04mkwm90.jpg

Flat Earth Theory is consistent (RET is not) with this: http://www.energeticforum.com/253713-post223.html

Flat Earth Theory is consistent (RET is not) with this:
http://www.energeticforum.com/253864-post240.html

"Light banding" science has been banded to the deepest depths of the insanity:
Sunsets are Quite Interesting - Bad Astronomy | DiscoverMagazine.com : Bad Astronomy

Another example of ultimately twisted- 100 % politically determined -modern quasi-science:
Climate science has sunk just like the 'missing heat' to the depths of the ocean:
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds global sea level rise has decelerated 31% since 2002 along with the 'pause' of global warming

One more reason for horror in RET scientist minds (how to logically explain tides):
Misconceptions about tides.

Much easier to explain integrated circuits, isn't it?

You just can't reasonably explain unexplainable, and if something doesn't exist at all (ROUND EARTH, GRAVITATIONAL LENSING, PLANETS, GALAXIES, NEWTON MECHANICS, GENERAL RELATIVITY PRINCIPLES, SPATIAL RELATIVITY PRINCIPLES, etc...) than it is certainly unexplainable indeed!!!


@ Aljhoa, this is your problem:



Not to mention this one:



Cheers!

[Ernst]

how do you think you could possibly give us satisfiable explanation (using RET (round earth theory)) of bare fact which says that Inuit People now have two hours of winter daylight for hunt instead of just one hour (that was just recently maximum time for winter hunt)? Try to explain that with Earth Tilt Theory and you will soon figure out utter fruitless of your efforts...

I did explain that to my children when they were 4 & 6 years old, including a life demo on the table with a globe (Earth) and a lamp (Sun).
It was an utterly satisfactory demo for all of us.

As for the (not) curved path of the Sun, please try a little high school math before presenting this kind of stupidity.
(thinking about this may help you a bit; where is the Sun in this picture? how would would its path look like)

You have found one truth, which is that we are being fooled. But to counter that by fooling yourself and going back to the dark ages... I would rather move forward.


As I have said a few times before: I'm outa here!

Ernst.

[cikljamas]

(thinking about this may help you a bit; where is the Sun in this picture? how would would its path look like)

As I have said a few times before: I'm outa here!

Ernst.

My friend Rory Cooper explained it very well in one of his marvelous FET videos: The earth is flat Polaris says so...

Rory's comment below video:

Work it out folks, how can two people on earth point their cameras at the stars and get that circular star image if the earth is a ball = it’s impossible on a ball earth
Because both people will be travelling at different speeds and a person close to the equator could not see polaris because it would always be below the horizon remember the earth’s spinning axis is lined up with polaris = he will never see polaris from that position. It is what it is.

If you have problems with this first check this video out. Confronting Cognitive Dissonance - The Eyeopener

For those who are too lazy to click on valuable links that i provide for you, next figure will be also very useful as graphic presentation of POLARIS ARGUMENT which additionally strongly support FET:



So long Sammy see you Miami

[aljhoa]

So long Sammy see you Miami

W/O Eather

The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - PART 2 -The exposure of hiding - January 2013 - YouTube

The earth is not rotating - spinning. - YouTube



Al

[cikljamas]

W/O Eather
The Earth does not revolve around the Sun - PART 2 -The exposure of hiding - January 2013 - YouTube

The earth is not rotating - spinning. - YouTube
Al

Latter video (excellent proof for Earth immobility) i already posted in this thread few pages back, but what was your point regarding former video?

If you like fairy tales, here is another amazing one: The Awesome Explanation for the Moon’s Extra Gravity This insanity keeps going relentlessly :extreme facepalm:

Here is very clear example of HELIOCENTRIC SUICIDE, ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION FROM INSIDE HELIOCENTRIC SYSTEM:

Lunar eclipses occurs when the moon passes through the shadow of the earth. When the moon is within the umbra (or darkest) part of the earth's shadow, it is illuminated only by the light refracted through the earth's atmosphere. This light is usually orange or brick-red.

Totality, the length of time the moon is totally within the umbra, may last as long as 1 hour and 40 minutes. Before the moon moves into the umbra, it passes through an area of partial illumination, called the penumbra. In the penumbra, the moon appears nearly the same as when it's in the full light of the sun.

The passage of the moon through the penumbra takes about 7 hours.

EXPLANATION:

A typical total lunar eclipse lasts about 1 hour and the moon clears the penumbra or shadow of the earth in about 7 hours. That means that the moon has moved about 1/2 way around the earth in about 7 hours.

The heliocentric theory ignores the DAILY orbit of the moon and allows for a monthly orbit only!! On closer examination, this proves to be a deadly counterfeit system because it cannot account for the movement of the moon during an eclipse. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The Moon rotates about its own axis in 27.322 days, which is also the time that it takes to complete ONE orbit around the Earth. As a result, the Moon always presents nearly the same face to the Earth. Whereas the actual rate of rotation is uniform, the distance through which the Moon moves in its orbit from day to day varies somewhat. Accordingly, the face that the Moon turns to Earth is subject to a corresponding cyclical variation, the lunar globe oscillating slightly (as seen over time by a terrestrial observer) with a period nearly equal to that of revolution. The amount of this apparent oscillation, which is called libration, is commonly between 6 and 7 degrees." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 17, p. 299).

The heliocentric theory IGNORES the moon's daily orbit and cannot account for the rapid movement of the moon during a lunar eclipse

The heliocentric system has the moon moving very, very slowly around the earth. One month is required to complete its orbit.

This ignoring of the moon's daily orbit is done in order to get the earth rotating.

The moon is supposed to move at a speed of about 2,000 mph (3,219 km) or about 13° per day to an observer on earth. Just to slow!!!

HELIOCENTRICITY IS DEAD: http://www.sanibelcaptivafishing.net...ce-photo-2.jpg

EXTREMELY LOW MOON: http://redhotdust.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/moon1.jpg

Work it out: where is the Sun (extremely low moon photo)? Behind us? If so, it should be broad daylight, otherwise we have to count with insanely bowed path of sunlight which is impossible in reality but of course in our modern science (fiction) everything is possible, everything at all...

[Aaron]

New thread?

cikljamas, although you have made some references to mass and energy, for the most part, the FET you're sharing is quite a bit off topic. I can move all these FET for/against posts into their own thread as it is quite a topic on it's own.

thx1138 started this thread so ultimately his/her call, but it's just my suggestion.