A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory

  • 116 Replies
  • 20337 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2010, 06:05:16 PM »
I think I might be in the minority that believes life can possibly exist elsewhere.

Not really.  From what I've gathered, much of the scientific community feel that extraterrestrial life is inevitable and likely fairly common.  Life is amazingly robust even on Earth, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8812
  • Semper vigilans
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2010, 06:09:17 PM »
oops I meant FEer-wise.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2010, 06:17:35 PM »
oops I meant FEer-wise.
Actually, that's another one of the things that I find depressing about FET; little to no chance of extraterrestrial life.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2010, 02:14:43 AM »
...

Here are the most extraordinary proofs, for you, WHICH PROVE that what you have taken for granted, in your undergraduate studies, amounts TO NOTHING: DINOSAURS LIVED ONLY 4500-5000 YEARS AGO, IF WE JUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE OFFICAL CHRONOLOGY, COMPLETE PROOFS (FOR OUR REVISED CHRONOLOGY, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED BEFORE, THE DINOSAURS LIVED IN THE PERIOD 1520-1600, BEING THE RESULT OF GENETICS EXPERIMENTS, WHICH RESULTED ALSO IN THE CREATION OF GIANTS):

...

Therefore, my claims are completely true and you have at your disposal the most extraordinary proofs possible to understand and see that our official world chronology has been faked and forged to an unbelievable degree.

ROFL.  You just made my day.  Dinosaurs lived 5000 years ago?  What wiped them out?  Giants, now?  Evidence?  Proof?  Giant human remains?  No?

Oh, and the Aborigines of Australia have been around for tens of thousands of years, and last I knew, they've never hunted dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs > humans anyway... early humans wouldn't've lasted against them without today's technology.

Finally, using CAPS LOCK makes you look like a desperate man who tries too hard to get his point across.

You have NOT done your homework.

In the conventional chronology, dinosaurs lived just about 5000 years ago.

Here is the complete proof:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29253.msg710424#msg710424

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=716#p31276

Epoch of the Giants, the great Smithsonian coverup, best collection of proofs:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=789

And you have not read enough about those Aborigenes...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/aborigines.asp

http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/strangephenomenonk.html (title of the article: Dinosaurs hunted by Aboriginals)




Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2010, 02:18:05 AM »
Rational U.S. Viking, I provided ample proofs pertaining to the fact that our official historical chronology has been greatly modified. Did you read at least the arguments I presented?

I have read many of your arguments, and find most of them to be complete and utter nonsense.  Even most of your fellow FE'ers agree with that!  There is certainly nothing "Zetetic" about them since you gullibly rely without question on any obscure text, ancient or modern, no matter how crackpot they may be, that contains views that support or seem to support what you have decided to believe, without (apparently) making the slightest attempt to test them or confirm them with your own observations and experiments, which massively violates the spirit of "Zeteticism" that you FE'ers claim to uphold.

Your claims are false, especially re: the circumpolar constellations. As that picture clearly shows, there are three kinds of stellar orbits, that is why the map presented in the FAQ has been such a headache to the FES.

It shows nothing of the sort!  All it shows is precisely what RET would lead us to expect if the earth is spherical and one takes a time-exposed picture with a camera aimed at the Celestial Equator.  Norhing is more of a headache to FES than your embarrassingly irrational arguments!

My FAQ has shown in every debate here, that you, the round earth believers, have no idea in what you believe in, no concept of what round earth theory actually is.

So, tell us what you think round earth theory actually is (without posting umpteen pages of rambling, incoherent text filled with links to dozens of unverifiable, obscure and irrelevant texts that almost no one takes seriously nowadays and that you cannot possibly have verified with your own Zetetic observations and experiments.

In each and every debate, I have been able to show that the round earth hypothesis is just a hoax, starting, for example from the disastrous big bang/space-time theories.

You are seriously delusional if you believe that!


viking, as your messages clearly show, you need to study much more the subject of round earth theory, before you can even dream to come here and debate with me (or anyone else).

How is your irrational, uncritical acceptance of almost any obscure, irrelevant, unverifiable and discredited text (both ancient and modern), many of which are merely the mythologies of ancient, highly superstitious civilizations, in any way superior to RET as currently understood by the most brilliant scientists, navigators, geodicists, etc. who have ever lived, and who have worked very hard all their lives to discover, test and verify what they now know to be true?
 

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #65 on: June 04, 2010, 02:23:37 AM »
I honestly can't make heads or tails of any of Levee's rants. That doesn't mean they are untrue or anything, but why can't he prove the simplest thing without all these weird and nonsensical psuedoscientific arguments is beyond me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2010, 02:48:05 AM »
rationallicking, your ranting amounts to nothing at all...

Let me disprove your every point.

The following links do show your utter ignorance of the subject, please study some more my friend:

Northern circumpolar constellations:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080613163859/http://www.coldwater.k12.mi.us/lms/planetarium/myth/ncircum.html
http://www.windows2universe.org/the_universe/images/starmaps/map_1_large_jpg_image.html

Southern circumpolar constellations:

http://www.windows2universe.org/the_universe/Constellations/south_constellations.html



Your wrote:

All it shows is precisely what RET would lead us to expect if the earth is spherical


viking, the Earth could NOT have attained a spherical shape to start with, please do your homework, and stop posting nonsense...

Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).

Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.

A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.

