Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

"real"scientist, I told you to do your homework...

All experiments, prior to 1960, have received criticism. In the official science, the Einstein shift is said to have been verified by the Pound-Rebka experiment.


But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

See the discussion here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/04/recovering_the_lorentz_ether_c.html



Dayton Miller's experimenta data proves clearly the existence of the telluric currents (see my previous messages here), also known as ether.


Einstein clearly agreed for the data to be falsified; certainly he knew what was going on, both in 1919 and in 1922.

Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

But Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.

If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.

This is not a rebuttal of anything. If I say that the laws of physics are just so that the experiments give the results I want, but do not say what are the new laws are in such a way that most previous predictions are repeatable, I am just fooling myself.

It is absolutely true that some set of new theories will someday replace the current one (unless we have already reached the limits of human intellect). But saying that some change in these theories (in this case the speed of light) gives us a better theory, without saying what the new theory is, gives us nothing.

Real scientists are researching scenarios with variable speed of light, with variable gravitational constants, with and without strings, and so much more. But the existence of incipient hypothesis does not take away anything from the currently accepted theories.

You are NO realscientist.

Here is the complete demolition of the "theory" of relativity (special/general).


There is no such thing as the space-time continuum.

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'


Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').


During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein’s statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: “If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.”


G.F. Riemann introduced the additional variables as a supporting theory for his logarithm branch cuts, NOT ever to present time as a new variable.



http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Geom/WKCGeom.html

the abstract concept of n-dimensional geometry to facilitate the geometric representation of functions of a complex variable (especially logarithm branch cut). 'Such researches have become a necessity for many parts of mathematics, e.g., for the treatment of many-valued analytical functions.'

Never did he think to introduce TIME as a separate dimension or variable.

How was this done?

In contrast Riemann’s original non-Euclidian geometry dealt solely with space and was therefore an “amorphous continuum.” Einstein and Minkowski made it metric.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...


Both Kozyrev and Barbour showed clearly that time cannot be represented by a single variable:

Kozyrev - Barbour theory, Non-uniform time:

http://physicoschronos.org/pdf/poliakov.pdf]

http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Kozyrev/paper1a.txt

KOZYREV, TIME TORSION AND AETHER:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081010174600/http://divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=30


Julian Barbour - End of Time - Nows, time capsules

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_p1.html

http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/barbour.html

Julian Barbour - Killing Time documentary:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#



On the concept of dimension used by Minkowsky:


http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z5Inconsis.html

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/01Math/05Dim/04Z3Proof.html


The grievious mistakes and errors committed by Lorentz, in the Lorentz transformations:


http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.html



EINSTEIN HIMSELF ON THE ABSURDITY OF THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM CONCEPT:

Einstein, following Minkowski, welded space and time together into what critics have called ‘the monstrosity called space-time’. In this abstract, four-dimensional continuum, time is treated as a negative length, and metres and seconds are added together to obtain one ‘event’. Every point in the spacetime continuum is assigned four coordinates, which, according to Einstein, ‘have not the least direct physical significance’. He says that his field equations, whose derivation requires many pages of abstract mathematical operations, deprive space and time of ‘the last trace of objective reality’.


EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html

This whole wall of blabber deserves just one comment: It is a continuous, unending appeal to authority. It is not even worth reading.

My previous message demonstrates quite clearly that the space-time continuum hypothesis is just a hoax.

Minkowsky used a simple sponge to erase the X4 variable in Riemann's multiple variable approach to his logarithm branch cut theory, and replaced it with T (time).

The comments made by Nikola Tesla are very pertinent:

Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.


Moreover, Minkowsky had no idea what TIME actually is (a function of torsion, as we have seen from Kozyrev's experiments), and arbitrarily INVENTED a space-time continuum, with NO connection to reality.

Minkowski's four-dimensional space was transformed by using an imaginary (√-1.ct ) term in place of the real time ( t ). So the coordinates of Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Continuum, ( x1, x2, x3, x4 ) are all treated as space coordinates, but were in fact originally ( x1, x2, x3, t ) or rather ( x1, x2, x3,√-1.ct ), therefore the 4th space dimension x4 is in fact the imaginary √-1.ct substitute. This imaginary 4-dimensional union of time and space was termed by Minkowski as 'world'. Einstein called it 'Spacetime Continuum'. In fact, Minkowski never meant it to be used in curved space. His 4th dimension was meant to be Euclidean dimensions (straight), because it was well before the introduction of General Relativity. Einstein forcibly adopted it for 'curved' or 'None Euclidean' measurements without giving a word of explanations why he could do it. In fact, if there was an explanation Einstein would have given it. Yet, this was how 'Time' became 'Space' or '4th dimensional space' for mathematical purpose, which was then used in 'Spacetime Curvature', 'Ripples of Spacetime' and other applications in General Relativity, relativistic gravitation, which then went on to become Black Hole, etc., ...



