The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sandokhan on February 09, 2008, 07:28:26 AM
-
The following photographs, taken by Thierry Legault and David Cortner (two of the most respected photographers) (shown on CNN and other massmedia outlets), offer the true distance from the Sun to the International Space Station (ISS)/Atlantis shuttle.
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
The Iss/Atlantis shuttle/station is maneuvered by remote control, with no astronauts aboard; it uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device (as do all the satellites, whether geosynchronous or orbital, to orbit above the earth).
Images which show how close to the Earth are the planets and the stars:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/v/0000r6ws_mvyca1xs.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/3/0000r6ws_y3vidb75.jpg (venus, mercury, saturn)
Orbits of stars around the North Pole:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/i/5/0000r6ws_i534vexn.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/p/0000r6ws_ppazeqe2.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/t/p/0000r6ws_tpq8hvfz.gif
-
Again, sorry to doubt you (read your Gravitons thing), but a few of those pictures look like someone drew on a yellow beach ball with a sharpie. Isn't the sun all fiery?
-
No, most of the images taken from SOHO satellite are false; Thierry Legault and David Cortner are two well known photographers who do not believe the flat earth theory; these images have been shown all over the massmedia, including CNN.
-
Wait, just to clarify, which pictures are you saying are fake: the ones you submitted, or the ones that show the sun as "all fiery?"
-
The ones I submitted are all photographed in real time. The SOHO satellite provides false pictures/images of the Sun.
Here is Legault's site:
http://www.astrosurf.com/legault/iss_atlantis_transit.html
(notice how he is mislead by the official Atlantis-Earth distance of 400 km; Atlantis only reaches about 25 km, if that much, it cannot reach further).
Here is Cortner's site:
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/
-
I'm interested to see what system you used to determine the distance in this photograph.
-
From where I stand, I think that about 148,999,600 km are missing from the picture, don't you think so?
These pictures show, and I think that you do agree, that we have been lied to as to the nature of the Earth-Sun distance. And who invented these distances for us? Why, of course, the same rosicrucians who gave us Kepler, Galileo, Newton and Hubble.
-
And yet you have no proof. There is no method in that photograph by which the distance can be measured. Until you prove that you can, you fail (http://www.youfail.org/).
-
Not at all; as you can clearly see, the Sun's diameter is much smaller than what is officialy accepted, and much closer than you think. I understand your argumentation, and where you want to go with it, but these photographs do tell the real story, and the truth about the Sun-Earth distance.
Please access that big bang impossibility link to see how your Sun could not possibly have formed in the first place; I think that you will find many surprises and interesting arguments there.
-
Interesting, yes. But of no consequence. Please, do show us, mathematically, why the sun cannot be as far away from these pictures.
-
Because, mathematically, the Sun could not be 148,999,600 km away from the ISS/Atlantis, given the relative sizes offered by the pictures. Also, you can see clearly that Mercury is the same size and at the same distance from the Sun as is the Atlantis, what does that tell you? Or you think that there are 69,000,000 km between the dark spot (Mercury) in the photo and the Sun?
-
Well, how does mercury, which according to your theory, orbits the sun above the earth, get between the sun and the earth to form this photo?
Do you think the sun is merely a few thousand meters behind the ISS?
-
Mercury and Venus both orbit the Sun. Together they orbit above the Earth with the other planets/stars.
Yes, as these photos show us, the Sun is just a few thousand meters behind the Iss; that the Sun is very close to the earth, and that is has the same diameter as the Moon (but the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse), was very well known from antiquity.
If you want to find out what causes both the solar/lunar eclipses, research the subject Black Sun.
-
The photos don't show us anything about distance. How about you prove me wrong.
-
They show that the distance between Sun-Mercury and Sun-Atlantis is about the same; and that their diameter is also the same, that is why they are so important.
I will offer here, soon, the proofs you need to find out how all the NASA/JPL missions were faked; also how, exactly, the space shuttle flights are faked.
-
They show that the distance between Sun-Mercury and Sun-Atlantis is about the same; and that their diameter is also the same, that is why they are so important.
I will offer here, soon, the proofs you need to find out how all the NASA/JPL missions were faked; also how, exactly, the space shuttle flights are faked.
No they don't.
-
I agree with Agent. There's absolutely nothing in those photos to suggest that the sun isn't massive and distant.
-
Firealox, very impressive (your comments).
These photographs show that the distance Sun-Iss, Sun-Mercury is about the same, and that the sizes of the space shuttle/planets (Mercury) are about the same. You might say otherwise, but they show you the real distance Sun-Earth, which is not the 149,000,000 km we have been lied to with. You might change your description from Rational to Sentimental.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
-
Firealox, very impressive (your comments).
These photographs show that the distance Sun-Iss, Sun-Mercury is about the same, and that the sizes of the space shuttle/planets (Mercury) are about the same. You might say otherwise, but they show you the real distance Sun-Earth, which is not the 149,000,000 km we have been lied to with. You might change your description from Rational to Sentimental.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
They show nothing of the sort. Explain to me how these photographs portray information about distance, or how a 3-dimensional situation can be recreated from a 2-dimensional image.
