### Poll

#### What is the correct distance from the earth to the moon  and the size of the moon ?

Flat Earth Measurements Of (Exact ?) 15 KM Distance /  600 M Diameter of the moon
Round Earth Measurements By  Ham Radio (approximately ? ) 237, 150 Miles Distance / 2,150 Mile Diameter of the moon
Some Other Measurements Such As The FE 3000 Mile  Distance / 30 Mile Diameter of the moon

# Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.

• 549 Replies
• 120616 Views
?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #120 on: May 06, 2013, 01:20:15 PM »
It could be.

It is called bibliographical references, for your information; any well-presented paper will include other works which do support the view expressed by the author.

Perhaps you have been reading up on someone else's messages: I only present the very best of the most profound views on quantum physics, as you should know by now.

It is very simple. You cannot trust radio wave measurements, because radio waves are ether waves as I have been proving all along for the past 3 pages or so.

Light, in ether wave theory, is A VARIABLE, and is not constant.

Therefore, to calculate a distance properly, you need to know the exact influence of the aether density upon the ether wave which travels through the aether, then and only then one might make a reasonable calculation.

You can correctly measure the distance Earth-Moon (the Black Sun to be more exact) by using the photographs taken in Antarctica by F. Bruenjes, and which have been abundantly presented in my messages.

But more basically you shouldn't trust what you have been taught about radio waves for a more profound reason: Einstein based his entire theory of relativity on the truncated (mutilated) Maxwell equations, in fact he expressly says that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations.

I will now bring to your atttention another bibliographical reference:

If Einstein had had electromagnetic theory in quaternions, the scalar "vacuum pressure" parts would have been there for him to ponder.  It is highly probable that he would have captured the "electromagnetics-to-gravity conversion remainder" in the quaternion interactions.
If so, he would have written the full theory of general relativity, involving local violation of conservation of energy, a unified field theory, and the direct engineering of gravitational and antigravity effects on the laboratory bench by electromagnetic means.

In other words, the quaternion approach captures the ability to utilize electromagnetics and produce local curvature of spacetime, in an engineering fashion.  Heaviside wrote a subset of Maxwell's theory where this capability is excluded.

This means that one has now produced a scalar wave that represents the local variation of spacetime curvature in an oscillating manner .
Rigorously this is a gravitational wave.  It has been produced locally.  It has been produced by Maxwell's original unified theory.
Again, I have called this area scalar electromagnetics.  The Soviets call it energetics.
Where local spacetime curvature is varied, conservation laws (energy, conversation, etc.) need not hold.  Curved one way, the local spacetime acts as a source (of energy, charge, etc.)  Curved the other way, the local spacetime acts as a sink (of energy, charge, etc.)
The Soviets often do not utilize the same restricted kind of general relativity that Western scientists adhere to.
Soviet papers in general relativity regularly point out the complete and unrestricted theory, where local spacetime curvature is allowed.  They also point out that all conservation laws may be violated by such local curvature.  Thus the Soviets have no unduly dogmatic respect for conservation laws.
Further, by assuming the possibility of local spacetime curvature, Soviet scientists have assumed the possibility of direct experimentation with general relativity on the laboratory bench.
In the West, we have assumed that such cannot possibly be done, because of Einstein's limiting assumption of no local spacetime curvature.  Thus Western physicists are strongly conditioned away from electrogravitation.

Let me stress this fact most strongly.  After Maxwell's death a single man - Oliver Heaviside - directly altered Maxwell's equations, eliminating localized electrogravitation and producing the form of the theory taught throughout the West today as "Maxwell's theory."
Maxwell's theory has never been taught in Western universities!  Only Heaviside's crippled subset of the theory has been taught!

Then, shortly before the turn of the century , a short, sharp "debate" erupted in a few journals - mostly in the journal Nature.  Only about 30 scientists took part in the "debate."

It wasn't really much of a debate!  The vectorists simply steam- rolled right over the remaining quaternionists, sweeping all opposi tion before them.
They simply threw out the remaining vestiges of Maxwell's quaternion theory, and completely adopted Heaviside's interpretation.
Thus, a little over a decade later when Einstein wrote his general relativity theory , he did not know that the original work of Maxwell already indicated the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics, and indicated the ease with which local spacetime could be electrogravitationally curved locally and engineered.
Accordingly, he placed the scientists of the West on a road which rigorously assumed that a unified field theory was yet to be discovered.  It also strongly discouraged any experimentation aimed at curving local spacetime, for it assumed that such could not be done.

Thanks for the (relatively) concise summary. However your "bibliographical references" don't really carry much weight as far as I can see since they usually are obscure, fringe opinions that may or may not be nutters. It seems the only references you trust are ones that are outdated, or attempt to upset the status quo. There's nothing wrong with dissenting opinions, but they are not necessarily correct just because they buck the trend.