Are you able in way, shape or form to argue with me on any messages I posted here?


No, rationalvickying, I provide ample proofs that what I say and post is completely true; that is what differentiates my messages from the rest...

Here is one of the best demonstrations that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth:

Now, let me show that there is no curvature at all over lake Ontario. As always, we will use a 240 meter altitude for the photographer, even though the highest point outside Grimsby by some 2 km is located at 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge), and Beamer Falls Park can be found at an elevation of just 45 meters.

From 240 meters, on a round earth, we could barely see the signs of land from Toronto, over an immense curvature of 59 meters; but no curvature appears at all in these extraordinary photographs, just a flat surface of the lake.







A zoom from the same spot as in the first photograph, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER ALL THE WAY TO TORONTO:



(taken by Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn in 2007, a well known photographer from Grimsby)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/



NO CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, NOT ONE CENTIMETER:

THERE SHOULD BE A 3.31 METER CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, IN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY; even if we change the radius of the earth from 6300 to 6400 km, the curvature will vary from 3.30 to 3.35 meters. We should see an ascending slope starting from the shores of Spain, a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters, and NOTHING BELOW 5 METERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


So, there is no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar, no matter the fairy tale you stubbornly want to believe in...

Here is a photograph taken right on the spanish beach, from the same place as that in the second video above:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289/


SANDY HOOK - CONEY ISLAND

DISTANCE 7 MILES, 11.2 KM

CURVATURE 2.4 METERS

On a round earth, we should see a rising slope, with a midpoint visual obstacle of 2.4 meters, but there is no such thing in these photos taken right on the Sandy Hook beach:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2890814609/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23956233@N04/2891651706/in/photostream/


NO CURVATURE OVER A DISTANCE OF 6000 KM LONDON - TUNGUSKA

The explosion at Tunguska (June 30, 1908, 7:15-7:20 am) took place at an elevation of 7 km. It was seen all the way from Irkutsk and Lake Baikal.

Lake Baikal is at a distance of some 600 km from the place of the explosion.



http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r05/

THE VISUAL OBSTACLE FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 KM IS 21.57 KM; NO WAY THAT AN EXPLOSION WHICH TOOK PLACE AT AN ALTITUDE OF 7 KM COULD BE SEEN FROM THAT DISTANCE.

Now, we will take a distance of just 6000 km between London and Tunguska.

Over this distance, WE HAVE A VISUAL OBSTACLE OF 4333 KM; ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE ANYTHING WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A GLOBE.

The explosion at Tunguska, on a round earth, should have been a local affair, restricted to an area of some 200 km x 200 km, nothing could be seen at 600 km, or at 6000 km (London).

Newspaper accounts from London:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_tunguska02.htm
http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

Now you must remember that the trajectory of the fireball which caused the explosion itself was observed for SOME 10 MINUTES (7:05 - 7:10) PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, HERE IS THE EXTRAORDINARY DESCRIPTION:

T.R. LeMaire, a science writer, continues this thought, by suggesting "The Tunguska blast's timing seems too fortuitous for an accident" (LeMaire 1980). He claims that a five-hour delay would make the target of destruction St. Petersburg, adding that a tiny change of course in space would have devastated populated areas of China or India.

Can we assume that the 'pilot' chose a cloudless day with excellent visibility from aloft to assure a safe drop? American Military strategy called for identical weather conditions; for a perfect strike on Hiroshima's industrial heart, the Enola Gay's bombardier was forbidden to release through a cloud cover: he had to see the target below. To maximize blast destruction, minimize radiation perils: the bomb was set to explode at a high altitude rather than against the ground. Similarly, the Siberian missile detonated high in the air, reducing or even eliminating fallout hazard (LeMaire 1980).

LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60degrees55' N, 101degrees57' E (LeMaire 1980).

THE TRAJECTORY ITSELF, PRIOR TO THE EXPLOSION, WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM LONDON:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o'clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.?

More accounts:

A woman north of London wrote the London Times that on midnight of July 1st the sky glowed so brightly it was possible to read large print inside her house. A meteorological observer in England recounted on the nights of June 30th and July 1st:
A strong orange yellow light became visible in the north and northeast... causing an undue prolongation of twilight lasting to daybreak on July 1st...There was a complete absence of scintillation or flickering, and no tendency for the formation of streamers, or a luminous arch, characteristic of auroral phenomena... Twilight on both of these night was prolonged to daybreak, and there was no real darkness.
The report that most closely ties these strange cosmic happenings with Tesla's power transmission scheme is that while the sky was aglow with this eerie light it was possible to clearly see ships at sea for miles in the middle of the night.

To the Editor of the Times.
Sir,--Struck with the unusual brightness of the heavens, the band of golfers staying here strolled towards the links at 11 o'clock last evening in order that they might obtain an uninterrupted view of the phenomenon. Looking northwards across the sea they found that the sky had the appearance of a dying sunset of exquisite beauty. This not only lasted but actually grew both in extent and intensity till 2:30 this morning, when driving clouds from the East obliterated the gorgeous colouring. I myself was aroused from sleep at 1:15, and so strong was the light at this hour that I could read a book by it in my chamber quite comfortably. At 1:45 the whole sky, N. and N.-E., was a delicate salmon pink, and the birds began their matutinal song. No doubt others will have noticed this phenomenon, but as Brancaster holds an almost unique position in facing north to the sea, we who are staying here had the best possible view of it.
Yours faithfully,
Holcombe Ingleby.
Dormy House Club, Brancaster, July 1? (1908 )

Some people saw massive, silvery clouds and brilliant, colored sunsets on the horizon, whereas others witnessed luminescent skies at night. Londoners, for instance, could plainly read newsprint at midnight without artificial lights.

