Electric Universe: Specific Predictions Concerning ISON

Stalking still?

Not by any rational definition. Just pointing out the continued errors and hilarious hypocrisies on your part, IDW/A.A. Among other posts.

thats 3 user id's i have seen you with in less than 1 hour aa. oh about that gang stalking, i see your 3 user id's stalked greengirl tonight.


H Y P O C R I T E

I've posted in response to 'green girl' about 7 times total.

That's a far cry from tens of thousands of times on a daily dedicated day and night basis for over 11 years.

What amount of criticism is the *right* amount, in your reality? How many posts have you made criticizing specific debunkers? or Phil Plait? or Einstein? If I criticized your ideas twice a day, is that all right? How about three? Do I hear four?

Your double standards are showing. But, then again, they always do.

No one's been *paid* to disagree with you on the Internet, as far as I know. *I* certainly haven't, except in laughs.



When you start from a false premise, the rest quickly follows.



Except it hasn't been that long, I have only posted here, and it is, by no means, a dedication. It isn't even taking a *majority* of my time. And your recent efforts have been lame enough that I engage you far *less* than only a couple of years ago.

Though your failures have been *much* more clear cut of late, wouldn't you agree?

It is baffling how the mods here would allow this to go on knowing the liabilities involved. This "74444" character needs a nice rubber room to bounce around in.

Says IDW/A.A himself, hiding behind more ID#s.

There are no liabilities involved whatsoever. You cannot prove any damage from someone disagreeing with your claims on the Internet, particularly when they can cite where you said what. And before you can effectively complain about my behavior, you must not engage in precisely the same behavior *yourself.*

Thus far, that hasn't happened, obviously -- in fact, my behavior has been *far* more within the rule of law than yours has.

Still avoiding that GPS Geosynchronous Satellite claim you made like the plague as well, eh? Honestly, I can't blame you.

"The rule of law"

Little do you know laws are meant to be broken. Your post doesn't make you a better man, it takes two to tangle.

I have never claimed I am a better man. Just that my predictions, certainly of late, have been better predictions.

And I don't think I'll go haphazardly busting any laws to test the initial part of your post. Hope you don't mind.

And since it appears he's back...



And yet I was able to explain it after four minutes of searching.

Thread: Electric Universe and Electric Comet folks - ISON predictions wanted. (Page 10)

If IDW/A.A had done that, he wouldn't have made such a blunder again. Just goes to show about the fact that IDW/A.A will make and defend the claim long before he can be arsed to look into said claim. The Windows calculator comes to mind again.

Thread: Did we really go to the Moon? Why haven't we been back since 72? (Page 97)

It seems IDW/A.A obviously wants to distance himself from his own claim as much as is possible.

As with so many other claims of his.

You can *imagine* my surprise that he won't address yet *another* ginormous error.

The force of gravity in any stable orbit is negated by centripetal acceleration.

The fact that such a negated force still has an effect on the rate of nuclear decay is strong evidence of an electrical interaction with the nuclear force.

It dos NOT in any way tend to 'prove' relativity. I also question the honesty and integrity of the study and given the past history of relativity experiments see no reason to trust it since they are always flawed , utilize cherry picked and fabricated data, and are never duplicated. No independent verification means no relevance and it cannot be used in science as evidence

The conclusions of the stalkers 'study' are flawed and misrepresented.

No adjustments to clocks are necessary because the calculations to pinpoint location by Global Positioning Satellites are made in a fraction of a second. Any deviation caused by a ever so slightly slower or faster running clock would be inconsequential. This is just another of many examples of where complete falsehoods are used to prop up a false theory.

As i have already explained in detail, the decay of radioactive materials being effected by gravity can be explained much more succinctly , logically, and within the bounds of common sense by an interaction between gravity and the nuclear force than to claim time goes by a different rate in different gravity.

It is also interesting that if my theory is right that all four of the forces are electric in nature, nuclear decay being effected by gravity would be a certainty.

It is also interesting and revealing how stalker 74444 shifted gears from motion causing the relativity relevancy when I pointed out the satellites weren't moving relative to each other or the planets surface, so relativity couldn't be a factor even if it was true.

he attempted to ridicule me for claiming the satellites were geostationary earlier in this thread

I'm *still* ridiculing you about it. They aren't stationery from Earth's frame, they aren't stationery to each other, and they are affected by being in Earth's gravity well. So both GR and SR effects are observed and corrected for, exactly as in the links I gave you: information you said didn't exist anywhere on the web, and I found in about four minutes.

The satellites aren't geosynchronous, so your relativity objections were both factually incorrect and moot, to boot, and demonstrated a hopeless lack of the slightest investigation on your part.



Uh...think about what you just wrote.



The data I provided proves your assertion incorrect, as does the math.




Prove it. After all, I do not believe what I am told without proof.