The very best works which show the monstruous, collossal, catastrophic mistakes committed by Einstein in deriving his GTR/STR.



EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://users.scnet.rs/~mrp/contents.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor
Minkowski‟s cerebral and mathematical imagination.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



http://web.archive.org/web/20071010075248/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (superb documentation)




EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html

And yet another wall of blabber?

Everything you are saying is great if it gives us a new set of theories that explains most of what the current theories explain, and also solves anomalies in current theories.

If you can show that your debunking of current theories gives us a new and improved set of theories, then please show me the new set.

Otherwise, if all you are saying is that some people do not like some theories, both from Einstein and elsewhere, do not work so hard. We all know that good and bad physicists are trying to find new theories and will tell us about them when they demonstrate them. In the case of the bad physicists, they will fill us with blabber and you will parrot it, and we will still see walls of blabber and ignore them.

Levee all you've done so far is waffle. I've seen no causal link to what your trying to say and the point you're trying to make.

I've read a few sentences of your last post and thought so what? And then stopped reading and skimmed the rest becuase it came up on my troll radar.

I don't agree, or can't agree, with what you've said because you've not actually explained anything properly.

As the famous quote goes.

“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple.”

― Woody Guthrie

Simplify what you're saying, if you can't do that then I find it hard to believe you understand what you're talking about.

This whole wall of blabber deserves just one comment: It is a continuous, unending appeal to authority. It is not even worth reading.

Unfortunately this is accurate.

Levee,

You would make a fantastic archetypical highschool policy debater where the general goal is to flood your opponent with dubious or unrelated information and try to link it together to something it doesn't actually link to, but so long as your opponent doesn't take the time to pull apart every single one of your ridiculous analogies you'll try to claim a solid victory. 

Most amature policy debaters could "link" anything you can think of to causing nuclear war through similar tactics as your posting habits.  It's not remotely true and no one sane is going to take the time to go over how many things Tesla got wrong and were proven to be so repeatably among other bits of your drivil as a more seasoned debater would simply blanket challenge the credability or the source and relevance and dismiss the random unlinked mess for what it is.

All we have to do is look at your immediate response:
______________________________________________

Levee:
solmyre, where did you learn physics?

I originally wrote:

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.  (this specifically in response to Ski's concept of centripetal forces)

Levee:
From Galileo Was Wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.
___________________________________________

So you take an obscure reference...and somehow try to twist it around and apply it to contradict simple laws of rotational kinetics which are easily observable and repeatable by anyone?  As if your following statements somehow apply or even have solid supporting evidence and controlled studies. 

Slinging insults while telling people to "do their homework" as you dig up random one-off articles from sources like "nexus magazine" that frequently have zero direct relevance and/or no repeatable studies etc. is laughable.

I am curious what you do for a living as you are more intent on theory crafting it seems than anything else.  I'm going to wager it doesn't involve designing things that actually have to work and behave correctly in the real world. 

I learned and was asked to tutor physics at the University of Minnesota...where did YOU learn physics?


Ski had the good grace not to deflect and walk off half cracked tangents when I asked how far away his FE model suggests the stars are (I say his only because there is not one model that all FErs ascribe to so I can not assume that Ski's FE model is the same as Thork's etc.).

You lack this ability and believe that loading a page with anything you can dig up makes for a strong case.

Yet despite your rambling blather you have yet to concisely or directly link, much less refute, practically anything. 

So please, specifically, explain to me how rotational kinetics, such as what the design of the flywheel of your car (assuming you have one) is based on, or any of the discussion of molecular kinetics (relating to general gas behavior), or chemical interactions described by myself or real scientist, or particle setteling behavior are innaccurate. 

If your response is to link another obscure reference to someone else's "work" that is either not directly related, from a completely ridiculous source, and/or covers no actual studies carried out beyond generic theory crafting (not unlike your own) then just like you choose to pretend standard laws of physics do not exist, I will come to understand that your ability to grasp the actual workings of the subject matter does not exist.

I'd also like you to answer the question that Ski did not.  How close are the other stars and planets according to your FE model?  Ski said they are much closer than modern astrology models paint them to be.  How close?  How was this determined?