I don't see why this "Black Sun" business gives you a better distance measurement to the Moon. And I couldn't see anywhere an actual measurement based on this theory. Can you just tell me what the distance is supposed to be?

As for the "mutilated" Maxwell's equations, isn't there a reason why the truncated version is used? Perhaps the original was unecessarily complicated? Again, just because it was changed from the original doesn't mean it is now wrong. You seem to be fixated on very early rudimentary theories and somehow conclude that only the original version could be right. This happens all the time in physics, as I understand it, because the theory is improved upon the original.

Since you seem to know precisely where Einstein went wrong, I am not sure why you spend your time on this forum instead of writing a paper on it. Have you submitted any of your findings to physics journals? If not, why not? If yes, what journal and what was the result? Do you realize that your claims imply that you are smarter than many of the (reportedly) greatest physicists of all time? Do you think that your really do have the answers everyone is looking for, but the scientific community just can't handle it? I mean, really, what exactly is your deal Sandokhan?
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #121 on: May 06, 2013, 09:13:39 PM »
The "Black Sun" business gives you a very precise proof that there are no 384,000 km between the Earth and the Moon:

Here is why and how T. Henry Moray, Townsend Brown, Nikola Tesla and many more were eliminated from the official science textbooks.

"Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous - especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors."

A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed.

One of the most recent [suppression stories] comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.

What electrical engineers work with today, is a subset of a higher-topology EM. The four "Maxwell's Equations" taught today in electrical engineering are actually an over-simplified subset of Maxwell's original work. The pruning was done by Oliver Heaviside in the late 19th century; Heaviside took Maxwell's original equations, written in Hamilton's quaternions (related to what we nowadays call spinors), and "simplified" them by lopping off the scalar part of the complex numbers, leaving the easy-to-work-with vector part intact-- which radio engineers loved.

When Heaviside threw out the scalar part of the quaternionic EM equation, he unknowingly threw out the possibility of unifying gravitation with electromagnetism-- which has been a holy grail for scientists since Einstein himself wrestled with the problem. That's because the scalar part of the quaternion was the part that captured or modeled the "stress on the aether"-- which leads to curving/warping spacetime a la Einstein. We CAN unify gravity with EM, and convert back and forth between them, if we understand how vectors and scalars relate to one another and what the ramifications are.

Scalar waves were originally detected by a Scottish mathematical genius called James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) He linked electricity and magnetism and laid the foundation for modern physics, but unfortunately the very fine scalar waves (which he included in his research) were deliberately left out of his work by the 3 men, including Heinrich Hertz, who laid down the laws taught for physics as a discipline at colleges. They dismissed Maxwell's scalar waves or potentials as "mystical" because they were physically unmanifest and only existed in the "ethers" and so were determined to be too ineffectual for further study. These enigmatic (but more powerful than even microwaves when harnessed and concentrated into a beam) scalar waves may have been forgotten except that Nicola Tesla accidentally rediscovered them. He'd originally worked with Thomas Edison who discovered direct current, but Tesla discovered alternating current. The two men disagreed and eventually parted ways and Tesla later experimented using the research of the German Heinrich Hertz, who was proving the existence of electromagnetic waves. Tesla found, while experimenting with violently abrupt direct current electrical charges, that a new form of energy (scalar) came through.

Everything we have been taught about STR and GTR comes from Einstein's unproven hypothesis that the speed of light is constant and he says he learned of this aspect from Maxwell's TRUNCATED equations.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #122 on: May 06, 2013, 11:05:20 PM »
No matter how many times you post those pictures Sandokhan, you still fail to make a point.

And of course we are back to the history lesson that you have already repeated ad nauseum. I see you are bringing Tesla back into it as well. Believe me, I think Tesla is great but he's not the answer to everything.

Whether we are missing something important from Maxwell's original treatise I can't tell. What is clear is that Heaviside's reformulations have been a great benefit to electrical engineering, and the truncation of the scalar hasn't caused any problems from that standpoint.

You skipped over my other questions about the status of your theory. Have you published, or submitted? By your silence on the subject I am guessing not. Could this be because your theories are actually just unpublishable nonsense? Seems quite likely to me, but what do I know, I still think the Earth is round.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #123 on: May 06, 2013, 11:27:37 PM »
We can tell immediately what we are missing from the original Maxwell equations.

Here is the theory.

... In discarding the scalar component of the quaternion, Heaviside and Gibbs unwittingly discarded the unified EM/G [electromagnetic/ gravitational] portion of Maxwell's theory that arises when the translation/directional components of two interacting quaternions reduce to zero, but the scalar resultant remains and infolds a deterministic, dynamic structure that is a function of oppositive directional/translational components. In the infolding of EM energy inside a scalar potential, a structured scalar potential results, almost precisely as later shown by Whittaker but unnoticed by the scientific community. The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

"As a result of this artificial restriction of Maxwell's theory, Einstein also inadvertently restricted his theory of general relativity, forever preventing the unification of electromagnetics and relativity. He also essentially prevented the present restricted general relativity from ever becoming an experimental, engineerable science on the laboratory bench, since a hidden internalized electromagnetics causing a deterministically structured local spacetime curvature was excluded.

