Anti-gravity

[vidbid]

Well it wouldn't be pressure, it would be a vacuum Vidbid, we are talking about a vehicle that levitates like a balloon but which uses a vacuum instead of a gas.

I see.

The it in your statement above is referring to a vacuum that would exists inside of an imagined vacuum vehicle.



What would keep the vacuum from collapsing the containers?

For example:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM[/VIDEO]

It seems to me that a helium balloon would be far more efficient at lifting a vehicle rather than a vacuum vehicle.

Whereas..

The it that I was referring to is, "Is there any evidence of gas pressure existing without the necessary antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon?"

See:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYmeIX5PrDA[/VIDEO]


Can you have gas pressure without the necessary antecedent of a container?


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJQjAljdFGE[/VIDEO]


Cheers!

[aljhoa]

"Stargate" A "Xerox Machine"


Al

[Gambeir]

Gravity is supposed to be mass attracting mass, but does mass attract mass?

Einsteinian notions are that gravity is not a force because gravity, according to Einstein, was produced by a mass which distorts space in such a way as produce inwards falling type action on matter.

A somewhat tortured presentation of this idea is done with a rubber sheet and weight in the center. Few presentations of this concept make it clear that this idea is meant to be seen as a completely #3D effect which entirely surrounds the ball such that the end result is an inwards falling of matter.

However this Einsteinian idea is pure invention. It isn't possible to bend space because there's nothing there to bend. Nevertheless, it is this notion which underpins all of the present science on interstellar space travel and all of which involved warping space, which is an obvious impossibility. Space is not a crystalline lattice which can be molded using tensor theory. It's no exaggeration to say that the whole of space`physics today is based on science fiction instead of scientific methodology. One creative fiction has lead to the development of yet another and so on, and so on, and now we have complete idiocy ruling the thoughts of most people.

It took me a long time to piece meal together what these idiots had assembled as a theory for travel among the stars, and then only to find that the whole idea is founded on Einsteinian fantasy and cannot work, but even if Einstein were to be right, then the amounts of power involved to accomplish the warping would be astronomical and something we cannot hope to accomplish for at least another hundred years.

So now, how interesting that we now find the alien visitors are actually fellow Earthlings, and some of whom may be using a completely conventional notion first proposed in 1670. Laughing....oh yes, we cannot hope to travel among the star's because the power required is so fantastic, so these objects must be aliens right? See, it's the same thing going on with gravity. Gravity is just as Ken Wheeler has defined it to be. Gravity is incoherent magnetism and nothing more.

Mutual mass attraction is a function of the magnetic field, but as you can see in my previous post there is a direct cross correlation between magnetism, light, and electricity, an once again as defined by Ken Wheeler, and which is entirely logical and sensible.

Mutal mass attraction is a matter of magnetism. A flat earth is less likely because of it. I won't say it's impossible but it makes it far less probable. However, if in the case of Macro~engineering, or turning our own planet into a giant plate, it would be possible if one understood and accepted the Wheeler version of reality, which is the correct physics, of that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

[Gambeir]

Is your claim gravity is holding in the atmosphere of the earth and preventing said atmosphere from escaping into the vacuum of space?

Are you saying that you can have gas pressure without a container?

BTW, sorry for the slow reply, had some issues the other day.

Well it wouldn't be pressure, it would be a vacuum Vidbid, we are talking about a vehicle that levitates like a balloon but which uses a vacuum instead of a gas. This idea of a vacuum balloon Air/Spaceship is a concept I had not seriously considered. I was unaware that the idea of a vacuum balloon Air/Spaceship, first proposed by Jesuit Monk, Francis Lanawas in 1670 was actually under consideration as a concept which might presently be doable with new materials, but the evidence is pointing towards the idea that not only is it doable, but probably is already in operation.

Whether or not aerogels are the solution or part of the solution is something else to investigate, but it is a dang interesting idea if it is doable and which could have a number of other ideas incorporated, and what's so curious is of course how this all happens to just coincide with the powers that be war on tobacco.

In 1670, a Jesuit Monk, Francis Lana, suggested an aircraft based on the principle of creating vacuum balloons in his book Prodromo dell'Arte Maestra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship

The other part of the post, with regards to the discussion in general about antigravity, came about because I was looking for information on dielectric materials. So where we are now in this discussion, with balloons to space, was accidental from my perspective.

However....however....Consider the options which a lot of aerogel bricks might make possible as opposed to a Zeppelin type airship. In thinking on this it now seems likely I myself may have seen one of these. Also these reports of flying brick like structures are growing and I think are recent. There are numerous reports of flying brick/box like objects and so likely we have stumbled upon the answer is my thinking. Does tie in with a hidden agenda behind the war on smoking.

http://www.energeticforum.com/313380-post612.html

MIT's trillion frames per second light-tracking camera - BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16163931

http://www.energeticforum.com/316226-post947.html

"Electricity is Ether in a state of dynamic polarization; magnetism is Ether in a state of dynamic circular polarization upon itself, is the radiative termination of electrical discharge; dielectricity is the Ether under stress or strain. The motions and strains of the Ether give rise to electrification. Phi times Psi gives Q; ‘electrons’ do not mediate these electrical and magnetic forces or their likewise the Ether fields. There are no electrons, negative charges, special-dimensions, warped space (resoundingly denied by Tesla and others), and no photons; only charge, induction and radiation/discharges and their relational spins, all as mediated through the Ether.