In London on the night of June 30th the air-glow illuminates the northern quadrant of the heavens so brightly that the Times can be read at midnight. In Antwerp the glare of what looks like a huge bonfire rises twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches are clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers find they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of night from June 30th to July 3rd.

THIS WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY ON A FLAT EARTH, GIVEN THE 4333 KM VISUAL OBSTACLE PRESENT on a round earth.


Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


My proofs are the very best to be found irrationalviking, while your research and angry ranting amounts to nothing at all...as you can see, if you use rationality, the EARTH IS COMPLETELY FLAT, with NO CURVATURE at all...so everything you wrote is completely false, and my points are very much proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...


« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 02:49:50 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2010, 03:07:15 AM »
I have read most of rationalviking's messages, and I find this person to be one of the most uninformed persons EVER TO have posted on this forum.

viking, you have no idea what the big bang/space-time theories actually mean. Let me WAKE YOU UP RIGHT NOW!

Here is the complete destruction of the big bang/superstring hypotheses:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551

Please show us where the "rambling" passages are, viking; there are no such passages, just a complete destruction of your hare-brained scheme (the round earth theory).

I have just shown to you that you have no idea what the big bang/superstring theories actually are about.


There is no such thing as the theory of relativity/space-time continuum:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39372.msg982142#msg982142


It is more than evident, rationalviking, that you use insults/angry ranting to get around this site, with false claims all over.

In this direct debate, I have shown that you have taken for granted the round earth theory, without a RATIONAL approach.

You can ramble all you want; when it comes to meeting with me, eye to eye, here in direct scientific debates, you shown yourself for what you really are: an ill-informed, whimsical round earth believer; all your worthless claims have been invalidated.


« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 05:57:26 AM by levee »

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2010, 03:22:55 AM »
^Yea, all of that? I read through it, it's complete nonsense, and I have no idea what you were talking about.

You assume things like there's no such thing as gravity, so therefore there is a compression force, you also talk about centrifugal force, of which there actually is no such thing...I also read through a lot of your links, like the one where you show how the Big Bang Theory is impossible, which was also a lot of nonsense.

Honestly I can't keep reading through your posts...though tbh, you are the kind of person I most expected when I first came to these forums.

If you actually believe in your work/ideas, submit them to a scientific journal or something.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2010, 05:50:42 AM »
tech, I understand where you are coming from, and the wording of your message...

I do not assume at all that there is no ATTRACTIVE gravity (there is, though, a pressure type of gravity, as I have explained many times before), here is the complete and absolute demonstration that indeed there is no attractive gravity, from every branch of classical physics:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542

You wrote: you also talk about centrifugal force, of which there actually is no such thing

The centrifugal force is an outward force directed away from the center of rotation; since there is no attractive gravity, the centrifugal force at work on the original conglomerate of matter could not have produced anything but a flat cloud; no disk-shaped cloud could have balled itself into a globe.

My posts include the very best information, the very best proofs, please read them carefully, you will gain much by reading them.

Now, to get back to what viking was saying...

Here is the biography of Anatoly Fomenko:



A. Fomenko is one of the most famous mathematicians of the 20th century...he realized that the official chronology has been radically altered, that is why he wrote History: Science or Fiction (see the links I posted).


Nikola Tesla was one of the most prestigious physicists of all times; he practically invented modern civilization (alternating current, was the first to use x-rays, discovered the vacuum tube amplifier, fluorescent lighting, modern radio and television, even the concept of the internet was invented by Tesla, wireless electricity, and much, much more).

He continuously criticized Einstein's theory of relativity, here are his own words:

'You are wrong, Mr. Einstein - ether does exist!'

"They say much about the Einstein's theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether's opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson - Morli [Michelson-Morley] who made attempts to detect the Earth's movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn't mean the ether's non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success."

"What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether's properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment [gaseous]. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform [gaseous] but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson ? Morli experiment."

"A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named, universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another."

"We wrongly call this phenomenon gravitation."

"We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking."

"The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense."

"Einstein's assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let's consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It's correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether's substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source."


viking, are you going to say that Dr. Robert Newton published rambling articles?

Robert Newton was one of the most famous and at the same time one of the most respected of all astrophysicists.

He discovered in the period 1969-1974, that ALL the ancient/medieval astronomical records, concerning solar eclipses included horrendous/disastrous data, his research into the subject has not been surpassed until present day.

Here is the most famous diagram in all astrophysics, the one which does prove that the astronomical data include in so-called ancient manuscripts are completely false, and were written/added much later in time:



Newton: "The most striking feature of Figure 1 is the rapid decline in D'' from about 700 to about 1300 ... . This decline means (Newton, 1972b) that there was a 'square wave' in the osculating value of D''... . Such changes in D'', and such values, unexplainable by present geophysical theories ... , show that D'' has had surprisingly large values and that it has undergone large and sudden changes within the past 2000 yrs" ([4], p.114-115).