Nikola Tesla -- the literal inventor of modern civilization (via the now worldwide technology of "alternating current") -- experimentally anticipated "Whittaker's interfering scalar waves" by finding them in nature; from massive experimental radio transmitters he had built on a mountain top in Colorado, he was broadcasting and receiving (by his own assertion) "longitudinal stresses" (as opposed to conventional EM "transverse waves") through the vacuum.

Here are the proofs of the theory.

The effect of Maxwell's scalar waves component which completely contradict both Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein’s Relativity -- have been confirmed in a series of remarkable laboratory experiments carried out over 30 years ago by Dr. Bruce DePalma.

The most classic of these, dubbed “DePalma’s Spinning Ball Experiment,” involved the simultaneous ejection, via an angled spring mechanism, of two steel “pinballs” – one non-rotating, and one spinning at 27,000 rpm.  As DePalma himself described it:

Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control, with the same initial velocity, and then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control, presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore not-understood results of other experiments (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general [can explain this effect]….”

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the “normal” rules of all the physics we’ve been taught!

Again, this is not “theory”... this is the result of careful, repeated laboratory experiments -- carried out by a world-class physicist from MIT and Harvard.

Are you going to call Dr. Bruce DePalma's work nonsense?

Professor Francis Nipher supplies experimental evidence that gravitational attraction can not only be suspended or nullified by the electrical current, but it actually can be transformed into "gravitational repulsion"!

http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

Very carefully performed experiments which confirm that electricity alters the gravitational force upon a body thus confirming Maxwell's scalar part the original quaternionic equations: the unification of terrestrial gravity with electromagnetism.

I have carefully explained why any papers which contradict Einstein will not be accepted by the official establishment of science.

Maxwell's original equations mean that Einstein presented a woefully inadequate theory, where the speed of light is a constant, a hypothesis unproven to this day.

Maxwell's original equations mean a solid theoretical basis for ether/scalar waves.

Maxwell's original equations mean that terrestrial gravity is a force due to the pressure exerted by these ether waves.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 11:29:43 PM by sandokhan »

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #124 on: May 07, 2013, 04:46:43 AM »
DePalma's work stated that the Newton equations were a special case which can only be applied to non-spinning objects.  He found no reason to throw out the notion of gravity as it is thought of today, though I'm sure you'll find a way to say he did.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #125 on: May 07, 2013, 06:21:39 AM »
DePalma's spinning ball experiment represents a flagrant violation of Newton's laws: for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball weighed less.

The historical figure known as Newton never mentioned anything about attractive gravity, on the contrary: he believed that terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure exerted by the ether waves (letters to Halley, Bentley, Oldenburg).

Nipher's experiments show clearly that terrestrial gravity is related to electricity.

Maxwell's original equations tell us that electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity are one and the same physical force.

Now, let us unite biohomochirality, terrestrial gravity, and Whittaker's "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field due to Electrons by means of two Scalar Potential Functions" (1904).

Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves".

As we have seen from the Secret World of Magnets work, the magnetic field is composed of two opposing current orbiting in opposite directions and the latest research discovered magnetic monopoles (subquarks).

http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/9060/fourmagnet.jpg

One of the currents has a dextrorotatory spin, the other has a laevorotatory spin.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA structure, describes this strange characteristic of the molecules of living organisms:

It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature.  For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids.  Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms bacteria, molds, even viruses are found to have been made of L-amino acids.

Living tissue (with the exception of some bacteria) contains only L-amino acids (laevorotatory-left handed); dead tissue only D-amino acids (dextrorotatory-right handed).

Therefore, terrestrial gravity is represented by the dextrorotatory strings of receptive subquarks; antigravity comes into play once we can activate the laevorotatory strings of emissive subquarks (by torsion, sound, applying high electrical tension).

In DePalma's spinning ball experiment, the nonrotating ball was subject ONLY to the dextrorotatory ether waves while the rotating ball additionally attracted the laevorotatory ether waves (the antigravitational waves) thus producing the startling result.

A Lorentz transformation is an unfortunate product of Hendrik Lorentz‟s misunderstandings regarding the subject of electromagnetism, and these misunderstandings led to even greater misunderstandings when Albert Einstein got unto the job. Neither Lorentz nor Einstein seemed to have been aware of the contents of Maxwell‟s original papers, while both of them seemed to be under the impression that they were fixing something that wasn‟t broken in the first place. In doing so, Einstein managed to drop the luminiferous aether out of physics altogether, claiming that he was basing his investigation on what he had read in the so-called „Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space‟! But whatever these Maxwell-Hertz equations might have been, they certainly can‟t have been Maxwell‟s original equations. This is a tragic story of confusion heaped upon more confusion.

