Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NatureBoff

Mathematicians Offer Unified Theory of Dark M

127 posts in this topic

Sorry for the late reply, I was travelling again.

I'm proposing that the exotic matter is created during the final spin of a supernovae collapse. Much like a washing washine. The debris is then distributed evenly with some exotic comets impacting planets and moons. I don't understand where the "violation of energy conservation" concern comes from. Can you explain further for me please?

It has to do with the transmission of the force. Your mechanism for the anomalous gravitational force is still ``action at a distance'', which means it needs to be transmitted by a field (presumably it is just an addition to the regular gravitational field, but that doesn't matter).

Your mechanism for the anomalous gravitational force is also highly ``focussed''; it's influence is primarily along lines or planes. One could place an object in this plane (or line), and let the anomalous gravitational force pull the object for a bit (i.e. do work), then move the object outside of the plane and slide it back to the initial position with little or no effort (because your force isn't acting in the region outside the plane), and repeat the process. This means you are gaining free energy from the anomalous gravitational field.

This is one of reasons why I am a bit dismissive of your theory. As I understand it, your theory is based on this simple statement:

A source creates a force.

In your specific case, the ``source'' is non-baryonic exotic matter, and the ``force'' is an anomalous gravitational field, but these specifics are not important to the very general mathematical argument that any force that does not satisfy the divergence theorem violates conservation of energy.

In simpler terms, any physical field needs to be a conservative field, where the energy gained (or lost) moving between point A and point B depends only on the locations of points A and B, and not on the particular path taken between them.

We have actually argued this point many times in the past, including here.

The buildings with steel girders within the Bermuda Triangle during the third quarter of the moon would experience an additional force which isn't measured by any instruments, because it isn't expected in the physics philosophy of construction. The additional force would easily be within the scope of the strength of the entire building. A ship on the other hand could be in heavy sea swell which causes the ship to suddenly list with the onset of an impulse of additional gravity force, making it take on water. The hazard to a ship is much easier to understand than to buildings on solid foundations. We should also remember that no distress calls are given before these mysterious ships are lost with no traces found. The exotic comet hypothesis fits extremely well.

How is this force going to cause the ship to suddenly list? This force is focussed enough that it only affects one side of the ship? Not only does this compound the violation of conservation of energy I discussed above, it makes the force so limited in scope that it is rather ridiculous.

Sep? Do you concede that this a revolutionary new idea which can be easily tested? All it needs is permanent monitoring sites using torsion balances scattered within the Bermuda Triangle. The correlation with instuments on the exact opposite side of the globe in the SE Asian 'Dragon Sea' would be the pinnacle of achievement.

No, I do not concede that it is a ``revolutionary new idea''. There is a gravitational wave observatory operating in Louisiana (see here) that has not detected any anomalous gravity in excess of 1 part in 1021.

Secondly, why is the Bermuda triangle ``special'', if the source is an exotic matter halo in the Earth's core? Should not anomalous gravity events happen elsewhere as well; and therefore should not the unexplained shipping losses be from all over?

Thirdly, why is bcc iron special? What is different about a bcc metal and an fcc metal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you're back talking like someone with a superiority complex because they have an indepth knowledge of Einstein's GR etc. Just my opinion of course. You do make a fair point about the direction of anomalous force on a ship within the Bermuda Triangle during the quarter before new moon. I propose that the 'dislodging of the inner halo exotic comet by the lunar tide' means that the force has a very fast lateral component. The ship which is rolling in a large swell could very easily continue to roll with this additional impulse of energy and suddenly take on water.

All your other complaints are due to the implicit assumption of Newton's isotropy and equivalence within the current mainstream predicament of world physics. Mathematical arguments are therefore nullified. Also note that I don't propose a 'spooky action at a distance' but a common sense Archmedes screw graviton mechanical transfer of force instead.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All your other complaints are due to the implicit assumption of Newton's isotropy and equivalence within the current mainstream predicament of world physics. Mathematical arguments are therefore nullified. Also note that I don't propose a 'spooky action at a distance' but a common sense Archmedes screw graviton mechanical transfer of force instead.