-
Look closely and carefully (remove your glasses). Then you will see that the distance Mercury-Sun, and ISS-Sun is the same (about the same), given that there is a dome between the Iss and Sun, while Mercury is on the other side, so to speak.
Same distance, same size; that's is why these Sun transits were so important, because once and for all we could see the real or true sizes and distances of Mercury relative to the Sun/Iss.
-
Look closely and carefully (remove your glasses). Then you will see that the distance Mercury-Sun, and ISS-Sun is the same (about the same), given that there is a dome between the Iss and Sun, while Mercury is on the other side, so to speak.
Same distance, same size; that's is why these Sun transits were so important, because once and for all we could see the real or true sizes and distances of Mercury relative to the Sun/Iss.
Different size, different distances. You haven't backed up this claim.
-
If you look closely, and get rid of your preconceived ideas regarding the sun-earth distance, you will find that the claim made by the flat earth society (a sun of 50 km in diameter, 32 miles) is very wrong; given that Mercury/Iss have about 50 m in diameter, it looks like the Sun actually has about 5 km in diameter, that is what these photographs show.
-
What? If they are sitting on the sun?
-
Look, Levee, in a 2D photo, size and distance are related to each other, the further something is aay the smaller it is. Since you cannot tell the distance in a photo, you cannot tell the size. Since you don't know the size, you cannot tell the difference.
Stop trying to fool us into thinking you can.
-
The official Nasa photographs have fooled you so far, not me.
Again, the sun is shown in these photographs to be much closer to Iss/Mercury than the official data/measurements; but if you believe what Nasa is showing you, given the Apollo missions and how they were falsified, you are free to do so.
-
You still haven't shown how you know the distances/sizes from these photos.
-
If you look closely, and get rid of your preconceived ideas regarding the sun-earth distance, you will find that the claim made by the flat earth society (a sun of 50 km in diameter, 32 miles) is very wrong; given that Mercury/Iss have about 50 m in diameter, it looks like the Sun actually has about 5 km in diameter, that is what these photographs show.
Oh my god, these clouds are bigger than the Sun!!!! (http://images.google.ca/url?q=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1354/916489071_73d2c1078b.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEw54V5oT4O09fTPJG9cTZUjqpltA)
-
Ah! They will surely devour us all!
Oh God, my hand is bigger than the sun!
-
Right On!!!...
(http://www.geocities.com/levelwater/sunrays-p.jpg)
-
That's a bit short..
who are you and what have you done with Levee?
-
The following photographs, taken by Thierry Legault and David Cortner (two of the most respected photographers) (shown on CNN and other massmedia outlets), offer the true distance from the Sun to the International Space Station (ISS)/Atlantis shuttle.
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers (or even less) in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
The Iss/Atlantis shuttle/station is maneuvered by remote control, with no astronauts aboard; it uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device (as do all the satellites, whether geosynchronous or orbital, to orbit above the earth).
Images which show how close to the Earth are the planets and the stars:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/v/0000r6ws_mvyca1xs.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/3/0000r6ws_y3vidb75.jpg (venus, mercury, saturn)
Orbits of stars around the North Pole:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/i/5/0000r6ws_i534vexn.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/p/0000r6ws_ppazeqe2.gif
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/t/p/0000r6ws_tpq8hvfz.gif
None fo those pictures are original. You cannot claim that mercury and the shuttle are at the same distances at they are not the same size. The stars rotating come from the fact that the earth is rotating making it look like the stars are moving. Different latitudes show different pictures while the south hemisphere, they move the other way
-
Thank almighty God some sense at last![/b]
Please explain to this Levee that you cannot tell distance from a photo.
-
levee, you are wrong... the sun is .5m in diameter, and 1.7m from the earth! See!!!
(http://www.uwm.edu/~kahl/Images/Weather/Optics/perspective.jpg)
-
This explains everything
-
sok, think well before you post...all the photographs are original, that's what makes them so nice...
Legault and Cortner were not the only ones who took images of the Transits, here are some more:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
Please read carefully the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article, read the message where you will find how our sun could not have attained a spherical shape...
These photographs show, once and for all, that the true distance Sun-Earth is much smaller than the one we have been given "officially"; and that the diameters of Mercury, respectively Venus, are about 50 m, and 75-100 m.
I appreciate your message...
-
These photographs show, once and for all, that the true distance Sun-Earth is much smaller than the one we have been given "officially"; and that the diameters of Mercury, respectively Venus, are about 50 m, and 75-100 m.
They show no such thing.
-
These photographs show, once and for all, that the true distance Sun-Earth is much smaller than the one we have been given "officially"; and that the diameters of Mercury, respectively Venus, are about 50 m, and 75-100 m.
These pictures only demonstrate perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29). Perspective dictates that smaller objects that are closer to you look larger when compared to larger objects at very far distances. An excellent example of this is you closing one eye and simply holding your thumb quite close to your eye while looking at a person 15m away. The two objects will look relatively the same size. Does this mean the person is the size of your thumb? No. Does this mean your thumb is the size of a person? No. Unless you have a ruler on the ground going to the person, and a ruler next to the person showing their actual height, you will never know their height from perspective alone.
-
(http://www.edugraphics.net/gu-universe/explore/posters/gu310-as.jpg)
I am entering this photograph as evidence that astronauts are much much larger than we are told. Look at that foot, it's like the size of Greenland.