Now in regards to the matter of what is gravity I reposted the video of how to magnetize a rock.

Gravity is supposed to be mass attracting mass, but does mass attract mass?

How to magnetize a rock
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1GuGIqwmJM[/VIDEO]

http://www.energeticforum.com/313604-post652.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/313455-post633.html

Now realize here that I just happened across the other interesting information, and which cross correlates with the war on tobacco because tobacco is one of a few plants which is capable of producing this new aerogel. Makes a lot of sense if you ask me, and very likely what I saw was a high altitude observation platform. The dull yellow circular lights are very likely glow discharge atmospheric plasma.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/s_gdp1.htm

[vidbid]

Gas Pressure Question

Any evidence that you can have gas pressure without the antecedent of a container for the gas to press upon.

Boyle's Law

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

https://youtu.be/l5XzBOsmPVQ?t=1625

[vidbid]

Scientific Method

Per Google:

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, the definition can be expanded.

A null hypothesis is a hypothesis that says there is no statistical significance between the two variables. It is usually the hypothesis a researcher or experimenter will try to disprove or discredit. An alternative hypothesis is one that states there is a statistically significant relationship between two variables.

Keep this in mind:

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE:
What I CHANGE.

DEPENDENT VARIABLE:
What I OBSERVE.

CONTROLLED VARIABLE:
What I KEEP THE SAME.


To further explain:

Independent Variable Definition. An independent variable is defines as the variable that is changed or controlled in a scientific experiment. It represents the cause or reason for an outcome. Independent variables are the variables that the experimenter changes to test their dependent variable.

A dependent variable is what you measure in the experiment and what is affected during the experiment. ... It is called dependent because it "depends" on the independent variable. In a scientific experiment, you cannot have a dependent variable without an independent variable.

A controlled variable is one which the researcher holds constant (controls) during an experiment. ... The control variable is not part of an experiment (not the independent or dependent variable), but it is important because it can have an effect on the results.

[vidbid]

Life's A Journey, Enjoy It!

Al

The response "Life's A Journey, Enjoy It!" or a link to the video with a title thereof is "Avoiding the Issue," which is a a logical fallacy, https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...ding-the-Issue.

1. To go forward, your response can only either be "Yes" or "No."

2. To go forward, your response can only either be "Yes" or "No."

The questions to you haven't been answered.

The questions to you still stand.

Cheers

[aljhoa]

(1) Is there any evidence of gas pressure being maintained without the antecedent of a container to press upon?

(2) Can you have air pressure next to a vacuum without a container?

Life's A Journey, Enjoy It!

Al

[vidbid]

Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement




Water Pressure Depends Only on Depth, Not Container Shape - YouTube


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02fqJOJFpEY[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02fqJOJFpEY

Altitude Gas Pressure Calculator:

https://www.mide.com/pages/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum


Height of Mount Everest above sea level in feet: 29,029 (per Google)



Per https://www.mide.com/pages/air-press...ude-calculator

[vidbid]

Gas Pressure Without A Container

Atmospheric pressure comparison Pressure Reference
kilopascal psi
Mount Everest summit 33.7 4.89 [71]
Dead Sea level 106.7 15.48 [72]
Surface of Venus 9,200 1,330 [73]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula

Al

The absolute pressure exerted by a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to the volume it occupies if the temperature and amount of gas remain unchanged within a closed system.
Boyle's Law
Levine, Ira. N (1978). "Physical Chemistry" University of Brooklyn: McGraw-Hill





So,

(1) Is there any evidence of gas pressure being maintained without the antecedent of a container to press upon?

(2) Can you have air pressure next to a vacuum without a container?


Flat Earth Debate 429 LIVE “Bum Boy” Fails Gas Pressure Without A Container - YouTube

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhAu1G5Rm8[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhAu1G5Rm8

Argument begins

https://youtu.be/ymhAu1G5Rm8?t=1477

Flat Earth Debate 426 LIVE Gas Pressure Without A Container Coriolis Effect Demolishment - YouTube

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twcPky1sqbk[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twcPky1sqbk

[aljhoa]

Are you saying that you can have gas pressure without a container?

Atmospheric pressure comparison Pressure Reference
kilopascal psi
Mount Everest summit 33.7 4.89 [71]
Dead Sea level 106.7 15.48 [72]
Surface of Venus 9,200 1,330 [73]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barometric_formula

Al

[vidbid]

https://youtu.be/pJ-7kbaHUgM

Gravity is supposed to be mass attracting mass, but does mass attract mass?