I agree that this is the essence of our disagreement.

Is the ``dark matter halo'' you speak of physically flying up and hitting the ship? No? Then your force is action at a distance (we can drop the ``spooky'' moniker). Forces that act over distances need to be divergence-less (outside the physical extent of the object creating that force) or they violate conservation of energy.

I know I cannot convince you that it doesn't matter what model you have for the propagation of such a force; it is a simple, elegant, and universal mathematical fact that if the force has a non-zero divergence anywhere outside the physical extent of the object creating the force they will violate conservation of energy.

The divergence theorem plus ``isotropy of point sources'' is the origin of the inverse-square law for force (which of course is only valid in 3D space), but waiving the isotropy requirement does not waive the divergence theorem.

Magnetism can come from dipole point sources, after all, and these clearly are not spherically isotropic; but the dipole magnetic fields are indeed divergence-less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this is the essence of our disagreement.

Good.

Forces that act over distances need to be divergence-less (outside the physical extent of the object creating that force) or they violate conservation of energy.

You need to show why this is so from *first principles*. You don't have a water-tight physical model of matter, so I don't see how you can say that my model "violates conservation of energy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to show why this is so from *first principles*. You don't have a water-tight physical model of matter, so I don't see how you can say that my model "violates conservation of energy".

The Divergence theorem is pretty close to ``first principles''.

You will never get any traction in the scientific community with your theories unless you have a good grasp of the mathematical basis of current theories. Even if you don't believe that contemporary physics or mathematics is correct, you need to understand the language.

I accept, dogmatically, as a point of faith that events in the real world can be accurately predicted with mathematics, and I likewise accept that for science to be meaningful, it must be able to use mathematics to make accurate quantitative predictions.

You have a source (the dark matter halo) that is generating a vector field (the anomalous gravitational force).

Does your gravitational force have an action and a direction? Surely it does, or you wouldn't call it ``gravity''.

Then the divergence theorem applies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want you to understand the physics before attempting the math. Can you imagine a cluster of energised spiral structures which constantly emit much smaller spiral structures as radiation? This Archimedes principle means that a gravitational force of attraction can be imagined when the 'graviton' interacts with other structures. An impulse of energy is imparted to the 2nd body and the energy of the graviton is dimininished. Therefore *no energy violation* occurs in this simpler model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want you to understand the physics before attempting the math.

I have heard that phrase many times from professors in my university classes. I have found that it is usually an indication of a poorly-taught class.

Can you imagine a cluster of energised spiral structures which constantly emit much smaller spiral structures as radiation?

Yes, I am familiar with your model, and I have previously objected to it, but I will accept it for the purposes of this discussion.

This Archimedes principle means that a gravitational force of attraction can be imagined when the 'graviton' interacts with other structures. An impulse of energy is imparted to the 2nd body and the energy of the graviton is dimininished. Therefore *no energy violation* occurs in this simpler model.

First, is this your model for all gravity, or just anomalous gravity?

Second, I have not been objecting to your mechanism of interaction, rather the spatial distribution of this interaction. In order for there to be a significant effect in one region (i.e. sinking a ship in the Bermuda triangle) but no effect in other regions (i.e. everywhere else that there are earthquake-detection accelerometers, iron-based magnetometers, or high-precision scientific equipment inside steel vacuum chambers) the force has to be extremely focussed.

It is therefore possible to generate ``free'' energy from this force by moving iron into the area of effect, letting the force pull the iron, them moving the iron out of the area of effect and back to the original position (and repeating the process).

This is why I called attention to the Divergence theorem, which has nothing to say about the interaction, only about the spatial distribution of the force field.

----------

By the way, why is bcc iron ``special'' in your model? What is so unique about body-centred cubics compared to face-centred cubics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, is this your model for all gravity, or just anomalous gravity?

The Archimedes principle of spiral graviton interaction applies to both gravity fields.