-
Wow, no wonder we send them into space. They'd eat us all!
-
sok, think well before you post...all the photographs are original, that's what makes them so nice...
I'm saying they have been posted before.
Legault and Cortner were not the only ones who took images of the Transits, here are some more:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
I saw one with my own eyes.
Please read carefully the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article, read the message where you will find how our sun could not have attained a spherical shape...
These photographs show, once and for all, that the true distance Sun-Earth is much smaller than the one we have been given "officially"; and that the diameters of Mercury, respectively Venus, are about 50 m, and 75-100 m.
I appreciate your message...
There are many things the photos show. You cannot claim they show something when you have no idea. Just like the stars orbiting the north pole. A round earth would show the exact same thing.
I don't now much about the string theory but I know its probably wrong. As far as the big band theory. Things fit. I can't find your article nor do I really care. The new show, "The Universe" shows quite well how things were formed, the earth, moon, and the sun. And yes they do stay when things are only theories. Humans don't know everything.
-
I learned about the most fascinating thing today in preschool...
PERSPECTIVE.
-
As far as the big band theory. Things fit.
I agree. Glenn Miller was a genius.
-
Wow, no wonder we send them into space. They'd eat us all!
I can't believe I missed this post!
-
Michemus, your thoughts on perspective are very nice, and might apply somewhere else, not here, because here's the other half of the story (I posted intentionally only the Mercury/Venus transits, in my last answer, in order to see your thoughts, and they did not surprise me in the least...):
ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
As you all can see clearly (stop the complaining), the Sun is right behind the ISS/Atlantis station/shuttle (maneuvered by remote control, using Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device, as do all satellites), none of the 148,999,600 km distance can be observed; about the same distance (Sun-Planet) also in the Mercury/Venus photographs.
That is why the Mercury/Venus Sun transits were so important, because, for the first time, we could compare these photographs with the Iss/Atlantis images and see that the distances are about the same.
Michamus, please read the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article: http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
Eviltoothpaste, your mathematics and reasoning are impressive, but the average height of the White Cliffs is 90 meters (a maximum height of 91 meters); Cap Gris Nez, about 55 meters average height, with a maximum of 65 meters; the curvature over the English Channel is (remember the formula H = R (1 - cos{@/2}) ) 22.4 meters, which would be observable from a height of about 50-80 meters (if needed):
Now, the photograph which you have all seen here does not show any curvature whatsoever, not one inch, not one centimeter, between England (White Cliffs) and France (Cap Gris Nez); as I said already about three times until now, it only confirms what has been known for hundreds of years, that these cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, with no curvature in-between (you can see clearly the base of the cliffs):
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
The second photograph only confirms, from the Cap Gris Nez cliffs, what we know already to be the truth: no curvature whatsoever over the English Channel, none can be observed:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
Now, here are the White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez:
White Cliffs Dover:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/b/000e97gt_mby1jbez.jpg
Cap Gris Nez:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/w/m/000e97gt_wma7ffkv.jpg
Your only proofs of a round Earth scenario, are the Nasa Space Shuttle photographs and/or the Hubble Telescope photographs...in the article http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
you have at your disposal all the proofs you need (see also everything I wrote here about the impossibility of the formation of a spherical star/Sun) to see that the Hubble images are done on the computer, because none such galaxies/stars could exist in reality, also I will show you now how the space shuttle/hubble mission are actually falsified.
The space shuttle missions are falsified in two steps: there is a modified 747, which carries a complete replica of the crew quarters and cargo bay of a Shuttle; parabolic flights are executed with this airplane (5 minutes) in which the astronauts are in moments of weightlessness and pretend to be in outer space; after about 45 seconds from the shuttle take-off, the sounds we hear are no longer live, they are tape recorded.
Through television we are made to see things we do not understand so that we will believe things that are not true. Here is the most important point: the "live" pictures are actually done here on Earth, in the hangar located in New Mexico, where they switch off the lights, and the astronauts are suspended from cables, and pretend they are in outer space or that they are repairing the Hubble Telescope (also they have an exact replica of this there). The scenes we see on TV are combined by video-tape editing with images of a round Earth done on the computer.
The tell-tale clue to look for are the shadows visible inside the open cargo bay. Shadows in space tend to be sharp and harsh because there is no air to soften and diffuse them. The shadows we see in the video tapes on television are softer because they were not made in space. Also look at the angle of these impossible shadows. The Mir russian/soviet missions are falsified in the same way.
Newton, Galileo, Bruno, Koppernigk, Kepler, Hubble, Einstein were part of the same secret organization (Rosenkreuzer/Brotherhood of the Sun) that runs Nasa and all space missions (whether manned or unmanned).
Skeptic, planets are moved by a rotating ether field (called pravaha in Vedic Cosmology), a different force than the aetherical pressure which was substituted by Newton with an inexistent gravitational concept.
E=mc2 formula is absolutely false; energy comes from ether and not from the atom, there are plenty of formidable books which demonstrate once and for all that the disastrous formula conceived by Minkowski and copied by Einstein is completely false.
-
(http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/perspective_lines_king.jpg)
Damn, how do the trams stay on rails that get closer together like this?