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/fomenko/dsec.htm (the extraordinary THE JUMP OF THE SECOND DERIVATIVE OF THE MOON'S ELONGATION by A. Fomenko)

Here is the analysis done by R. Newton, concerning the second derivative of the moon's elongation, superb reading:

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton1.htm

http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/newton2.htm


« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 05:55:13 AM by levee »

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2010, 06:06:13 AM »
You guys will notice that any picture that shows a round earth is fake but ones that show a "flat earth" are not. 

Of course some of the pics above are from the website dedicated to mirages.   You think flat earthers would have learned what a mirage is by now. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2010, 06:12:00 AM »
sokarul, you are as uninspired as you were three years ago, please grow up...

PLEASE READ THE CAPTIONS BEFORE POSTING.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

It says right at the beginning:

Normal day with no mirage

Got it?

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2010, 06:14:57 AM »
sokarul, you are as uninspired as you were three years ago, please grow up...

PLEASE READ THE CAPTIONS BEFORE POSTING.

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

It says right at the beginning:

Normal day with no mirage

Got it?

Omg the earth is upside down


Levee just for you, when I get off work I will make a legit post.  But you have to promise you will respond instead of the usual cowering out. Agreed? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #73 on: June 04, 2010, 06:27:44 AM »
sokarul, you were banned sometime ago for posting nonsense...I have shown, long ago, that you have no idea about advanced physics, or advanced photography.

Again, here is the data for you, in case you are able to understand what is going on; nobody is cowering out, especially on the low-content posting you make here every day...again, please grow up.

Now, let me show that there is no curvature at all over lake Ontario. As always, we will use a 240 meter altitude for the photographer, even though the highest point outside Grimsby by some 2 km is located at 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge), and Beamer Falls Park can be found at an elevation of just 45 meters.

From 240 meters, on a round earth, we could barely see the signs of land from Toronto, over an immense curvature of 59 meters; but no curvature appears at all in these extraordinary photographs, just a flat surface of the lake.







A zoom from the same spot as in the first photograph, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER ALL THE WAY TO TORONTO:



(taken by Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn in 2007, a well known photographer from Grimsby)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/



What did you say? Legit post? You must be high on something...



sokarul, let us go to Lake Michigan:

Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.

h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS

h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS

h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS

The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.

Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND THE NUMBERS?

A BUILDING HAVING A HEIGHT OF JUST 40 METERS WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM 128 KM DISTANCE.

Also, the SHAPES OF THE BUILDINGS FROM DOWNTOWN MILWAUKEE WERE ALSO SEEN.


Here are the videos across the Strait of Gibraltar:

NO CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, NOT ONE CENTIMETER:

THERE SHOULD BE A 3.31 METER CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, IN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY; even if we change the radius of the earth from 6300 to 6400 km, the curvature will vary from 3.30 to 3.35 meters. We should see an ascending slope starting from the shores of Spain, a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters, and NOTHING BELOW 5 METERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT.

Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:

Islamic History of Europe

#

Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline

Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...

Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.

Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.

The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


So, there is no curvature whatsoever over the strait of Gibraltar, no matter the fairy tale you stubbornly want to believe in...

Here is a photograph taken right on the spanish beach, from the same place as that in the second video above:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289/


You are the one cowering out, as you have chosen to ignore these fantastic proofs...there is no attractive gravity sokarul, please try to understand...

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #74 on: June 04, 2010, 06:39:54 AM »
sokarul, you were banned sometime ago for posting nonsense...I have shown, long ago, that you have no idea about advanced physics, or advanced photography.

Blah Blah Blah
You are the one cowering out, as you have chosen to ignore these fantastic proofs...there is no attractive gravity sokarul, please try to understand...
I was never banned for posting in Flat Earth Forums. I don't even think I was ever banned.  If I was, it was for something I said in general forum.

Now you didn't answer my question, if I respond to the post above, will you respond back? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #75 on: June 04, 2010, 02:43:27 PM »
Levee and sokarul, can you please refrain from posting large images, or large quantities of images? They cause the page to take some time to load; it is more considerate of others' bandwidth to post thumbnails, with links to the full scale images.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #76 on: June 04, 2010, 03:22:08 PM »
Levee and sokarul, can you please refrain from posting large images, or large quantities of images? They cause the page to take some time to load; it is more considerate of others' bandwidth to post thumbnails, with links to the full scale images.

It's 2010, get off AOL 1.0. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #77 on: June 04, 2010, 03:30:15 PM »
Levee and sokarul, can you please refrain from posting large images, or large quantities of images? They cause the page to take some time to load; it is more considerate of others' bandwidth to post thumbnails, with links to the full scale images.

It's 2010, get off AOL 1.0. 