[vidbid]

[vidbid]

Interesting points you are making. I'm trying to process how to cross apply the general concept considering the aether as a superfluid which, far as we know, penetrates all known matter.
I must think on this for a while considering Earth as a rather unruly giant magnet. Hmm...meanwhile, I sort of get what aljhoa is trying to steer me to see, I'm just not sure that I understand it well enough just yet, but see there's more to all this and that's a matter of time and precognition. Humans can only see backwards in time and that has to be associated with how this all works; in other words, it would seem to have direct connections to phase shift as a condition of astrophysics.

In the UFO HD Image I posted you can clearly make out several features which surround the vehicle. There's bubbles and there's this blue light; a common enough artifact of UFO's. This red and blue light is visible in the magnetic field as a phase shift, but the issue is whether the vehicle is moving through space or time? I have to study this more. Seems like we are finally finding out that the so-called make believe chrono~visor might not have been quite as fictional as it's made out to be.

On the matter of physical balloons;

In 1670, a Jesuit Monk, Francis Lana, suggested an aircraft based on the principle of creating vacuum balloons in his book Prodromo dell'Arte Maestra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship

Space is a vacuum, or at least near outer space is, and that's validated by a few people who've sent balloons with video onboard up to near space, or low orbit. Their balloons kept rising and only came back to earth once the balloon burst. You can see in those video that as the atmospheric pressure gives way the balloon expands till it bursts.

An obvious solution would be to have the balloon inside a very fine net which would prevent the balloon from expanding beyond it's design limit. You wouldn't think it would be all that difficult to rig up and so I have to wonder why no one has yet to try setting up their own satellite system. Spy on the spys, unmask Google Earth for example, find out if the planet is flat or a disgusting bloated beach ball.

Is your claim gravity is holding in the atmosphere of the earth and preventing said atmosphere from escaping into the vacuum of space?

Are you saying that you can have gas pressure without a container?



A 🌎Globe w Gas Pressure Next to a Vacuum Pseudoscience 101720P - YouTube

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOzYFzg4ODM[/VIDEO]

https://youtu.be/xOzYFzg4ODM?t=485

[Gambeir]

As much as I'm sure there are real UFO's and ET's visiting us I take exception to that photo as being a real UFO. With a strong background in photography it looks like nothing but enhanced lens flare. Notice how bright the ground lights are (probably taken at night with the camera shutter open at least 1 or 2 seconds and possibly much longer) and notice how bright of a light seems to be emanating from the lower left side of the picture - directly in line and perpendicular to the object. Looks very much like lens flare from the strong light that is just outside of the picture. A photo showing that much light from the buildings at night has to have a fairly long exposure so if that was a UFO it would have had to be stationary for some time. My opinion ...

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying this to be an intentional jackass. Trust me you will know when or if that is my intention. Basically you are making conjectures without enough knowledge of what you're actually looking at. I know it all seems sound to you. We all do this, it's our nature, I do the same thing constantly myself but you're stretching the limits of creditable imagination which would never hold up to cross examination in a court room because you're making conjectures based on what you know about photography, and specifically photography of everyday objects, and not conjectures based on a knowledge of photography in conjunction with a knowledge and appreciation for the magnetic field in association with ideas about how a UFO could operate. Those are very significant differences which would greatly change the dynamics of what various cameras might capture.

We aren't looking to explain away the evidence. Just imagine trying to solve a crime with that modus operandi. Evidence may explain away something else but we do not generally try to explain away the evidence itself as a random error.

The image appears to be in motion. There is a blue light indicating a phase shift in the Larmor Frequency, and the issue I personally have is where it's traveling from and not so much how it is traveling. In other words, is it moving through time? The phase shift colors in the magnetic field are red and blue. When you see blue you're looking at one end of a field and conversely when you see red you're seeing another end of the field. Red and Blue are associated with expansion and contraction by some people in regards to whether light is moving towards us or away from us. Some animals can see this phase shift coloration. Evidently it's thought that with the animals that can see the magnetic spectrum of light that it's associated with migration skills. For us the question is are we seeing a time traveler arriving? At least that would be one of my questions based on what I think I understand and can see in the image.

Now to suggest that what is in the image are artifacts of photography when they can be cross correlated with repeatable known data and demonstrated facts surrounding the magnetic field shows you do not understand what you either are viewing or could potentially be viewing. This, and when taken into account that those objections must be combined with the mathematical odds for all of them to join together from singular points, so as to coincide all at the same time to support your point of view, would alone stretch creditable belief all by themselves if presented to a jury, or at least a good attorney could make a lot of hay out it.

Now of course we aren't in a courtroom. The point is to remember, you're not looking at a chair, an airplane, or any other ordinary object. The object makes light, magnetic fields, and very likely some other things as well. If it were to be a fraud then it would have to come from someone with a considerable appreciation of what they were faking and with a specific idea behind it. It positively would not be random chance. I grant you it looks odd alright and there's a reason for it that I think goes considerably beyond photographic artifacts.