Second, I have not been objecting to your mechanism of interaction, rather the spatial distribution of this interaction. In order for there to be a significant effect in one region (i.e. sinking a ship in the Bermuda triangle) but no effect in other regions (i.e. everywhere else that there are earthquake-detection accelerometers, iron-based magnetometers, or high-precision scientific equipment inside steel vacuum chambers) the force has to be extremely focussed.

Yes, this is the idea of the gravity field being concentrated on the plane of rotation of it's creation. The idea is that regular matter is "spun" into irregular matter during the event before a stellar supernova. The irregular matter debris from this explosion is the source of Earth's exotic comets.

It is therefore possible to generate ``free'' energy from this force by moving iron into the area of effect, letting the force pull the iron, them moving the iron out of the area of effect and back to the original position (and repeating the process).

No, this is where the confusion lies. No "free" energy occurs, see the explanation given above about it's origin. The graviton emission is simply focussed into a plane and not isotropic.

By the way, why is bcc iron ``special'' in your model? What is so unique about body-centred cubics compared to face-centred cubics?

This is a working hypothesis of which I still need to finish the details. It's due to the tidal hypothesis of the ice ages with the exotic gravity filed of Jupiter attracting the iron core of the Earth. If it affected all things alike, this additional groundbreaking hypothesis wouldn't fit so easily, tha's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is where the confusion lies. No "free" energy occurs, see the explanation given above about it's origin. The graviton emission is simply focussed into a plane and not isotropic.

Does the focussed graviton emission use up the mass-energy of the exotic matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the focussed graviton emission use up the mass-energy of the exotic matter?

The term "mass" refers to an isotropic model and therefore shouldn't be used in my model. But yes, the structure-energy of matter is deemed to diminish with graviton emission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "mass" refers to an isotropic model and therefore shouldn't be used in my model. But yes, the structure-energy of matter is deemed to diminish with graviton emission.

All matter loses ```structure-energy'', or just your exotic matter?

How long does it take until the exotic matter dissipates entirely?

How is new exotic matter created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work (retaining the "Keeper")with no detectable loss of Field Strength. External influences aside (such as Heat, mechanical intervention, and other de-magnetising influences) it is posited that the Field Strength is eternal aside from entropic decay of materials.

"Work" with no energy input to maintain that "Work", strongly suggests a gap in the Standard Model, not to mention Newtonian, and Eisteinian principles. So I suggest (nothing stronger) that to dismiss "Free Energy" as a violation of Scientific Principles is possibly too strident a stance to take.

IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work

``Work'' is the product of a force moving an object over a distance. Neither keeping an object in place nor motion that is orthogonal to the force constitute ``doing work''.

Magnets do not violate conservation of energy; and magnetic fields are conservative fields.

Conservation of energy is equivalent to physical laws being independent of time. Like most of physics, while conservation of energy is often expressed as an axiom, it is actually justified from abstract mathematics (see Noether's theorem).

Because of this it is reasonable to state that there is ``no such thing as free energy'', without bothering to take into account the specifics of the situation. To admit otherwise is equivalent to saying:

  • Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  • We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

``Work'' is the product of a force moving an object over a distance. Neither keeping an object in place nor motion that is orthogonal to the force constitute ``doing work''.

Magnets do not violate conservation of energy; and magnetic fields are conservative fields.

Conservation of energy is equivalent to physical laws being independent of time. Like most of physics, while conservation of energy is often expressed as an axiom, it is actually justified from abstract mathematics (see Noether's theorem).

Because of this it is reasonable to state that there is ``no such thing as free energy'', without bothering to take into account the specifics of the situation. To admit otherwise is equivalent to saying:

  • Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  • We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

Your last 2 statements are simply rhettoric:

  • Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  • We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

and this in particular - WHAT centuries of research where Time is a co-efficient, or even a dependency of current Scientific orthodoxy??

Noether's Theorem does nothing more than prove A =A. it is a Tautology, it suggests symmetries but nothing more. it is not a viable proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

That is not the definition of work commonly used, nor the definition that applies to determining whether a force field violates conservation of energy or not.

The energy of a system may only be lost (or gained) through dynamics. ``Holding in place'' is statics.