Chill dude.  Believe it or not, some people are still stuck with dial-up.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #78 on: June 04, 2010, 04:33:28 PM »
Again, here is the data for you, in case you are able to understand what is going on; nobody is cowering out, especially on the low-content posting you make here every day...again, please grow up.
I did long ago, maybe one day you can to and move into the 21 century.  
Quote
Now, let me show that there is no curvature at all over lake Ontario. As always, we will use a 240 meter altitude for the photographer, even though the highest point outside Grimsby by some 2 km is located at 213 meters (Vinemount Ridge), and Beamer Falls Park can be found at an elevation of just 45 meters.
Umm Ok noted.
Quote
From 240 meters, on a round earth, we could barely see the signs of land from Toronto, over an immense curvature of 59 meters; but no curvature appears at all in these extraordinary photographs, just a flat surface of the lake.
I already forgot the drop per kilometer so I will trust your number.  Now here is some calculations for you. At 240m above the ground the horizon will be at a little less than 56 km away. The pictures are claimed to be at 53 km away. That puts the building within the horizon. So according to simple math, a person should indeed see the building on a round earth.  This also matches from what you actually said, a drop of 59m will be overcome by going up 240m as 240m-59m= 181m.  
Quote
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG
http://www.weatherandsky.com/LakeViews/IMG_0734.JPG
A zoom from the same spot as in the first photograph, NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER ALL THE WAY TO TORONTO:
It has already been established you can't see the curvature from the ground.  We are looking for  objects to drop behind the true horizon.
Quote

(taken by Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn in 2007, a well known photographer from Grimsby)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/



What did you say? Legit post? You must be high on something...
All show what I already explained.  The drop was overcome by height above the ground. When close to the ground you get pictures that look like the ones in the first two posts of this thread
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39108.0
Quote
sokarul, let us go to Lake Michigan:
Let us go back to the Lake Michigan story; here are the main points:
'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'
Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.
'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.
According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.
This is a well known story describing mirages.  She is able to see across the lake at " very specific times" because the buildings an such are lifted up higher than they should appear.  
Quote
Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.
A flat earth would lead them to see across all the time, not 12 times in 20 years.  Post the link to where the story was taken from for all to see.  
Quote
THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.
THE HOUSE OF THOSE RESIDENTS IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE, BUT LET US INVESTIGATE VARIOUS ALTITUDES, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
h = 3 meters BD = 1163 METERS
h = 5 meters BD = 1129 METERS
h = 10 meters BD = 1068 METERS
The highest building in Milwaukee has a height of 183 meters, the difference from h = 5 meters in altitude being 946 meters, and those residents saw the buildings from THREE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, two of which have buildings whose heights measure way under 183 meters.
Therefore, the only way those buildings could be seen, given the 128 km distance, would be if the surface of Lake Michigan is completely flat.
The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

Simply answered by mirage.  Your math does prove why the buildings and lights can only be seen 12 times in 30 years.  
Quote
And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.
With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.
One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AND THE NUMBERS?
Do you understand you are hiding the fact that you took these stories from a website about mirages?  
Quote
A BUILDING HAVING A HEIGHT OF JUST 40 METERS WAS SEEN ALL THE WAY FROM 128 KM DISTANCE.
Also, the SHAPES OF THE BUILDINGS FROM DOWNTOWN MILWAUKEE WERE ALSO SEEN.
Once again, if the earth was flat this would be an everyday occurrence. Not something that happens 12 times in 30 years.  
Quote
Here are the videos across the Strait of Gibraltar:
NO CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, NOT ONE CENTIMETER:
THERE SHOULD BE A 3.31 METER CURVATURE OVER THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR, IN THE ROUND EARTH THEORY; even if we change the radius of the earth from 6300 to 6400 km, the curvature will vary from 3.30 to 3.35 meters. We should see an ascending slope starting from the shores of Spain, a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters, and NOTHING BELOW 5 METERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRAIT.
3.31 meters is the drop from the ground, going up 1.8 meters to the eye will leave the drop at 1.51 meters.  
Quote
Here are the videos which prove, once and for all, now and forever, that there is no curvature, not one centimeter over the strait of Gibraltar:
Islamic History of Europe
#
Between 2:56 si 3:00 the author shows us the spanish beach and points towards the african coastline
You can only make out hills, not the coastline.  Don't kid yourself.  

Quote
Between 3:02 si 3:07 we can see clearly that there is no curvature all the way to Morocco; moreover, if we use the full screen option, we will see the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore...this is actually a closeup taken, again, from that beach...
Camera shot switched to a higher elevation. It is no longer at ground level.  The sailboats clearly show this.
Quote
Between 3:19 - 3:22, WE CAN SEE THE WAVES SPLASHING ONTO THE OPPOSING BEACH, EVEN WITH THE AUTHOR STANDING ON THE SPANISH SHORELINE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR; on a round earth, we would see an ascending slope, with a midpoint curvature of 3.31 meters.
I don't see any waves but  the drop less than 1.5 meters at this point.  
Quote
Between 3:43 si 3:45, the same thing, zero curvature...full screen option, the waves splashing onto the opposing beach/shore, WITH THE AUTHOR STADING RIGHT THERE ON THE SPANISH BEACH.
Same shot as the 3:19. At 3:49 the camera zooms out and one can barely make out anything.
Quote
The Barbarians, here are the details, where we can see very clearly that there is no ascending slope, no midpoint curvature:
The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#
...
I will get back to you on this one.  That is one long video to load.  

Quote
Here is a photograph taken right on the spanish beach, from the same place as that in the second video above:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289/
Looks like a normal picture.  I see what I would expect to see on a round earth.  
Quote
You are the one cowering out, as you have chosen to ignore these fantastic proofs...there is no attractive gravity sokarul, please try to understand...
Are you going to ignore my evidence(the correct word)?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2010, 04:51:01 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2010, 06:50:07 AM »
sokarul, you should be saving your energy for your next appearance on the Gong Show, here you have no chance to make yourself understood.