So, while IDW/A.A. now scrambles to walk back another amazingly basic mistake, apparently claiming and believing that GPS satellites are in geostationary orbits, here's some details about relativistic corrections in GPS.

"The GPS satellites are uniformly distributed in a total of six orbits such that there are four satellites per orbit. This number of satellites and spatial distribution of orbits insures that at least eight satellites can be simultaneously seen at any time from almost anywhere on Earth. The GPS satellites circle the Earth at an altitude of about 20,000 km (13,000 miles) and complete two full orbits every day. The GPS satellites are not in a geostationary orbit, but rise and set two times per day."

[link to www.cfa.harvard.edu]

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

We note that this post-launch rate comparison is independent of frame or observer considerations. Since the ground tracks repeat day after day, the distance from satellite to ground remains essentially unchanged. Yet, any rate difference between satellite and ground clocks continues to build a larger and larger time reading difference as the days go by. Therefore, no confusion can arise due to the satellite clock being located some distance away from the ground clock when we compare their time readings. One only needs to wait long enough and the time difference due to a rate discrepancy will eventually exceed any imaginable error source or ambiguity in such comparisons."


It continues:

"The highest precision GPS receiver data is collected continuously in two frequencies at 1.5-second intervals from all GPS satellites at five Air Force monitor stations distributed around the Earth. An in-depth discussion of the data and its analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. [1] This data shows that the on-board atomic clock rates do indeed agree with ground clock rates to the predicted extent, which varies slightly from nominal because the orbit actually achieved is not always precisely as planned. The accuracy of this comparison is limited mainly because atomic clocks change frequencies by small, semi-random amounts (of order 1 ns/day) at unpredictable times for reasons that are not fully understood. As a consequence, the long-term accuracy of these clocks is poorer than their short-term accuracy.

Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. In ground solutions with the data, new corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncertain unless these empirical corrections are used. But within each day, the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate.

The initial clock rate errors just after launch would give the best indication of the absolute accuracy of the predictions of relativity because they would be least affected by accumulated random errors in clock rates over time. Unfortunately, these have not yet been studied. But if the errors were significantly greater than the rate variance among the 24 GPS satellites, which is less than 200 ns/day under normal circumstances, it would have been noticed even without a study. So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.

12-hour variations (the orbital period) in clock rates due to small changes in the orbital altitude and speed of the satellites, caused by the small eccentricity of their orbits, are also detected. These are observed to be of the expected size for each GPS satellite's own orbit. For example, for an orbital eccentricity of 0.01, the amplitude of this 12-hour term is 23 ns. Contributions from both altitude and speed changes, while not separable, are clearly both present because the observed amplitude equals the sum of the two predicted amplitudes."

[link to www.metaresearch.org]


Looking forward to the IDWexcuse *this* time.

Ooops:
"The GPS satellites are not in a geostationary orbit, but rise and set two times per day."
[link to www.cfa.harvard.edu]

Of course the Incredible Dim Asstrophyzzizzist knows it better than Harvard.
The Incredible Dim Asstrophyzzizzist knows, Harvard is part of the "Great GPS Conspiracy".

.

I cannot *dream* of why, after his terrifically incorrect proclamation, that IDW/A.A has run away from this thread entirely.

Oh, wait. Yes, I can.

This thread is not about GPS, which I have no real interest in. It is about specific predictions concerning ISON's close approach to the Sun as predicted by the electric universe theory.

Evasion noted. Hilarious. List updated. Have a nice day.

All progress in science is made swimming against the current while being battered over the head by religious zealots

Are you willing to talk about your utterly wrong proclamation about GPS *yet?*

Or just more evasion?

A technical question: why would you believe unchanged LASCO c3 images would be on the internet *at all?* Is the uber-conspiracy so unbelievably dumb that they can't route such images to a private server, to be shared with whom it wants? Why would they be in the publicly available archives *at all* for even a millisecond?

So if no evidence of your prediction materializes, you will simply claim it is because it was rapidly scrubbed from the internet. You can't lose such a prediction, since in IDWlogic no evidence is as good as solid proof.

Thank you for presenting the Electric Universe information regarding ISON. I love the Thunderbolts Project. Most fascinating concept in my lifetime. I hope we see reactions that will confirm the paradigm.

5* suggest pin

I agree. It would be nice if the lamestream sheeple would leave the thread alone and allow genuine critical thinkers to discuss the possibilities though. The EU is slowly gaining momentum, and the shills are getting most upset!

going thru the tail really concerns me looking at the model ... [link to www.solarsystemscope.com]
Dec 3rd - 10 ? ...

Last Edited by Apocalypse Girl on 11/25/2013 02:37 AM

Great info, thanks!

Genuine critical thinkers?

Like the Incredible Dim Astrophyzzizzist?



The Incredible Dim Astrophyzzizzist who claimed a short time ago:

[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]


[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]


[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]


[link to www.godlikeproductions.com]

.