-
(http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/perspective_lines_king.jpg)
Damn, how do the trams stay on rails that get closer together like this?
must be magic
-
Narf
-
My sig explains it all.
-
Change your name to Pinky please Jim, pretty please
-
I can't, I'm cutting my toenails.
-
Damn
-
Check and mate!
-
Michemus, your thoughts on perspective are very nice, and might apply somewhere else, not here, because here's the other half of the story (I posted intentionally only the Mercury/Venus transits, in my last answer, in order to see your thoughts, and they did not surprise me in the least...):
ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
As you all can see clearly (stop the complaining), the Sun is right behind the ISS/Atlantis station/shuttle (maneuvered by remote control, using Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device, as do all satellites), none of the 148,999,600 km distance can be observed; about the same distance (Sun-Planet) also in the Mercury/Venus photographs.
A 2D picture to show a distance does not work. You are posting the definition of perspective. You need to realize this.
That is why the Mercury/Venus Sun transits were so important, because, for the first time, we could compare these photographs with the Iss/Atlantis images and see that the distances are about the same.
Michamus, please read the Impossibility of the Big Bang/String Theory article: http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
Eviltoothpaste, your mathematics and reasoning are impressive, but the average height of the White Cliffs is 90 meters (a maximum height of 91 meters); Cap Gris Nez, about 55 meters average height, with a maximum of 65 meters; the curvature over the English Channel is (remember the formula H = R (1 - cos{@/2}) ) 22.4 meters, which would be observable from a height of about 50-80 meters (if needed):
Now, the photograph which you have all seen here does not show any curvature whatsoever, not one inch, not one centimeter, between England (White Cliffs) and France (Cap Gris Nez); as I said already about three times until now, it only confirms what has been known for hundreds of years, that these cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, with no curvature in-between (you can see clearly the base of the cliffs):
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
The second photograph only confirms, from the Cap Gris Nez cliffs, what we know already to be the truth: no curvature whatsoever over the English Channel, none can be observed:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
Now, here are the White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez:
White Cliffs Dover:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/m/b/000e97gt_mby1jbez.jpg
Cap Gris Nez:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/w/m/000e97gt_wma7ffkv.jpg
Your only proofs of a round Earth scenario, are the Nasa Space Shuttle photographs and/or the Hubble Telescope photographs...in the article http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
you have at your disposal all the proofs you need (see also everything I wrote here about the impossibility of the formation of a spherical star/Sun) to see that the Hubble images are done on the computer, because none such galaxies/stars could exist in reality, also I will show you now how the space shuttle/hubble mission are actually falsified.
There are many proofs, you just ignore them.
The space shuttle missions are falsified in two steps: there is a modified 747, which carries a complete replica of the crew quarters and cargo bay of a Shuttle; parabolic flights are executed with this airplane (5 minutes) in which the astronauts are in moments of weightlessness and pretend to be in outer space; after about 45 seconds from the shuttle take-off, the sounds we hear are no longer live, they are tape recorded.
Through television we are made to see things we do not understand so that we will believe things that are not true. Here is the most important point: the "live" pictures are actually done here on Earth, in the hangar located in New Mexico, where they switch off the lights, and the astronauts are suspended from cables, and pretend they are in outer space or that they are repairing the Hubble Telescope (also they have an exact replica of this there). The scenes we see on TV are combined by video-tape editing with images of a round Earth done on the computer.
There videos hours long, full of weightlessness. You cannot explain this.
The tell-tale clue to look for are the shadows visible inside the open cargo bay. Shadows in space tend to be sharp and harsh because there is no air to soften and diffuse them. The shadows we see in the video tapes on television are softer because they were not made in space. Also look at the angle of these impossible shadows. The Mir russian/soviet missions are falsified in the same way.
Not really. You are right there is no air but waves can go around corners to an extent. You cannot use shadows to say there is air.
Newton, Galileo, Bruno, Koppernigk, Kepler, Hubble, Einstein were part of the same secret organization (Rosenkreuzer/Brotherhood of the Sun) that runs Nasa and all space missions (whether manned or unmanned).
You know nothing of Newton do you? Go look to see where he is buried.
Skeptic, planets are moved by a rotating ether field (called pravaha in Vedic Cosmology), a different force than the aetherical pressure which was substituted by Newton with an inexistent gravitational concept.
There is still no proof of the aether. Liek I said, proof will get millions of Nobel Prizes.
E=mc2 formula is absolutely false; energy comes from ether and not from the atom, there are plenty of formidable books which demonstrate once and for all that the disastrous formula conceived by Minkowski and copied by Einstein is completely false.
In a lab you can easliy see how E=mc^2. Your simple statement does not disprove anything other than your ability to disprove anything.
Also thanks for ignoring everything else. Fe'ers often ignore me.
-
The Earth in itself consists of many rocks, many of which are composed of raisins. This in turn can lead to what some would call a flat earth, and what some would call a round earth. In conclusion, the Earth is basically a wad of dried grapes seasoned with sunshine sauce.
-
Mr. Sok, democracy is a wonderful thing, but just posting any comments, just to show off here, doesn't work you know...