No, suckerul, in those videos we see the waves as they splash onto the opposing shoreline, with the auther standing right on the beach itself.

No, the shot was taken from the beach; you are inventing arguments which cannot be true.

How could this be true on a round earth?

There should be an ascending slope, and a midpoint curvature present; but NO SUCH THING HERE:



You wrote:

I already forgot the drop per kilometer so I will trust your number.  Now here is some calculations for you. At 240m above the ground the horizon will be at a little less than 56 km away. The pictures are claimed to be at 53 km away. That puts the building within the horizon. So according to simple math, a person should indeed see the building on a round earth.  This also matches from what you actually said, a drop of 59m will be overcome by going up 240m as 240m-59m= 181m.  


sokarul, are you here after a few drinks? Is that the problem?

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND FROM TORONTO, IN SPITE OF A HUGE CURVATURE OF 59 METERS, 1/4TH OF THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS LOCATED (55 KM AWAY).

No such thing in these pictures (sorry Parsifal):



Here is the original story from Lake Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

I explained that the densities of both air and aether make it very difficult to actually see the view from Milwaukee from that distance.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS INVOLVED? I THINK YOU DO NOT.

You cannot see the shape of buildings from Milwaukee/Racine from 128 km away.

You are the dumbest participant in these discussion EVER, sokarul!

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


YOU ARE NO SCIENTIST SOKARUL; THERE IS NO MIRAGE/LOOMING/ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION PHENOMENON POSSIBLE TO MAKE YOU SEE A 40 METER BUILDING FROM 128 KM AWAY.

So, this is what you promissed to be the bombshell you would bring here?

You haven't managed to bring a single rational argument in favor of the round earth hoax.

THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, please read:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2010, 06:57:04 AM »
Hey, maybe if I repeat things I have said many times before which still do not make sense, use lots of caps lock, and insult people, they will believe me this time.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #81 on: June 05, 2010, 09:58:29 AM »
sokarul, you should be saving your energy for your next appearance on the Gong Show, here you have no chance to make yourself understood.

No, suckerul, in those videos we see the waves as they splash onto the opposing shoreline, with the auther standing right on the beach itself.

No, the shot was taken from the beach; you are inventing arguments which cannot be true.

How could this be true on a round earth?

There should be an ascending slope, and a midpoint curvature present; but NO SUCH THING HERE:

A low angel picture will not show curvature, give it up.
Quote
You wrote:

I already forgot the drop per kilometer so I will trust your number.  Now here is some calculations for you. At 240m above the ground the horizon will be at a little less than 56 km away. The pictures are claimed to be at 53 km away. That puts the building within the horizon. So according to simple math, a person should indeed see the building on a round earth.  This also matches from what you actually said, a drop of 59m will be overcome by going up 240m as 240m-59m= 181m.  


sokarul, are you here after a few drinks? Is that the problem?

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND FROM TORONTO, IN SPITE OF A HUGE CURVATURE OF 59 METERS, 1/4TH OF THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS LOCATED (55 KM AWAY).

No such thing in these pictures (sorry Parsifal):

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg
I already pointed out the true horizon of the height above the ground the picture was taken is past the distance to the city.  You did not respond to this so give it up.

Quote
Here is the original story from Lake Michigan:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

I explained that the densities of both air and aether make it very difficult to actually see the view from Milwaukee from that distance.
You did not respond to what I said, give it up.  Air density gradients are what lead to mirages. 

Quote
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS INVOLVED? I THINK YOU DO NOT.

You cannot see the shape of buildings from Milwaukee/Racine from 128 km away.

You are the dumbest participant in these discussion EVER, sokarul!
Wow a mod calling me stupid. I really got you scared didn't I? I took one random post and reduced your beliefs to dirt. 

Quote
'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

According to one Coast Guard crewman, it is possible to see city lights across the lake at very specific times.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.

THE CURVATURE FOR 128 KM IS 321 METERS.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).
Give it up, it's from a website about mirages. 

Quote
YOU ARE NO SCIENTIST SOKARUL; THERE IS NO MIRAGE/LOOMING/ATMOSPHERIC REFRACTION PHENOMENON POSSIBLE TO MAKE YOU SEE A 40 METER BUILDING FROM 128 KM AWAY.
If I'm not a scientist what does that make you, a single cell organism? You are the one that is not a scientist. You take your information from a website about mirages and try to change the meaning. Give it up.     

Quote
So, this is what you promissed to be the bombshell you would bring here?

You haven't managed to bring a single rational argument in favor of the round earth hoax.
You quote one thing I said and ignored the rest.  Give it up.

Quote
THERE IS NO ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, please read:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35541
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542


Nothing to do with this argument. 

Levee it took me 30 minutes to disprove your entire belief. Your argument is not sound, false, deceiving, and flat out wrong. You post only shows how scared you really are.  You are like a dog hiding under the table.  No matter how many times you post your incorrect theory, it is still wrong.  GIVE IT UP.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #82 on: June 05, 2010, 07:56:35 PM »
I find it astonishing what pride and hubris the globularist mind can muster in the face of a staggering body of evidence - Sokarul, I think you will find that you are the only one who believes that you have "disproven [anyone's] entire belief" in less than 30 minutes.