The aether was a crucial aspect in the development of Maxwell‟s equations, yet in 1905, Albert Einstein managed to impose Galileo‟s „Principle of Equivalence‟ upon Maxwell‟s equations while ignoring the aether altogether. The result was the abominable product which is hailed by modern physicists and known as „The Special Theory of Relativity‟. Einstein himself knowing that something wasn‟t right with his special theory of relativity, attempted to make amends in 1915 with his „General Theory of Relativity‟. But he only made things worse by virtue of spiking Newton‟s law of gravity with his toxic special theory of relativity. In later years, judging from his Leyden speech in 1920, Einstein realized that the aether was indeed needed after all, but by this time it was too late, because he already had a following.

(F. Tombe, Maxwell's Original Equations)

Over the next two decades Maxwell’s theory was accepted and advanced by others, notably Oliver Heaviside, Heinrich Hertz, and Hendrik Lorentz. Heaviside championed the Faraday-Maxwell approach to electromagnetism and simplified Maxwell’s original set of 20 equations to the four used today. Importantly, Heaviside rewrote Maxwell’s Equations in a form that involved only electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell’s original equations had included both fields and potentials. In an analogy to gravity, the field corresponds to the gravitational force pulling an object onto the Earth, while the potential corresponds to the shape of the landscape on which it stands.

If Einstein had had electromagnetic theory in quaternions, the scalar "vacuum pressure" parts would have been there for him to ponder.  It is highly probable that he would have captured the "electromagnetics-to-gravity conversion remainder" in the quaternion interactions.
If so, he would have written the full theory of general relativity, involving local violation of conservation of energy, a unified field theory, and the direct engineering of gravitational and antigravity effects on the laboratory bench by electromagnetic means.

In other words, the quaternion approach captures the ability to utilize electromagnetics and produce local curvature of spacetime, in an engineering fashion.  Heaviside wrote a subset of Maxwell's theory where this capability is excluded.

When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 06:27:19 AM by sandokhan »

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #126 on: May 07, 2013, 06:41:13 AM »
You're continually addressing a small portion of a post and then moving on to other concepts without addressing the rest and posting walls of text.  DePalma shows that Newton's equations do not work for spinning objects, that is evident.  He states that they are special case equations, meaning they apply under specific circumstances.  He not once states that our current view of gravity is wrong.  Stop avoiding points such as the question of how far away is the moon by your calculations using the Antarctic black sun?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

#### Puttah

• 1860
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #127 on: May 07, 2013, 06:53:25 AM »
Given any interesting topic of discussion such as that of the spinning ball experiment's results automatically becomes dull and boring with the same old baseless conclusions made by the FE community.

"Oh look! Subjecting an object to extreme conditions gives us results we weren't expecting - everything about science must be wrong!"
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #128 on: May 07, 2013, 06:58:02 AM »
On the contrary, I addressed your message in the best way possible by demonstrating what actually happened during the spinning ball experiment: the nonrotating ball was subject ONLY to the dextrorotatory ether waves, while the rotating ball additionally attracted laevorotatory ether waves.

Moreover, I linked biohomochirality to terrestrial gravity.

Please read about Francis Nipher's experiments, which were part of the whole message I posted: it was meant to tell the reader (you in particular) that terrestrial gravity is completely linked to electricity.

I also included the extraordinary diagrams from the Secret World of Magnets, which DO PROVE that a magnetic field is composed of two opposing currents, flowing in opposite direction.

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

An object at rest, the nonspinning case, is subject ONLY to dextrorotatory ether waves (which cause inertia) - a spinning object (ball) will additionally attract the other type of ether wave, the laevorotatory wave which provides the antigravitational effect.

It is as simple as that.

?

#### Puttah

• 1860
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #129 on: May 07, 2013, 07:03:44 AM »

Hasn't the Michelson-Morley experiment already concluded that the ether does not exist within their constraints? I mean, they were in search of it to quantify the medium in which light travels through, and they failed to find anything.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #130 on: May 07, 2013, 07:10:31 AM »

Hasn't the Michelson-Morley experiment already concluded that the ether does not exist within their constraints? I mean, they were in search of it to quantify the medium in which light travels through, and they failed to find anything.

Oh but you're forgetting Miller's experiment which showed a "significant" effect but had no error estimates and was largely susceptible to environmental factors.  One person showing its existence versus everyone else not showing it and it not being shown again sense means that the one person is right.  We should do sando a favor and publish his findings for him.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #131 on: May 07, 2013, 07:11:36 AM »
puttah, wake up and go back to sleep.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/EinsteinsRelativityScientificTheoryOrIllusion.pdf (chapters 5-10)

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #132 on: May 07, 2013, 07:22:26 AM »
Your memory has failed you dd.

Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)

And here is James DeMeo response to T. Roberts POORLY conceived article:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489653.html#msg1489653

Galaev's ether-drift experiments used both visible light and
radiowaves, and "confirmed Miller down to the details". And from
there, as I show, the sidereal-hour variations in Miller's
determinations match very precisely to Bernabei's determinations on
seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" -- another word for
ether-drift, in my view. So only from a superficial knowledge of this
issue, it appears there are quite a few scientists making nearly
identicial "systematic errors". It is one thing to claim, a guy with a
compass in his shaking hand can hardly tell where the needle is
pointing, but if he and a half-dozen others all point to the same
general location, in spite of shaking hands, it might pay to do more
than simply dismiss the issue. But there's other good reason to

The tests in Cleveland would very likely have produced a signal far
below that of the Mt. Wilson experiments, given the effect of altitude
-- higher altitudes produce higher ether-drift velocities, as
documented by Galaev. Therefore, whatever your critique of the
Cleveland 1927 experiments were, they would not apply, or apply only
less-so to the Mt. Wilson experiments of 1925-26. You cannot presume
to assert the "signal to noise" levels were the same for both sets of
experiments. That's an unproven assumption.

I must disagree that your DSP method
will ever critically undermine Miller's findings, if only because my
points above cannot be overcome by purely statistical arguments. If
Miller's four different seasonal epochs had yielded four different
points in the heavens, four different axes of ether-drift, then surely
a rejection of his work would be fully in order and legitimate. But I
encourage you to look again at Figure 2 in my Miller paper.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
This shows Miller's data organized firstly by sidereal hour, and
secondly by civil clock time. By sidereal hour, there is a distinct
pattern in the data, one which appears to be robust enough even to
same data is organized by civil clock time, the pattern vanishes. This
is the issue which you need to address, and it will not be defeated
with DSP methods.

?

#### Puttah

• 1860
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #133 on: May 07, 2013, 07:30:26 AM »
Rather than read some articles which I won't be able to fully appreciate or refute without extensive study, can I just say that I'm already smelling crackpottery amongst the ranks.

I've just been conditioned that way. I appreciate the work ethic and scrutiny physicists put into conducting experiments and formulating results, and for me to come onto a flat Earth forum and to be told - for the first time in my life - that the well known MM experiment is critically flawed is beyond belief. You'd think physicists would have looked closely enough at this crucial experiment and not have been forced because of its results to deviate down a whole new path of physics.

In fact, considering that you have an agenda to put forth - mainly being that you are convinced that Einstein is wrong, and possibly have a further ultimate goal of proving the Earth is flat - stamps a big "nutty" sign across your forehead.

Finally, if the MM experiment actually is faulty, this does not prove the ether exists, but rather doesn't disprove it.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #134 on: May 07, 2013, 07:38:19 AM »
The question of what is the distance to the moon is still being avoided.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #135 on: May 07, 2013, 07:51:34 AM »
On the contrary, I addressed your message in the best way possible by demonstrating what actually happened during the spinning ball experiment: the nonrotating ball was subject ONLY to the dextrorotatory ether waves, while the rotating ball additionally attracted laevorotatory ether waves.

Moreover, I linked biohomochirality to terrestrial gravity.

Please read about Francis Nipher's experiments, which were part of the whole message I posted: it was meant to tell the reader (you in particular) that terrestrial gravity is completely linked to electricity.

I also included the extraordinary diagrams from the Secret World of Magnets, which DO PROVE that a magnetic field is composed of two opposing currents, flowing in opposite direction.

The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

An object at rest, the nonspinning case, is subject ONLY to dextrorotatory ether waves (which cause inertia) - a spinning object (ball) will additionally attract the other type of ether wave, the laevorotatory wave which provides the antigravitational effect.

It is as simple as that.

Again with the spinning ball that has already been explained satisfactorily without the use of the unnecessary ether concept. Saying it multiple times does not make it true.

As far as the Maxwell equations go, that is really interesting and I'd like to get to the bottom of it, although I don't think Heaviside did anything wrong per se. Despite the fact that you are posting endless text walls containing a combination of fringe science and conspiracy theories, on the Flat Earth Society Forum, mostly to no one but yourself, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. It may be that you really are an unsung hero of physics, because there is no doubt that if you are right you are going to revolutionize the science completely. However I can't understand why you continually dodge this very simple question of whether you have or intend to publish in a journal. I urge you to because I'd like to see the response from someone who's more qualified than I am to judge your work. If you don't respond this time I'm going to have to conclude that you are in fact some kind of crank.