I know the proofs A-Z of both sides of the table; you haven't read my messages which prove, once and for all, that no star could have formed in the first place, you ignore the fact the sun could not have a spherical shape (see the argument), you ignore the photographs presented here, made by tourists, and which show clearly absolutely no curvature on the surface of the Earth, between England and France.
There are multiple ways, since 1981, to fake the weightlessness (the parabolic flights were used 1981-1983); you ignore the fact that the cloud argument shows very nicely that the Earth could not possibly rotate around its own axis, you ignore the fact that the Round Earth scenario was invented by the rosicrucians, offering all the arguments you use here, through Kepler and Newton. I have shown that the gravitation concept was just an invention conveniently made by Newton, in order to fool the public with a round earth theory which did not exist. Just as they did with the Apollo missions, the same was done with the space shuttle trips; astronauts suspended from cables, pretending they are in space. The space shuttle missions are made-for-television space movies done here on Earth, in New Mexico...
Read carefully what I have written here; you have at your disposal the sites and the work of Tesla (ball lightning research), Kirlian photography re: aether detection; it has been discovered for over 100 years, but the rosicrucians run the show; behind the scenes, however, Tesla's results on the ether are used currently on all kinds of research re: implosion of the atom (from the physical world to the aetherical).
The books regarding E=mc2, the falsity of this equation, are all there; I read them, you have to find them; obviously, you have no credible arguments here, you have not studied nearly enough the aether physics, or for that matter, the hidden biographies of Newton and Einstein.
Think logically and critically when it comes to the information you are fed in the laboratory and on TV; research much more these subjects, and then you will be in a position to come here and respond.
Until then, look over the photographs from Cap Gris Nez, and the Venus/Iss Sun transits images; they prove to you that you have no idea about the Universe you live in; you have been taken in and deceived by arguments which do not stand a chance when scrutinized carefully.
Stop making statements like ""the aether has not been discovered" or "E=mc2 is proved in the lab"; you haven't researched this subject for even 10 minutes; you will find, if you are correct about this, all the proofs (see the links I have offered here re: ether detection, for starters) you need to see how wrong your arguments are; nobody is running away from you, especially when you have only weak arguments to post here when it comes to ether/E=mc2...
I have read the debate at the FE sun discussion between Singularity and Tom Bishop.
The five sun paradoxes, faint young sun paradox, sun neutrino paradox, coronal heating paradox, cold sun paradox, and solid sun surface paradox, show clearly that the source of energy for the sun cannot possibly be nuclear or electric (of course, if you have read already the impossibility of the big bang article, you know that no star could have formed in the first place from the big bang/string theory, even if we take in consideration just the Helium Gap 5 argument); our sun is a gigantic reflector (let's say about 5 km in diameter, as the Venus/Iss images clearly show), having a solid surface covered by a plasma layer, its source of energy being the Central Sun which orbits the central mountain I have mentioned already. All ancient texts mention clearly that the light and energy for the visible Sun comes from this Central Sun located next to the Meru/Sion/Olympus mountain at the North Pole. These texts also mention how the Sun actually orbits above the Earth, between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, and nature of the mechanism which drives it.
No debate about the sun's origin/energy source can take place, without a clear understanding of the five sun paradoxes...
-
Ok, Mr. Sok, you asked for it...here is all the information you need to see how your idol, Einstein, dissapears before your eyes, into the aether...
The formidable book which exposes the unimaginable errors committed by Einstein, the fake scientist:
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html
One of the most extraordinary books which also shows the mistakes/errors (it contains also the falsification of the crucial 1919/1922 experiments):
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
(other valuable information, variable speed of light)
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p14s03-bogn.html
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages12/103.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html (one of the very best sites)
http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.collectmyflock.com/CollectMyFlock/pages/20--00__THE_DECEIVER_ALBERT_EINSTEIN__3--PART_SERIES__000.html (supersite)
http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
einsteinfiles
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm
missing dopler effect/relativity theory errors
http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html
photon: fact or fiction?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf
Did Einstein cheat?
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf
supersite
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/44738
Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?
http://www.johnpeckscience.com/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
Einstein's Misconceptions of Space and Time
Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.
-
And Mr. Sok, when you stop working in the lab there, do some serious research about how the original J. Maxwell e/m/ether equations were cut down to include just e/m, without the ether vortices...you might learn something...
What? You said something about aether?
The scientific community now looks at the vacuum energy, another name for ether energy. The Ether name is one to be avoided in the physics industry, unless you wish to lose your job or grant money. Now it is called the vacuum energy, therefore they do not have to admit they made a mistake years ago when they wrote ether off as 'nonexistent.'
The scientific community found 'free' energy floating around in a vacuum, which they called vacuum energy. The concept is simple: in outer space there must be a medium for light to pass from the stars, because of the wave theory of light. To have waves, there must be a medium. If you throw a rock into a pond, it makes waves. If there is no water in the pond, mud does not make waves. Simply put: SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!
Contrary to current views, the greatest scientists (physicists, philosophers) of history believed that Space must exist to necessarily connect matter and its interconnected motions.
Here are quotes, Mr. Sok, from the genius of your caliber, Einstein, about the ether:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)
The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
(A. Einstein, 1920) [note: So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory.]
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:
Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...