As for all this nonsense about Europa and Mars, there are microbes on the Moon and the Sun, but there are no microbes on Mars. The Mars "landings" are a preposterous pulp fiction of globularism, none of the IrRational US Viking's secret NASA microbes have ever gone anywhere near Mars, they have been plopping down and beeping around on their little robot explorers in none other than the Earth's deserts.

Europa is a mythological construct of a hopelessly flawed globularist cosmology, I can't believe they've got you believing in giant round Moons made of water which are full of aliens. Science fiction has spilled over into the mainstream and is polluting normal scientific thought.

As for Sokarul's moderation queries, yes it is true, I believe I once banned you for posting in the Flat Earth forums, and I may do it again if he contravenes the rules very much. But in this flourishing debate, I think we can rest assured that as long as we remain on track we will find that everybody's posting can maintain the substance and integrity which is necessary.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #83 on: June 05, 2010, 08:44:10 PM »
I find it astonishing what pride and hubris the globularist mind can muster in the face of a staggering body of evidence - Sokarul, I think you will find that you are the only one who believes that you have "disproven [anyone's] entire belief" in less than 30 minutes.
It was actually quite easy. The trick is to attack every aspect of the persons argument.  After this is the correct debate technique. 
Quote
blah blah blah

As for Sokarul's moderation queries, yes it is true, I believe I once banned you for posting in the Flat Earth forums, and I may do it again if he contravenes the rules very much. But in this flourishing debate, I think we can rest assured that as long as we remain on track we will find that everybody's posting can maintain the substance and integrity which is necessary.
lol, opposed to the moderator calling me names?  Don't play favorites. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #84 on: June 05, 2010, 08:48:10 PM »
I find it astonishing what pride and hubris the globularist mind can muster in the face of a staggering body of evidence...

Funny, I could say the same thing about FE'ers.

As for all this nonsense about Europa and Mars, there are microbes on the Moon and the Sun, but there are no microbes on Mars. The Mars "landings" are a preposterous pulp fiction of globularism, none of the IrRational US Viking's secret NASA microbes have ever gone anywhere near Mars, they have been plopping down and beeping around on their little robot explorers in none other than the Earth's deserts.

If all of the Mars landings are fake, then how can you know that there are no microbes there?

Europa is a mythological construct of a hopelessly flawed globularist cosmology, I can't believe they've got you believing in giant round Moons made of water which are full of aliens.

Who said that?  Last I heard, scientists believe that conditions on Europa may be compatible with life.  That's a far cry from declaring that the waters of Europa are full of aliens.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #85 on: June 06, 2010, 05:56:55 AM »
sokarul, it took you a FULL 30 MINUTES to write a few sentences? You are certainly improving...

You wrote:

A low angel picture will not show curvature, give it up.

You mean, of course, ANGLE and not angel, who knows what you had in mind...

Let me remind you of the facts.

From that beach in Spain (and we are located right on the beach itself) you should see an ascending slope, and midpoint curvature of some 3.3 meters. But in the photograph, as in the second video, the surface of the water is completely flat all the way to Morocco, we can see all the details from the other side.

Here is the second video, FROM THE SAME SPOT AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


You also wrote:

I already pointed out the true horizon of the height above the ground the picture was taken is past the distance to the city.  You did not respond to this so give it up.

But I did respond exactly to your point, for I wrote myself:

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND FROM TORONTO, IN SPITE OF A HUGE CURVATURE OF 59 METERS, 1/4TH OF THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS LOCATED (55 KM AWAY).

You do not understand what is going on.

We should see, on a round earth, a huge curvature of some 59 meters, that is, one fourth of the altitude itself (240 meters). And I ascended to 240 meters just to show you how easily it is to demonstrate that there is no curvature at all over Lake Ontario.

No such curvature is seen in any of the pictures, just a completely straight, flat surface of the lake.


You are making up quite a few things, in those 30 minutes it took you to struggle to respond...

Here is what you wrote:

You did not respond to what I said, give it up.  Air density gradients are what lead to mirages. 
Give it up, it's from a website about mirages. 


Are we to understand you no longer know what you are reading?

There is NO MIRAGE PAGE present in the story from Lake Michigan, here is the full story itself:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

PLEASE WAKE UP, sokarul!!!

Over a distance of 128 km, you cannot see anything, not now, not ever, from the other side of Lake Michigan.

The visual obstacle itself, some 900 meters in the case of Milwaukee, and some 1040 meters in the case of Racine, makes it impossible to see ANYTHING; no refraction formula, no looming phenomenon can do that for you.

Let us know, again, read what those residents from Holland actually saw:


'I said to my friend that it can't be a boat because it was a big rectangle with lights on either side of it,' Kanis said Tuesday. 'So we kept watching, and it didn't move.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.


YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WISCONSIN, FROM HOLLAND MICHIGAN, PERIOD!!!

No such thing possible on a round earth, given the immense visual obstacle.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


So-karul, this is the situation over Lake Michigan; please do your homework, and stop posting nonsense...

*

sokarul

  • 18150
  • Discount Chemist
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #86 on: June 06, 2010, 08:06:55 AM »
sokarul, it took you a FULL 30 MINUTES to write a few sentences? You are certainly improving...

You wrote:

A low angel picture will not show curvature, give it up.

You mean, of course, ANGLE and not angel, who knows what you had in mind...

Let me remind you of the facts.