Black Sun/Moon distance - come one man, this is the thread topic, why don't you just give an answer? Can you at least explain why you think those pictures you keep posting are meaningful? It just looks like an eclipse photo, though it is a very striking one. Nothing about it makes me doubt the accepted Moon distance, and nothing in the photographer's report mentions anything unusual other than the remote location. The ball is still in your court with this one.

Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #136 on: May 07, 2013, 08:50:37 AM »
puttah, do yourself a favor and read, perhaps for the first time, about the unbelievable, catastrophic, gross, unimaginable mistakes committed by both Michelson and Morley: it is, by far, the worst catastrophe of physics of the 19th century.

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (it starts with the History Revisited section and then to the end)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

Michelson and Morley couldn't have gotten it more wrong.

Ether waves are subquark strings which flow in double torsion motion. They cause the phenomenon called biohomochirality which cannot be explained by official physics.

The subquark strings are also what is currently callled a magnetic field.

Electricity is a flow of bosons through the aligned subquark strings in a conductor. These strings activate by resonance similar strings which flow in space, they will become the magnetic field of the conductor. All matter is composed of subquarks arranged in different configurations: baryons, mesons, quarks.

A proton is made up of NINE laevorotatory subquarks - an electron is actually comprised of NINE dextrorotatory subquarks (called now preons).

However, modern science has mistakenly named a SINGLE dextrorotatory subquark as an electron and has ascribed THE TOTAL charge of the NINE corresponding subquarks as the total negative charge of a single electron, thus confusing the whole matter.

A single photograph is enough to shatter any RE illusions:

(Fred Bruenjes, Antarctica, 2003)

No 384,000 km between the Moon and the Earth, not by a long shot.

The Moon and Sun both orbit at an altitude of some 15 km above the Earth.

Since terrestrial gravity is due to the pressure of the dextrorotatory ether waves, and planetary gravity is due to the rotational movement of ether waves there must a shield/barrier between the two: this is the Schumann cavity.

The whole set of the photographs in Antarctica:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385488.html#msg1385488 (F. Bruenjes, being conditioned by maintstream science, does not realize the unbelieavable discrepancy between the 384,000 km figure and the few hundred km between himself and the Black Sun)

The ISS solar/lunar transit videos: a complete confirmation of the photographs taken in Antarctica:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385207.html#msg1385207 (watch each video and convince yourselves)

The only fringe science is Heaviside's truncation of the original Maxwell equations.

Nothing wrong you say?

According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death (from cancer), excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.

In a tragedy for science (if not for society in general) whose outlines we are only now beginning to appreciate, after Maxwell's death, two other 19th Century "mathematical physicists" -- Oliver Heaviside and William Gibbs -- "streamlined" Maxwell's original equations down to four simple (if woefully incomplete!) expressions. Because Heaviside openly felt the quaternions were "an abomination" -- never fully understanding the linkage between the critical scalar and vector components in Maxwell's use of them to describe the potentials of empty space ("apples and oranges," he termed them) -- he eliminated over 200 quaternions from Maxwell's original theory in his attempted "simplification."

This means, of course, that the four surviving "classic" Maxwell's Equations -- which appear in every electrical and physics text the world over, as the underpinnings of all 20th Century electrical and electromagnetic engineering, from radio to radar, from television to computer science, if not inclusive of every "hard" science from physics to chemistry to astrophysics that deals with electromagnetic radiative processes -- never appeared in any original Maxwell' paper or treatise!

Let us go back to the DePalma experiment.

DePalma and his assistants were experts for photograph recording of high speed motions. In 1974 they studied parabolic curves of bodies thrown upward, using ball bearings and catapults. Ball bearings were put into rotation before start and also not-rotating likely objects were used for comparison. In 1977 these experiments were repeated by most precisely working equipment and Bruce DePalma published paper entitled ´Understanding the Dropping of the Spinning Ball Experiment´. His astonishment clearly is expressed, e.g. by this section:

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non- rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general.

It CANNOT be explained without the ether concept: the flagrant violation of Newton's laws, means that for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball actually weighed less.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.

I am not planning at the present time to publish papers; I have debated with many PhDs, MEs, MS, all of which had to acknowledge the existence of ether waves.

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #137 on: May 07, 2013, 08:53:08 AM »
Sandokhan-What is the source of this photo?  It looks like there is an odd blue aura around the person in the image, like it was snipped from another photo.  I am not sure, and anyone please pipe in, but it looks like the sun was just coloured in or something.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #138 on: May 07, 2013, 09:00:24 AM »
rama, how many times have we gone through this before?

I left the link with the full set of photographs especially for these kinds of questions.

No one here has ever been able to explain the unbelievable photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes.

Additionally, you have at your disposal the ISS solar and lunar transit videos.