Nikola Tesla discoveries:
http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/tesla.htm
www.pritchardschool.com/novustesla.html (on google search)
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xphysics.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/radiant_energy.htm
At the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, that vacuum which is considered by current scientific theories as a void or a state of nothingness can ever generate energy out of its own substratum. As per modern physics while 'absolute vacuum' or 'space' can no doubt transmit electromagnetic energy, in the absence of universal matter and its associated energy fields, there can be no energy-content that is ‘reality’ in space. The concept of ether filling all space and atoms as 'vortices of ether' introduced by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and developed to a great extent by the close of 19th century found no favour in the early 20th century. Though the domain of reality was extended from matter to energy by Einstein's Relativity Theory, yet space devoid of universal matter ceased to have any substantiality.
The 'photon particle' theory fails as a carrier of E-M wave energy, under even casual scrutiny. It 'impacts then disappears'. It is made of no identified material, but supposedly has structural integrity, yet cannot be used in High-Energy Particle Accelerator/Colliders. Polarized sunglasses would not work if light were particles, but Polarized lenses are specifically designed for light as waves, including sunglasses and photographic lenses. Conventional Physics claims light to be a particle having 'momentum but no mass', in direct conflict with the simple mathematical formula that states momentum (Kinetic Energy, Ek) is mass at velocity; Ek = mv2 /2. The theory of light waves, propagating through the aether wave-medium, satisfies all of these observed phenomena.
Regarding Gravity, the mechanism for generating gravity force has never been identified prior to this new theory first being publicized a number of years ago. The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.
From Tesla's personal journal:
Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!
They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.
What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence.
A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.
Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.
In order to understand it let’s carry the experiment over to a water environment. Try to imagine that our boat is twirled within a huge whirlpool. We will try to detect water motion relatively to the boat. We will not find any movement as the speed of the boat will be equal to the rate of water movement. In our imagination let’s replace the boat with the Earth, and the whirlpool – by ether whirlwind, which revolves around the Sun. The example shows clearly that when on the Earth one can not detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the ether as the rate of Earth’s movement will be equal to the rate of ether movement. In my researches I always adhere the principle that all nature's phenomena show themselves equally whichever physical environment they would happen in. The waves exist in the water, air, ... and radio–waves and the light is the waves in the ether.
Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.
I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!
Science took a wrong turn in 1887
Science has taken a wrong turn in 1887 when Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted a famous experiment, called the Michelson-Morley Experiment. This wrong turn formed an errant foundation our current physics and science rests upon, starting from Albert Einstein (Einstein's Postulates & special theory of relativity) to modern day electromagnetic theory. This wrong turn will rock science to its foundation when realized. It will shatter theories and rewrite a century of books. Among the most devastating will be a crumbling of modern astrophysical theory on formation of our universe (big bang, age of, redshift, and more).
aether detection:
pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf
kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html
Ball lightning Tesla research
http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/ball.htm
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031205011112/http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/ball-lighting.html
Maxwell’s Equations
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.
Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.
Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.
Tesla’s introduction to the phenomena of Radiant Energy began with early observations by linesmen working for Thomas Edison, Tesla’s former employer
DC Anomalies
Before Tesla’s invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.
Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure? .
So, before you have the nerve to discuss here with me, do your homework (which currently is nonexistent) man...
-
Why are you so scared to attack each argument. I don't have time now to read that all I have to go to work. But i will say for now, your links have no vilitity. I can go find hundreds or links that support everythign I say. Im not going to listen to noname links from no name people. They are going against something that anyone can go see if they want.
I know Tesla did alot and I know Einstein was ever so pissed that no one found an aether. But no one ever found an aether. Tesla did not disprove Eistein. We would be talking about aether phytsics if he did. We talk about he now already. If he had discovered it we woudl all know. But he was kind of crazy. He made alot of claims that he couldn't back up. You need to realize this.
You know your links are shit when you can go disprove them in your basement.
I will diesect your posts sometime after 9 pm Mountain Time. I will be on my computer.
-
Well then... since perspective somehow magically only applies in every scenario except ones you deem it does not. I would like to know at what point perspective no longer applies?
I am also curious as to how our sun emits gamma rays, x-rays, UV light, electrical fields, jettisons massive arcs that can be 3 times it's diameter toward us at such a close distance. Also, how is the sun emitting and creating these things without Nuclear Fusion? If it were utilizing nuclear fusion on the scale you claim, It would rip itself apart without gravity to maintain some degree of stasis. Also... those pesky arcs would be searing through our pesky planet at millions of degrees... unless somehow now nuclear fusion does not emit a massive amount of heat. Good luck explaining that one to a Hiroshima or Nagasaki survivor.
-
Ok, Mr. Sok, you asked for it...here is all the information you need to see how your idol, Einstein, dissapears before your eyes, into the aether...
The formidable book which exposes the unimaginable errors committed by Einstein, the fake scientist:
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html
Its common knowledge Eistein made errors. You know one of the errors he made was believing in a aether? He wasn't perfect, there are newer scientists that advanced some of Einstein's work. I clicked one link and it said antimatter doesn't exist. Right there I know your links are shit. Thats why the are from user.net instead of Physics.net. People have been making antimatter since the 70's. Its hard to make but we do make it.