Please use the search function; you will find the photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes in Antarctica, and the ISS/ATLANTIS solar transit videos in my messages.

You (and the others) have not been able to bring a single argument to debate anything relating to what I have written.

My bibliographical references are the very best, as you should that realize by now; please inform us OF ANY mistakes Nikola Tesla ever made, you will not be able to find any, this alone shows your ignorance, the fact that my references took you by surprise and are unable to answer to the specific points.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



Again, solmyre, please do your homework, you obviously have no idea about the world you live in, consider yourself fortunate enough to find out and explore the very best bibliographical references you have chosen to ignore until now.

Please use the search function; you will find the photographs taken by Fred Bruenjes in Antarctica, and the ISS/ATLANTIS solar transit videos in my messages.

You (and the others) have not been able to bring a single argument to debate anything relating to what I have written.

My bibliographical references are the very best, as you should that realize by now; please inform us OF ANY mistakes Nikola Tesla ever made, you will not be able to find any, this alone shows your ignorance, the fact that my references took you by surprise and are unable to answer to the specific points.



In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

Dayton Miller's extraordinary experiments proved clearly the existence of the telluric currents (ether drift), thus contradicting the disastrous concept of space-time continuum, which nobody can take seriously.



Again, solmyre, please do your homework, you obviously have no idea about the world you live in, consider yourself fortunate enough to find out and explore the very best bibliographical references you have chosen to ignore until now.

Some of your references are about as reliable as the national enquirer, its not that they are "surprising" just unsubstantiated.  People have stopped bothering debating what you are writing because you fail to apply it correctly or it simply doesn't relate to the topic at hand such as the example I gave.  What's the point of conversing with you when you can't actually converse correctly.  They make a comment on x and you come back with quotes and information about a b and c and claim therefore that x is wrong even though you're barking up any tree but the one discussed or simply get things wrong outright and refuse to acknowledge dead obvious errors when you are specifically called to question on it.


Tesla...you mean like his thoughts on x-rays that were grossly off the mark...or his multitude of failed projects?  He was a great person with brilliant insights, especially for the times he lived in.  But to claim he was infallable continues with your utterly juvenile approach to things.



You've had opportunities to clarify repeatedly or condense and focus to the topics at hand.  You refuse to do so and you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond what suits you personally.  This includes ignoring direct responses and then making claims that you were never responded to.  This makes you a waste of time and effort. 

The sad part of all this is, you've proven you don't even understand what I or the "others" are trying to explain to you and probably are rationalizing this somehow as a victory in your head.

Good luck at life.  I won't be wasting further words on you (short of a miraculous transformation in your approach to things). 

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results "the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." Miller's experiments produced
consistently positive results as we have seen here:

Once more, the only game you are playing is one of appeal to authority, and a very twisted one at that. Whether true or not, this comment from Einstein is worth nothing to Science. Science is made from experiments and observations, not from cult to figures of authority. And Miller's experiments are just some of many, almost all of them demonstrating Einstein's Relativity.

Your analysis of Dr. Tesla's work is as reliable as the national enquirer.

There were NO FAILED projects, no off the mark comments on the x-ray subject.

OBVIOUSLY, as I said before, you have not done your homework.

Let me do it for you.

http://timelines.com/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays


An exceptional summary of Tesla's work:


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tesla.htm

http://www.tfcbooks.com/



Now, solmyre, would you care to inform us of the failed projects you were talking about?



A single photograph is ENOUGH to bring your overly inflated ego back to its proper size.



http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394008.html#msg1394008 (many more photographs here)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394253.html#msg1394253

No 59 meter curvature, just a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario.


A single diagram is ENOUGH to shatter your illusions.




We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe.

There is no way anything could have been seen beyond a 400 km range in Tunguksa, on the morning of June 30, 1908.


Newspapers could be read at 0:15 in London; in Antwerp the glare of what looked like a huge bonfire rose twenty degrees above the northern horizon, and the sweep second hands of stopwatches were clearly visible at one a.m. In Stockholm, photographers found they can take pictures out of doors without need of cumbersome flash apparatus at any time of the night of June 30th.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394260.html#msg1394260

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394432.html#msg1394432



You have not been able to debate on any points I made here so far, especially on the Airy experiment (for example), a clear proof that the Earth is completely stationary.



Dayton-Miller's experiments are no appeal to authority: his experiments still stand today as a definite proof of the existence of telluric currents.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1398930.html#msg1398930

nice photograph! since we don't know at which height it has been taken, we have to discard it.