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #139 on: May 07, 2013, 09:14:16 AM »
I find it incredible that Felix Baumgartner could have reached a height of almost 40 km and not notice he was over 20 km above the Sun.  Wow.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #140 on: May 07, 2013, 09:21:42 AM »
Sandokhan-What is the source of this photo?  It looks like there is an odd blue aura around the person in the image, like it was snipped from another photo.  I am not sure, and anyone please pipe in, but it looks like the sun was just coloured in or something.
rama, how many times have we gone through this before?

I left the link with the full set of photographs especially for these kinds of questions.

No one here has ever been able to explain the unbelievable photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes.

Additionally, you have at your disposal the ISS solar and lunar transit videos.

It needs no explanation other than the one Bruenjes himself gives (emphasis mine):

Quote
The framed image below is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like. I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful. (For an unprocessed single image click here, or here for a detailed explanation of how the image was created.) In the processed image the coronal streamers and polar brushes really come out.

Sandokhan, this is frankly embarrassing. And again, no calculation or anything else to support the 15km figure.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### Rama Set

• 6877
• I am also an engineer
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #141 on: May 07, 2013, 09:25:52 AM »
Even odder that thousands of flights everyday go to altitudes of 13kms and never notice a change of angular diameter in the sun or moon much less the 300% change you would expect at that altitude. I've never seen it in the 30 odd flights I have taken in my life.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #142 on: May 07, 2013, 09:36:35 AM »
I have already debated in half a dozen of threads which brought up amateur rockets, high-altitude balloons/jumps.

Amateur Rockets

Actually, the way this altitude is measured is the following: According to RRS member Bill Claybaugh (1996, alleged 50 mile altitude reached), "this altitude was estimated from a image of the entire Black Rock Desert taken near peak using known distances between geographic features".

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

Altitude verification for the rocket will be primarily based on signals from an onboard Trimble GPS receiver. Backup will come from accelerometer data, and then from the video camera, which is oriented so that the curvature of the Earth can be viewed, recorded, and later measured to estimate the altitude.

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure. A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist starting at about 12 km in altitude and going to about 15 km, and which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance actually travelled by the radar wave.

Watch the ISS solar/lunar videos and convince yourself that F. Baumgartner could not have jumped from an altitude bigger than 12-14 km.

All GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of some 10-14 km using Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device  as an energy source.

shmeggley, it is embarrasing to you to try this kind of thing here, especially with me.

HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

To the doubters: this is a real image, I was really there and that's what it really looked like. Interestingly, people who have never seen a total solar eclipse think it's fake, while people who HAVE seen a total eclipse (particularly those with me in Antarctica) think I got the image exactly right!

Now, for a single photograph, this one:

F. Bruenjes: I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful."

The essential features of the photographs were NOT changed: the size of the Black Sun, and of course, the distance to this heavenly body, which does cause the solar eclipse.

Same distance as in the first photograph, same diameter of the heavenly body in question.

TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED BY ANY RE.

These photographs invalidate immediately the fairy tale invented by LRS and Nasa: no 4,800 km diameter for the Moon, no 384,000 km distance from Earth to the Moon.

Again here is the original image/photograph of the solar eclipse:

Watch the ISS solar/lunar transit videos and convince yourself that everything you have been told is completely false.

No commercial flight goes above some 8 km, read the first paragraphs of this message. Remember how altitude is measured using ether waves, the closer you get to the Schumann cavity the more distorted the signal will be.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #143 on: May 07, 2013, 09:48:36 AM »
Sandokhan, I can see you think this is really profound, but I will repeat: No matter how many times you post these pictures you are still wrong.

You have said in your other posts that this proves the Moon cannot be as far away as we think, because - and that's where you stop, other than to say "it would look completely different". Why? You claim that the Moon (or Black Sun) and Sun are exactly the same size? How is this even possible? Then the Moon would have to appear larger than the sun. Put two equal sized spheres one in front of the other in front of your face, and tell me how an annular eclipse could ever be possible!

You say that Baumgartner could have been as high as 14km, 1km away from the Sun and Moon? And you are supposed to be some kind of genius? That's it for me. You are uneducatable. You need help. You probably need to be medicated. Do you hear voices by any chance? I'm not even joking.

As funny and interesting as this is, it's an exercise in futility to argue with you, I can see that now.

I guess I should close out by saying that even if you were right about the speed of light being variable (and you are totally not right), you still haven't refuted the point that we can measure the distance to the Moon by radio waves, since neither Maxwell's original equations nor the reformulations show that light could slow down enough to be wrong about the distance by 5 orders of magnitude.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 10:08:13 AM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #144 on: May 07, 2013, 10:08:15 AM »
Can you provide the names, specialties, and formats of the debates you have supposedly had with these PhDs, MEs, and MSs? I also see nothing wrong with the ISS transit on how it shows the sun can't be large and far away. Please explain why it shows this.  And you also fail to explain the lack of very obvious angular size differences in the sun between the ground and high altitudes such as planes and jumps such as Baumgartner's.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #145 on: May 07, 2013, 10:14:48 AM »
I am trying to tell you the truth about the real world, not the fantasy world you have been believing in, up until now.