One of the most extraordinary books which also shows the mistakes/errors (it contains also the falsification of the crucial 1919/1922 experiments):
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
With this link I say Hi 17 november. The link syas atoms don't exist. SO I know its you. Yoru computer would not work without atoms. Thus your link is owned. Its just some essay someone wrote. It could of been me.
(other valuable information, variable speed of light)
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p14s03-bogn.html
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages12/103.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html (one of the very best sites)
http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.collectmyflock.com/CollectMyFlock/pages/20--00__THE_DECEIVER_ALBERT_EINSTEIN__3--PART_SERIES__000.html (supersite)
http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
Glad to see you pull links from more than just 10,000 BC. We all know Einstein isn't perfect, but you do realize you deal with special relativity every day?
einsteinfiles
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm
missing dopler effect/relativity theory errors
http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html
photon: fact or fiction?
http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf
The Doppler effect eassy does not disprove relativity. Sound waves are not the same thing as EM waves. Not to mention you can hear a doppler shift when a car drives by you. The photon paper does not disprove the photon. One paper does not do much.
Did Einstein cheat?
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf
We already know there are some errors present. Other people worked on GR and SP already.
supersite
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/44738
Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?
http://www.johnpeckscience.com/
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
I don't even need to read these, SP is not perfect but it explains so much.
Einstein's Misconceptions of Space and Time
Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.
They most likely reject it because they can't do the math.
None of these prove the earth is flat. I don't know why you keep going on about them. On to your next post.
-
And Mr. Sok, when you stop working in the lab there, do some serious research about how the original J. Maxwell e/m/ether equations were cut down to include just e/m, without the ether vortices...you might learn something...
They had to cut aether out because it was never found.
What? You said something about aether?
The scientific community now looks at the vacuum energy, another name for ether energy. The Ether name is one to be avoided in the physics industry, unless you wish to lose your job or grant money. Now it is called the vacuum energy, therefore they do not have to admit they made a mistake years ago when they wrote ether off as 'nonexistent.'
The scientific community found 'free' energy floating around in a vacuum, which they called vacuum energy. The concept is simple: in outer space there must be a medium for light to pass from the stars, because of the wave theory of light. To have waves, there must be a medium. If you throw a rock into a pond, it makes waves. If there is no water in the pond, mud does not make waves. Simply put: SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!
That is wrong. They thought light had to have a medium, thus aether. But it was never found. Water waves are no EM waves.
Contrary to current views, the greatest scientists (physicists, philosophers) of history believed that Space must exist to necessarily connect matter and its interconnected motions.
Here are quotes, Mr. Sok, from the genius of your caliber, Einstein, about the ether:
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)
We already know Einstein didn't like there not being an aether. Nothing new. He never found one either.
The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
(A. Einstein, 1920) [note: So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory.]
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:
Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...
He put some "fudge" factors into some equations to cover there not being an aether. He used those to explain his ideas without an aether.
Nikola Tesla discoveries:
http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/tesla.htm
www.pritchardschool.com/novustesla.html (on google search)
http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xphysics.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/radiant_energy.htm
As said before, Tesla had many ideas. Some good, some no so much. Mythbusters busted one of his myths.
At the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, that vacuum which is considered by current scientific theories as a void or a state of nothingness can ever generate energy out of its own substratum. As per modern physics while 'absolute vacuum' or 'space' can no doubt transmit electromagnetic energy, in the absence of universal matter and its associated energy fields, there can be no energy-content that is ‘reality’ in space. The concept of ether filling all space and atoms as 'vortices of ether' introduced by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and developed to a great extent by the close of 19th century found no favour in the early 20th century. Though the domain of reality was extended from matter to energy by Einstein's Relativity Theory, yet space devoid of universal matter ceased to have any substantiality.
It ended in the 20 century when one one found an aether. EM wave can go through vacuums.
The 'photon particle' theory fails as a carrier of E-M wave energy, under even casual scrutiny. It 'impacts then disappears'. It is made of no identified material, but supposedly has structural integrity, yet cannot be used in High-Energy Particle Accelerator/Colliders. Polarized sunglasses would not work if light were particles, but Polarized lenses are specifically designed for light as waves, including sunglasses and photographic lenses. Conventional Physics claims light to be a particle having 'momentum but no mass', in direct conflict with the simple mathematical formula that states momentum (Kinetic Energy, Ek) is mass at velocity; Ek = mv2 /2. The theory of light waves, propagating through the aether wave-medium, satisfies all of these observed phenomena.
Light has both particle and wave properties. Polarized glasses show this, along with things you can't even grasp. Protons have been shown to have wave properties. The equation for lights energy is on the front of my text book. E^2=(pc)^2+(mc)^2. As you can see, something without mass can still have p, which is momentum. Go to your a store that sells windows or a shot that sells cool science stuff. You can see a fan that turns by light. The light gives its momentum to the fan to turn it. Also those hippies in boulder use this idea to super cool a gas. They got a Nobel prize for it.
Regarding Gravity, the mechanism for generating gravity force has never been identified prior to this new theory first being publicized a number of years ago. The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.
Gravity is not a force and it never was. Newtonian gravity was disproven is Paris. Gravitons have never been found and are not needed for gravitation being bent spacetime.
From Tesla's personal journal:
Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!
