They very clearly got rid of ether because otherwise Michelson-Morley proved coclusively that the earth is not moving through space.

Whether he intended it to or not, Einstein's reintroduction of the term "ether" connected his General theory with the either of Maxwell, Loretnz, Michelson and Hertz of the 1800s.  However, Einstein distinguished his ether from thiers by insisting that his was "not ponderable" and "not moveable."

I've been listening to this while I'm working, so have only caught maybe 15% of it about an hour in, but this is outstanding.  One guy there is particularl knowledgeale about science, and he makes a very convincing case that there is solid scientific evidence for the ether, including various interferometry experiments (one done by the US Air Force in 1987).  Tesla evidently said that many of his discoveries hinged on the assumption that something like the ether exists.  They very clearly got rid of ether because otherwise Michelson-Morley proved coclusively that the earth is not moving through space.

Googling led me to this, and perhaps this is what he was talking about vis-a-vis the Air Force study:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19870020003

I wonder if the truth will surface when they all finish these studies.  I clicked the link and toward the end it said:

The research program of ten government laboratories, several universities, industry and foreign countries were presented. A number of papers on holographic interferometry with applications to fluid mechanics were given. Several papers on combustion and particle sizing, speckle velocimetry and speckle interferometry were given. A session on image processing and automated fringe data reduction techniques and the type of facilities for fringe reduction was held.

I don't know how to copy and paste a tweet other than to give the link:

https://twitter.com/ronin19217435/status/1575708762551328768

This is Scientifically impossible

That's a nice graphic to illustrate how absolutely ridiculous it is.

Gravity glues water to the ball with such force that it remains relatively still and calm while moving at 1000MPH (if you don't count the millions of MPH it's moving through space), and yet a butterfly can effortlessly lift off and then fly in either direction with equal ease.

So if a hot air balloon goes up, the reason it doesn't go 1000MPH against the rotation of the earth is because it's held to the earth by gravity, as if the latter were an iron rod, and yet it can effortlessly overcome this massive force with a tiny blast of air and head off in the direction contrary to the drag of this massive force.  There was a video put out by an engineer who said that if a plane were moving West-East and then turned to the North-South direction to land, the violence of making that turn against these massive forces would rip the plane to pieces, and yet it's done all the time, effortlessly, and without a second thought.

Sound waves move at about 761 MPH.  So if you were moving at 1000MPH West to East at the equator, if you spoke to someone to the East of you, they'd never hear you, because they'd be moving to the East faster than the sound waves could move to get to them.  And, no, it's not gravity, as sound waves are not subject to gravity and therefore do not get dragged along by the earth's rotation.

Anyone who believes this stuff is insane.

Assuming they entered in all the variables correctly into their computer simulation, but they got the scale wrong. The air would have a significant damping effect on the waves.

No, the air would be ripped off the planet by the vacuum of space, and then the water would boil off the surface.  This has been repeatedly demonstrated with vacuum chambers that had an orders of magnitude weaker vacuum than that of space.  Gravity does not have enough force to overcome the forces pressing out into the vacuum.  Gravity can't even overcome the weak buoyancy of a helium balloon.

So gravity then pulls on the air, which would in turn suppress the violent movement of the water.  That would take a huge force on the air.  For gravity to be strong enough to completely immobilize the Oceans rather than our being subject to incredible forces and constant inundation, it would also have to hold everything as solid as a vice grip (including the air above it), and yet butterflies float around in the air without a care in the world.

it's so utterly absurd, every bit as absurd as the claims of Darwinism.

No, the air would be ripped off the planet by the vacuum of space, and then the water would boil off the surface.  This has been repeatedly demonstrated with vacuum chambers that had an orders of magnitude weaker vacuum than that of space.  Gravity does not have enough force to overcome the forces pressing out into the vacuum.  Gravity can't even overcome the weak buoyancy of a helium balloon.

So gravity then pulls on the air, which would in turn suppress the violent movement of the water.  That would take a huge force on the air.  For gravity to be strong enough to completely immobilize the Oceans rather than our being subject to incredible forces and constant inundation, it would also have to hold everything as solid as a vice grip (including the air above it), and yet butterflies float around in the air without a care in the world.

it's so utterly absurd, every bit as absurd as the claims of Darwinism.

Garbage. You are too biased by your strict adherence to the FE model to consider the real physics at play and instead reduce it to an all or nothing understanding where there is no possibility outside your current understanding of the natural forces for there to be an in-between for the real physics to achieve the properties of a GE.

Enclosed or not, what causes the pressure gradient of air? It's supposed to be 0 PSI at space and around 15 PSI at the surface, if I remember correctly. A gradient must exist in a vacuum chamber too if the effects of gravity are still present inside it, but it won't have the full weight of the atmosphere above on it unless the vacuum chamber is as tall as from the ground to the edge of space. Apparently gravity can't overcome the weak buoyancy of hardwood in water either, so what's different about a helium balloon?

Air obviously has the ability to apply huge forces if it can blow several feet of ocean up over much of Florida. It can also resist huge forces. There's an exponential increase in wind resistance as an object travels faster through it. Add lots of surface area to that object, and all of a sudden there is a massive increase in the amount of resistance the air applies, such that the ocean could not slosh so violently in real life as in that small scale globe model if the waves are hundreds of square feet or miles moving at several tens if not hundreds of miles per hour. I said nothing about completely immobilizing the oceans. The air just dampens them significantly. And, butterflies are a small scale very slow speed thing operating far in the bottom end of the exponential increase of wind resistance scale that is based on speed and surface area. If one stepped foot on that little simulation planet in the twitter post, it would cause a tsunami.

I don't have a superzoom camera, but if I did I would love to not only check out boats that are supposedly too far away to be seen, but also get a photo like this if I could:

I don't have a superzoom camera, but if I did I would love to not only check out boats that are supposedly too far away to be seen, but also get a photo like this if I could:

See how the nose points downward, but you don't feel that at all during inflight.  ??

Talk about it when you have the math for calculating the rate of acceleration or rate of rotation experienced when a jet is flying 600mph at 35,000ft above the circuмference of the earth. I think it will be much too small to notice.

Strangely, the altimeter does not factor in
curvature:





Lt Col from Trump's space force is just coming right out in the open as a satanist with his explanation of how spin effects travel time.

No science needed, just Freemason Hermetic Luciferian Doctrine!  LOL

7:55  (You can watch the whole thing but his statement is at 5:50)






They ain't even hiding it anymore!