You have already seen how the original Maxwell equations were truncated; in their original form they provide the theoretical basis for the ether waves.

Light is a variable and is not constant, therefore any radio signal will be distorted, increasingly as we get to the edge of the atmosphere, up to the Schumann cavity.

There are five stars/planets which do have the same diameter: the Sun, the Moon, the two heavenly bodies which do cause the solar, respectively the lunar eclipse, and Jupiter.

The reason the Black Sun covers the diameter of the Sun completely is because is it located very close to the Sun, right in front of it, beyond the Schumann cavity.

They are NOT SPHERES, but disks; the Sun and Black Sun are discoidal in shape.

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

Here is the full set of videos ISS solar/lunar videos, convince yourself that FB jumped from only a 10-12 km altitude:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]ISS in front of the Sun

NO 149,000,000 KM BETWEEN THE SUN THE ISS

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#ws]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

SAME THING, SLOW MOTION

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun

ATLANTIS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">International Space Station (ISS) crosses the moon

ISS TRANSIT IN FRONT OF THE MOON, SAME DISTANCE AS IN THE SUN-ISS VIDEOS

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]ISS in front of the Sun

ISS IN FRONT OF THE SUN

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]Mercury Transit With Jets 11-8-2006

MERCURY IN FRONT OF THE SUN, SAME DISTANCE/SIZE AS IN THE ISS VIDEOS

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]Mercury transit across the face of the Sun

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]ISS Crosses The Moon

ISS CROSSES THE MOON

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">#]ISS Crosses The Moon

This is the REAL world: the Sun has just a 600 meter diameter (compare with the Bruenjes photos), and orbits at an altitude of some 15 km above the flat Earth.

To convince yourself the Earth is flat, read about the Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London.

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #146 on: May 07, 2013, 10:21:04 AM »
Still avoiding multiple questions while presenting new information instead.  Come on man, you can do better than that.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

#### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 6506
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #147 on: May 07, 2013, 10:33:42 AM »
No avoidance, I became aware of your previous message, only after I posted mine.

There have been at least 2 PhDs here, and several with MS and ME, search for it, also search in the .net site (3Tesla was one of them, if I recall correctly). See also the Beam Neutrinos thread opened by bowler.

You really have a nerve to ask innocently: what is wrong with the videos?

The official distance Earth - Sun is some 149,000,000 km.

NOTHING of the sort in the videos: perhaps at most some hundred meters separating the Sun and the ISS/Atlantis (unmanned of course). Watch especially the slow motion video.

We are told that the Sun has some 1,4 million km in diameter, in the videos it has just some hundreds of meters in diameter, compare with the Bruenjes photographs.

This is the real world, like or not: the Sun has some 600 meters in diameter and orbits at some 15 km above the Earth.

You are going to have to explain better what you were trying to convey about the planes, FB and the Sun, provide some photos if necessary.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 10:35:55 AM by sandokhan »

#### DuckDodgers

• One Duck to Rule Them All
• 5203
• What's supposed to go here?
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #148 on: May 07, 2013, 10:40:20 AM »
The apparent size of the sun would necessarily be much larger the higher your altitude.  There would be a very noticeable difference between commercial flights and the ground.

How can you determine that you aren't seeing a large very distant sun transit versus a small near sun transit? Nothing in the video points to either necessarily being true.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

?

#### Shmeggley

• 1909
• Eppur si muove!
##### Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
« Reply #149 on: May 07, 2013, 10:44:43 AM »
No avoidance, I became aware of your previous message, only after I posted mine.

There have been at least 2 PhDs here, and several with MS and ME, search for it, also search in the .net site (3Tesla was one of them, if I recall correctly). See also the Beam Neutrinos thread opened by bowler.

You really have a nerve to ask innocently: what is wrong with the videos?

The official distance Earth - Sun is some 149,000,000 km.

NOTHING of the sort in the videos: perhaps at most some hundred meters separating the Sun and the ISS/Atlantis (unmanned of course). Watch especially the slow motion video.

We are told that the Sun has some 1,4 million km in diameter, in the videos it has just some hundreds of meters in diameter, compare with the Bruenjes photographs.

This is the real world, like or not: the Sun has some 600 meters in diameter and orbits at some 15 km above the Earth.

You are going to have to explain better what you were trying to convey about the planes, FB and the Sun, provide some photos if necessary.

So, in the REAL world, the Sun has an angular diameter of about 2.3 degrees? Are you sure about that?
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:09:44 PM by Shmeggley »
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?