This isn't really controversial.

A magnet stuck to a fridge door does not require work to stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not the definition of work commonly used, nor the definition that applies to determining whether a force field violates conservation of energy or not.

The energy of a system may only be lost (or gained) through dynamics. ``Holding in place'' is statics.

This isn't really controversial.

A magnet stuck to a fridge door does not require work to stay there.

A Magnet being moved through planes that are not perpendicular to applied force IS producing Work.

By counteracting the "force" of 9.8mS2 it is producing work, yet with no identifiable source for the Energy required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All matter loses ```structure-energy'', or just your exotic matter?

Yes, all matter loses 'structure-energy' due to radiation of particle/waves.

How long does it take until the exotic matter dissipates entirely?

I haven't worked this out just yet.

How is new exotic matter created?

I've *TOLD* you more than once already! From the collapse and spin of a star before a supernova event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

Your last 2 statements are simply rhettoric:

  • Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  • We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

and this in particular - WHAT centuries of research where Time is a co-efficient, or even a dependency of current Scientific orthodoxy??

Noether's Theorem does nothing more than prove A =A. it is a Tautology, it suggests symmetries but nothing more. it is not a viable proof

You're right of course kiethisco. Thank you for putting Sep in his place for me.

(1) Here's my explanation: Time is a construct and *not* an entity. A pendulum is a clock which swings more slowly in orbit of the Earth compared to it's surface.

The clock runs slower in a lower gravitational field = correct statement.

Time runs slower in a lower gravitational field = incorrect statement.

(2) The magnet and keeper is an excellent analogy when you say "A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work (retaining the "Keeper")with no detectable loss of Field Strength". So thanks again for the common sense input.

(3) I read Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace' last night and was astounded at the way the idea of an extra force which suddenly sped ships and aircraft at tremdendous rates seemed to fit! The evidence is shocking when viewed in conjunction with the 'rocking exotic comet below the crust'. The amount of lateral movement in such a short time shudders the imagination.

I also took down 50 dates of ship losses given in his table and added 10 flying incidents which have added information from his text which indicate a lateral translation by an extra force. The match for the quarter before New Moon is *good*. I haven't done the stats, I'll leave that to someone else for now.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Magnet being moved through planes that are not perpendicular to applied force IS producing Work.

By counteracting the "force" of 9.8mS2 it is producing work, yet with no identifiable source for the Energy required.

I don't understand. Where is the magnet being moved?

The magnet stuck to the fridge on the Earth is moving around the Sun, and work is being done moving the magnet through the Sun's magnetic field, but this energy is being supplied by the Earth. The Sun's magnetic field, the ionic solar wind, etc. all provide what is effectively a force of friction on the motion of the Earth. The Earth is (very very gradually) being slowed down by this process.

But for the fridge + magnet + Earth system, energy is not lost (or gained) when the magnet sticks to the fridge and resists the Earth's gravitational field.

Yes, all matter loses 'structure-energy' due to radiation of particle/waves.

Why do all fundamental particles of a given type have identical masses, if these particles are radiating gravitational energy?

The lifetime of a proton is at least 1029 years, doesn't this mean that the radiant gravitational energy is negligible?

Why have all measurements of gravity to-date suggested that it is not a radiation field?

I've *TOLD* you more than once already! From the collapse and spin of a star before a supernova event.

Sorry, my mistake. But if you would be so kind:

How is exotic dark matter formed from gravitationally-driven collisions with baryonic matter? What quantum numbers define exotic dark matter?

How does gravitationally-driven collapse circumvent conservation of quarks? Why have high-energy collider experiments not detected any loss (or gain) in the number of quarks?

(3) I read Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace' last night and was astounded at the way the idea of an extra force which suddenly sped ships and aircraft at tremdendous rates seemed to fit! The evidence is shocking when viewed in conjunction with the 'rocking exotic comet below the crust'. The amount of lateral movement in such a short time shudders the imagination.