Careful guys. Argue with any of levee's beliefs and you're arguing with all of them, apparently.

I included the necessary references for the altitude of the photographer.

Indeed, no curvature whatsoever across Lake Ontario (55 km distance to Vinemount Ridge, 213 m altitude, we will ascend to 240 m - 59 meter curvature absolutely does not exist) - bear in mind the photographs were taken from a lower altitude, we ascend to 240 meters so that no questions will remain.






Photograph taken at Beamer Falls Conversation Area (some 45 meters in altitude - maximum height of cliffs some 110 meters - but we will ascend to 240 meters)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1393829.html#msg1393829


No curvature whatsoever, across a distance of 55 km...

Not this again.  It's already been brought up at a height of 240 meters you can see a little over 55kms.   A drop of 59 meters over a distance of 55,000 meters is a grade of 0.1 percent.  What are you expecting to see here is the question?

You cannot compare the distance with the CURVATURE itself.

The visual target can be seen in its entirety - with no ascending slope or midpoint curvature of 59 meters.

The surface of the lake is completely flat all the way to the other shore.







There is no curvature across lake Ontario.

Okay, I don't say this often, but Levee is completely right.

Also Ski is too. Why you bumpin', these threads FlatOrange?  We all miss Semperround and his jams, but you have to have to keep it current.  Start a new thread and link the old one if you think it's relevant.

My bad.  You said an altitude of 240m not a height.  Since the lake level is at about 75m that gives us a height difference of 165m.  Which would mean you could see about 46km out before your line of sight was obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.  Looking at google maps I see the distance is really closer to 53km than 55km between where this shot was taken and Toronto.  Still we should see some kind of obstruction of the buildings by the water. 

I know you're tired of hearing this but without some measurement of potential refraction this is still not an open and shut case.  I'd like to see this same shot taken in the winter and compare the difference.  We know these shots were taken in the spring or summer due to the green trees.

Do not confuse altitude ABOVE SEA LEVEL (the 75 meters you mentioned) with our measurements.

Vinemount Ridge, for example is 213 meters above the lake level (itself at an altitude of 75 meters above sea level), Beamer Falls Conservation Area at some 45 meters, and so on...the numbers I provided are 100% correct.

Well if you're talking a 240 meter height difference from the observer to the horizon then the shot from Vinemount Ridge looks exactly like we'd think it'd look using the RE model.  There would be no slope in the way.  You could see easily to the shoreline of Toronto with no curvature obstructing your view.  I can model this if you insist you should see something. 

The shot from Beamer Falls is more interesting, there should definitely be water blocking the view of the bottom of the buildings.  However we know there has to be some refraction going on.  The water that separates Grimsby and Toronto is some of the coldest of Lake Ontario, and the shot was taken in the summer.  So I'd expect thermal inversion to happen.

On a spherical Earth there MUST be a slope, otherwise you agree the Earth is flat.

You cannot use thermal inversion when we have clear photographs taken from some 240 m in altitude. Thermal inversion (looming) can be used as an argument in the case of eyewitness accounts who are located on the beach/shoreline of the point of observation; in the case of clear photographs, thermal inversion cannot make a 59 meter curvature simply disappear.

We can see the shoreline of Toronto NOT in spite of a 59 meter curvature, but in the absence of such a visual obstacle.



No ascending slope whatsoever, just a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario; no midpoint curvature of 59 meters.




Same thing.



No ascending slope whatsoever, none that can be seen; no 59 meter curvature in sight.


HOW would the surface of lake Ontario stay curved given the fact that there is no such thing as attractive gravity?

I. Newton dismisses the law of attractive gravity as pure insanity:

A letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.”

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.


Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Well if you're talking a 240 meter height difference from the observer to the horizon then the shot from Vinemount Ridge looks exactly like we'd think it'd look using the RE model.  There would be no slope in the way.  You could see easily to the shoreline of Toronto with no curvature obstructing your view.  I can model this if you insist you should see something. 

The shot from Beamer Falls is more interesting, there should definitely be water blocking the view of the bottom of the buildings.  However we know there has to be some refraction going on.  The water that separates Grimsby and Toronto is some of the coldest of Lake Ontario, and the shot was taken in the summer.  So I'd expect thermal inversion to happen.

I like your posts but there is one issue I would like you do address differently: in Science you do not reach out and get the absolute maximum information out of a dubious source unless there is no other. In this case the photographs were taken for aesthetic or touristic purposes and there are no accurate measurements to rely on, and much better experiments and observations are easily available.