From that beach in Spain (and we are located right on the beach itself) you should see an ascending slope, and midpoint curvature of some 3.3 meters. But in the photograph, as in the second video, the surface of the water is completely flat all the way to Morocco, we can see all the details from the other side.

Here is the second video, FROM THE SAME SPOT AS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH:

The Barbarians, hosted by Terry Jones

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-811260411880444286&q=barbarians+terry+jones&total=22&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1#

Between 38:28 - 38:35, we can see clearly ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE ALL THE WAY TO MOROCCO...the surface of the strait is completely flat...


You also wrote:

I already pointed out the true horizon of the height above the ground the picture was taken is past the distance to the city.  You did not respond to this so give it up.

But I did respond exactly to your point, for I wrote myself:

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO THE FIRST SIGNS OF LAND FROM TORONTO, IN SPITE OF A HUGE CURVATURE OF 59 METERS, 1/4TH OF THE ALTITUDE AT WHICH THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS LOCATED (55 KM AWAY).

You do not understand what is going on.

We should see, on a round earth, a huge curvature of some 59 meters, that is, one fourth of the altitude itself (240 meters). And I ascended to 240 meters just to show you how easily it is to demonstrate that there is no curvature at all over Lake Ontario.

No such curvature is seen in any of the pictures, just a completely straight, flat surface of the lake.


You are making up quite a few things, in those 30 minutes it took you to struggle to respond...

Here is what you wrote:

You did not respond to what I said, give it up.  Air density gradients are what lead to mirages.  
Give it up, it's from a website about mirages.  


Are we to understand you no longer know what you are reading?

There is NO MIRAGE PAGE present in the story from Lake Michigan, here is the full story itself:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg979424#msg979424

PLEASE WAKE UP, sokarul!!!

Over a distance of 128 km, you cannot see anything, not now, not ever, from the other side of Lake Michigan.

The visual obstacle itself, some 900 meters in the case of Milwaukee, and some 1040 meters in the case of Racine, makes it impossible to see ANYTHING; no refraction formula, no looming phenomenon can do that for you.

Let us know, again, read what those residents from Holland actually saw:


'I said to my friend that it can't be a boat because it was a big rectangle with lights on either side of it,' Kanis said Tuesday. 'So we kept watching, and it didn't move.

'As twilight deepened, there were more and more lights.'

Bringing out a pair of binoculars, Kanis said he was able to make out the shape of some buildings.

'With the binoculars we could make out three different communities,' Kanis said.

Currently a Coast Guard crewman stationed in Holland, Todd Reed has worked on the east side of Lake Michigan for 30 years and said he's been able to see lights across the lake at least a dozen times.


YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING FROM MILWAUKEE/RACINE WISCONSIN, FROM HOLLAND MICHIGAN, PERIOD!!!

No such thing possible on a round earth, given the immense visual obstacle.

The home of the Holland (MI) resident is located right next to the beach itself (Lakeshore Drive), therefore we can take an altitude of 5-10 meters for the deck of his residence, from where he saw the views.

And, National Service Service meteorologist J. Kowaleski said that on that Monday night the sky was clear.

With a visual obstacle of at least 1068 meters, there is NO WAY that the shapes of buildings from Milwaukee (and two other communities) could be seen from 128 km away.

One of those communities is Racine, Wisconsin, where the tallest building (County Court House) measures some 40 meters in height, so we can increase the visual obstacle by at least 140 meters (tallest building in Milwaukee = 183 meters).


So-karul, this is the situation over Lake Michigan; please do your homework, and stop posting nonsense...
Since you responded without actually responding I'm going to just say "Mirage". 


« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 08:10:02 AM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #87 on: June 06, 2010, 07:03:43 PM »
I find it astonishing what pride and hubris the globularist mind can muster in the face of a staggering body of evidence - Sokarul, I think you will find that you are the only one who believes that you have "disproven [anyone's] entire belief" in less than 30 minutes.

As for all this nonsense about Europa and Mars, there are microbes on the Moon and the Sun, but there are no microbes on Mars. The Mars "landings" are a preposterous pulp fiction of globularism, none of the IrRational US Viking's secret NASA microbes have ever gone anywhere near Mars, they have been plopping down and beeping around on their little robot explorers in none other than the Earth's deserts.

May I ask what makes you say the Mars landings are bullshit?

Trolling makes me angry.

*

The Question1

  • 390
  • Your logic is inferior to my logic.
Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #88 on: June 06, 2010, 07:48:02 PM »
I find it astonishing what pride and hubris the globularist mind can muster in the face of a staggering body of evidence - Sokarul, I think you will find that you are the only one who believes that you have "disproven [anyone's] entire belief" in less than 30 minutes.

As for all this nonsense about Europa and Mars, there are microbes on the Moon and the Sun, but there are no microbes on Mars. The Mars "landings" are a preposterous pulp fiction of globularism, none of the IrRational US Viking's secret NASA microbes have ever gone anywhere near Mars, they have been plopping down and beeping around on their little robot explorers in none other than the Earth's deserts.

May I ask what makes you say the Mars landings are bullshit?
It comes from an agency that disproves FEH,therfore it is part of the conspiracy.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 07:55:14 PM by The Question1 »

Re: A Challenge to the Flat Earth Theory
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2010, 03:05:10 AM »
I still want my evidence.  And don't say "Conspiracy, blah" until you tell me how they faked it.

Trolling makes me angry.