I just want to be perfectly clear you are aware of what you are claiming: You are saying that the effective gravitational acceleration would spontaneously increase by a significant fraction (say, 10% or more) for a significant period of time (at least a few minutes) to drag a ship or an aircraft to their doom, and yet this change in effective gravity has never been observed by any of the high-precision scientific instruments in labs around the world and in orbit around the planet.

There are many research groups actively looking for evidence of gravitational waves but thus far have not been able to detect anomalous variations in gravity in excess of ~10-19%, and yet you feel this does not count as evidence against your theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Where is the magnet being moved?

The magnet stuck to the fridge on the Earth is moving around the Sun, and work is being done moving the magnet through the Sun's magnetic field, but this energy is being supplied by the Earth. The Sun's magnetic field, the ionic solar wind, etc. all provide what is effectively a force of friction on the motion of the Earth. The Earth is (very very gradually) being slowed down by this process.

But for the fridge + magnet + Earth system, energy is not lost (or gained) when the magnet sticks to the fridge and resists the Earth's gravitational field.

.

Sepulchrave, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my position on this (no sarcasm at all, I really appreciate different approaches).

From my original posit (though I admit I did not explain very clearly); the magnet can be rotated in any plane either perpendicular to, or at any angular deviation plane from the Sun or the Earth's magnetic fileds. In no case is it possible to measure any reduction in strength of the magnets own field.

I agree that energy is not lost or even measurably being expended, by a permanent magnet - but I do not accept that a potential source of replenishment of energy expended, is actually from the Earth, because of the above statements that would suggest a negative (or positive) resultant in the magnet's field strength should affect the strength of the field and be measurable.

@Sunnyblues: ships sinking very quickly as a result of methane release in the oceans is a verifiable phenomenon. The sudden loss of bouyancy from such cavitation is a clear process, and very quick.

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepulchrave, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my position on this (no sarcasm at all, I really appreciate different approaches).

From my original posit (though I admit I did not explain very clearly); the magnet can be rotated in any plane either perpendicular to, or at any angular deviation plane from the Sun or the Earth's magnetic fileds. In no case is it possible to measure any reduction in strength of the magnets own field.

I agree that energy is not lost or even measurably being expended, by a permanent magnet - but I do not accept that a potential source of replenishment of energy expended, is actually from the Earth, because of the above statements that would suggest a negative (or positive) resultant in the magnet's field strength should affect the strength of the field and be measurable.

I see. I would say that unless the strength of the Sun's or Earth's magnetic fields approaches the critical field strength necessary to break the magnet's internal ordering, then the magnet's own field should not be modified by rotation in the Sun's or Earth's magnetic fields.

This does not, of course, change the fact that work must be done on the magnet to rotate in the external field. This energy would come from whatever device was used to rotate the magnet.

In fact, technically ``magnetic fields cannot do work''. See here for some technical details, or the wiki for an overview. The fundamental origin of force exerted by a magnetic field is the Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field and therefore the magnetic field cannot do work. Forces between two magnets are complicated to calculate, and are largely based on the curvature of the composite magnetic field, in addition to the field strength.

I would say that you can consider a magnetic field to be doing work in some situations (like two magnets attracted together), and certainly the natural equilibrium of two magnets is an arrangement that minimizes field curvature. Just remember that the strength of a magnetic field at a given point is only one part of the ability of that field to exert a force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do all fundamental particles of a given type have identical masses, if these particles are radiating gravitational energy?

Because they are radiating due to their structure-energy. Identical structures will radiate identical structures.

The lifetime of a proton is at least 1029 years, doesn't this mean that the radiant gravitational energy is negligible?

Not relative to human beings, no. Relative to the total amount of structure-energy within a proton, yes.

Why have all measurements of gravity to-date suggested that it is not a radiation field?

Can you give specific examples please.

How is exotic dark matter formed from gravitationally-driven collisions with baryonic matter? What quantum numbers define exotic dark matter?

How does gravitationally-driven collapse circumvent conservation of quarks? Why have high-energy collider experiments not detected any loss (or gain) in the number of quarks?

The modelling of supernova isn't possible with mainstream physics. My model will solve these issues in the near future.