Levee could go and get his own photos, measuring accurately the height above the water and more importantly designing a good experiment overall, but has not bothered to do so. He just googled Lake Ontario and looked for anything he could rant about.

In Science, if you ignore the quality of the information you get, you get nothing useful from it. As we say, garbage in, garbage out.

On a spherical Earth there MUST be a slope, otherwise you agree the Earth is flat.

You cannot use thermal inversion when we have clear photographs taken from some 240 m in altitude. Thermal inversion (looming) can be used as an argument in the case of eyewitness accounts who are located on the beach/shoreline of the point of observation; in the case of clear photographs, thermal inversion cannot make a 59 meter curvature simply disappear.

We can see the shoreline of Toronto NOT in spite of a 59 meter curvature, but in the absence of such a visual obstacle.

I'm not sure you get it.  At 240m there is no slope in the way.  There is still a slope for sure, but a line of sight calculation that can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-of-sight_propagation says I can see over 55km from a height of 240m without the Earth's surface getting in the way.  If you're arguing you don't notice any downward slope, I'd argue of course you don't as It's too slight to notice. 

As far as the one taken from the lower altitude I don't know.  Like I said I'd like to see that picture taken again around the same area in winter and compare the results.  That'd remove the question of a looming effect.  As far as looming only occurring when you're on the shore line I'd say is false.  It's a matter of where the thermal inversion is taking place, and to what extent it's taking place.

It is understood that from 240 meters there is no visual obsctacle (55 km) in the way, I never said anything else, or to the contrary.

What YOU do not get or understand, is that even from 240 meters, we MUST see an ascending slope, and a midpoint visual obstacle of some 59 meters, no such thing is present in the photographs.

You cannot erase a huge 59 meter curvature with your statements.



No ascending slope, a perfectly flat surface of the lake - the photograph does not show ANY midpoint curvature of 59 meters or any sign of curvature.

Now, a 59 meter curvature would equal the actual height of some of the condominiums in the following photograph:



No ascending slope, no curvature whatsoever.




The boat in the picture is not part of any ascending slope, no midpoint curvature of 59 meters, a perfectly flat surface of Lake Ontario.

Now let us go to Hamilton, some 60 km from Lakeshore Blvd. West:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream







(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)

No ascending slope, no visual obstacle of over 200 meters on the other side of the lake itself, no curvature whatsoever.

What YOU do not get or understand, is that even from 240 meters, we MUST see an ascending slope, and a midpoint visual obstacle of some 59 meters, no such thing is present in the photographs.

No, we don't.  There would be no ascending slope at a distance of 55km.  There would be a downward slope only.  You're operating on false assumptions or bad math.

I'm not sure why you even use this image.  It's obvious there is a mirage effect here as the Toronto skyline doesn't look like this.

You have tried one by one the following devices here:

A drop of 59 meters over a distance of 55,000 meters is a grade of 0.1 percent. 

You cannot compare the distance with the CURVATURE itself.


 You said an altitude of 240m not a height.  Since the lake level is at about 75m that gives us a height difference of 165m.  Which would mean you could see about 46km out before your line of sight was obstructed by the curvature of the Earth.  Looking at google maps I see the distance is really closer to 53km than 55km between where this shot was taken and Toronto.  Still we should see some kind of obstruction of the buildings by the water. 

Do not confuse altitude ABOVE SEA LEVEL (the 75 meters you mentioned) with our measurements.

Vinemount Ridge, for example is 213 meters above the lake level (itself at an altitude of 75 meters above sea level), Beamer Falls Conservation Area at some 45 meters, and so on.


Now, you are moving to this kind of bullshit:

 There would be no ascending slope at a distance of 55km.  There would be a downward slope only.

At a distance of 55 km, on a spherical earth we would see a midpoint (highest point) curvature obstacle of some 59 meters, following an ascending slope, and a descending slope to be complete.

Please show us where the ascending slope of the boat is in the following photograph:



Where is the midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters? The downward slope you are looking for? Tricks do not work with me...




Where is the midpoint maximum curvature of 59 meters, the downward slope all the way to the other shoreline? The area photographed is eastward of Toronto, as we can see clearly...

The same photographer did this one also:



No curvature whatsoever; then she moves eastward to take the previous photograph...



Hamilton, Lake Ontario, 60 km from Lakeshore W. Blvd.






http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream

(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)


Would you care to show us where the descending slope might be? Or any curvature for that matter?