There are many research groups actively looking for evidence of gravitational waves but thus far have not been able to detect anomalous variations in gravity in excess of ~10-19%, and yet you feel this does not count as evidence against your theory..[.. and in orbit around the planet.]

Firstly, the spacecraft earth-flyby phenomena *is* detection of an extra gravity force! The *supergravity field* is in a very narrow band which moves around! There's a superb account of the flat sea being seen with a channel 4 feet deep and 20 feet wide, as if a bulldozer had dug a channel into the sea itself! It stretched in a straight line either way as far as they could see. When they entered it they were thrown forward and the man hurt his wrists from the force of the jolt. I have an explanation that the *shape* of the earth-tide is responsible for the difference in movement of the field with moon phase. A steeper earth-tide in the Neap cycle would give a wider span of influence of the supergravity field, making it more *likely* to trigger an incident. I'll scan some explanations just a.s.a.p.

This also shows that the force acts on all baryonic matter, without the special preference for iron which I had earlier speculated on. Here're the numbers that you wanted Sep. The evidence is clear as a bell once you've read the eye-witness testimonies.

keithisco: The gas release explanation is pure speculation without *any* direct evidence that I'm aware of.

***Latest Developments:***

(i) No lateral movement is necessary to explain all the phenomena. Only one main case in 'Without A Trace' need be called a FAKE to make all the evidence fit.

(ii) Watches that 'lost 10 minutes' were stopped due to the supergravity force simply binding the delicate machinery of the timepieces together. No 'time' gain or loss happened in reality.

(iii) A supergravity field is more dangerous to ships because once entered they will suddenly roll alarmingly whilst a plane will suddenly descend and roll but the pilot has time to recover and correct his attitude if lucky enough.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this stuff hurts my head, magnets free energy scalar field moons exotic matter. im too overloaded. just keep it simple people all that invisible 96% dark matter and dark energy are part of the higher reality realms which angels god the soul and all that spiritual matters exist. trust me even though i dont have scientific proof, i did in fact astral project before and im 100% there are higher invisible realities super imposed over us. english aint my first language so i hope i made sense to you.

btw, i believe humans are like a lion who cant see the zebra in tall grass because the lion is colorblind. humans and their technologies are blind to the higher realities and energys around them but yet humans can detect some things like dark energy and dark matter which the humans cant directly observe.

and i want to add that both christians muslims and some other religions have heard of the 7 heavens above us. i have a strong feeling that the 7 heavens god refers to are 7 realities dimenaions etc. in the Quran God(Allah) refers to himself as the Lord Of The Worlds. which hints to me the term Worlds could be speaking about higher dimensions and not other planets.

Edited by ozman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepulchrave, here's some more useful data from Gian J. Quasar 'Into The Bermuda Triangle', "more than 1000 disappearances in the last 25 years."

(i) Boeing 737 at 29,000ft hits jolt and another 10 secs later causing the plane to drop 600 feet.

(ii) United Airlines at 33,000ft, 2 pulses 8 secs apart. Maximum extra force was calculated to be 1.6g.

(iii) Satellite "glitches" can be detected at an apparent latitude much lower than the given surface-based triangle configuration.

The depth of the source of the additional force can therefore be calculated with the aircraft data. The 4ft by 20ft depression in the sea given earlier can be compared to 1.6g. The exact latitude of the source can also be calculated with precise upper and lower lattitude limits for satellite 'glitches'.

Edited by SunnyBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sepulchrave, here's some more useful data from Gian J. Quasar 'Into The Bermuda Triangle', "more than 1000 disappearances in the last 25 years."

(i) Boeing 737 at 29,000ft hits jolt and another 10 secs later causing the plane to drop 600 feet.

(ii) United Airlines at 33,000ft, 2 pulses 8 secs apart. Maximum extra force was calculated to be 1.6g..

Aircraft, like the Boeing 737, are mostly made of aluminum - not iron. Aluminum, like most metals, is a face-centred cubic.

How does your anomalous gravity, which you have claimed only affects iron, pull down an aluminum aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.