Should I stop here becasue you yourself claimed Einstein liked the aether?
They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.
What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence.
A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.
Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.
In order to understand it let’s carry the experiment over to a water environment. Try to imagine that our boat is twirled within a huge whirlpool. We will try to detect water motion relatively to the boat. We will not find any movement as the speed of the boat will be equal to the rate of water movement. In our imagination let’s replace the boat with the Earth, and the whirlpool – by ether whirlwind, which revolves around the Sun. The example shows clearly that when on the Earth one can not detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the ether as the rate of Earth’s movement will be equal to the rate of ether movement. In my researches I always adhere the principle that all nature's phenomena show themselves equally whichever physical environment they would happen in. The waves exist in the water, air, ... and radio–waves and the light is the waves in the ether.
Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.
I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!
Science took a wrong turn in 1887
Science has taken a wrong turn in 1887 when Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted a famous experiment, called the Michelson-Morley Experiment. This wrong turn formed an errant foundation our current physics and science rests upon, starting from Albert Einstein (Einstein's Postulates & special theory of relativity) to modern day electromagnetic theory. This wrong turn will rock science to its foundation when realized. It will shatter theories and rewrite a century of books. Among the most devastating will be a crumbling of modern astrophysical theory on formation of our universe (big bang, age of, redshift, and more).
I didnt read much of that but ball lightning is a phenomenon. Its not understood.
aether detection:
pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf
If he detected aether he would have a Nobel Prize.
kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html
http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html[/quote]
What does this have to do with anything? The first and second links go against each other.
Ball lightning Tesla research
http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/ball.htm
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031205011112/http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/ball-lighting.html
Ball lightning is crazy.
Maxwell’s Equations
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.
Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.
Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.
Tesla’s introduction to the phenomena of Radiant Energy began with early observations by linesmen working for Thomas Edison, Tesla’s former employer
DC Anomalies
Before Tesla’s invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.
Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure? .
When electricity jumps, the light you see is from exited electrons in the air.
So, before you have the nerve to discuss here with me, do your homework (which currently is nonexistent) man...
I don't know why posting this stuff makes you think you proved anything. I already siad its common knowledge Einstein made some mistakes. But do you know why we still talk about him? Because his stuff works. From E=gammamc^2 to gravitation not being a force.
-
Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...
You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...
Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.
You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.
You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).
Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.
Ball lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.
Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.
Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.
Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.
Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.
The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.
-
Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...
Opposed to you lackign the books that go against you?
You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...
Execpt keep Ignoring the facts. You think atoms don't exist.
Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.
You are trying to tell me the toilet paper I am holding is a cow. Those links go against what is observed.
You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.
I know what I haev seen. And I have seen what your old literature is trying to claim as false.
You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).
I have address far more of your attacks that you have address of mine. O wait, you don't attack my arguments.
Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.
Your own link says Auras are fake. Read them again.
Ball lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.
lol UFOS now?
Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.
You don't even know what antimatter is and your definiton of a plasma is not even close.
Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.
Pioncare did not do this, but he did help with relativity. Why do you ignore this?
Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.
You have no buisness here. You follow old physics like its god. I would say you worshp the Bohr atom but you don't believe in atoms.
Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.
I have not studied said paradoxes but I have studied the "suna has to be gigantic to support fusion paradox" and the "tunneling" paradox. Survivors of the bombs didn't even know what a nuclear bomb was, so how would they know what hit them? Why did poeple die from radiation sickness?
The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.
opposed to this one that shows Toronto behind the horizon?
(http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg) Your to new for this picture (unless you are 17 November, which is plausible) It must suck to see it.
-
Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...
Based on your criticisms on every single physics theory, I can only conclude that this claim is ironic.
-
And we all know your knowledge is directly proportional to the number of books and links you have.
-
Can't believe I missed this thread, tis a classic. Levee, you are totally bonkers, it's great :D
-
(http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg)
Pwn3d!!11!
-
While I obviously disagree with Levee on many parts, I have to agree with Levee on some points. I haven't finished reading this thread yet (heck who can blame me) but what stuck out is the stigma in the scientific community against Aether.
It most definitely is a word to be avoided. Science again and again comes up with new names for aether just to avoid having to admit they were wrong. Its a disagrace.
And its not just a matter of words. They are trying as hard as they can to stay away from any notion that can be conceived as aether despite the facts staring at their faces. Again, we see RE science being swayed by social issues and money.
-
My childhood home was in St. Catherines, with Lake Ontario and the CN tower in my backyard. I never saw such an view. Next time I make a visit to Canada (likely in the next few months) I will take a trip and document this.
That is not to say its not explained perfectly within FE theories. I just honestly lived there half my life and never saw this.
-
Pwn3d!!11!
The Sinking ship effect has been accurately explained in FET for over 150 years now. In fact, there are experiments which indicate that the sinking ship effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.
-
My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat. It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france" and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".
-
My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat. It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france" and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".
That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the distance between the Cliffs of Dover and France, for example.
Since we know that a telescope can restore the hull of a half-sunken ship, and since there are many first hand accounts of this in the Flat Earth Literature, we know that the sinking ship effect is an illusion of perspective. If the earth were a globe a telescope could not restore a half-sunken ship.
-
My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat. It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france" and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".
That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the cliffs of dover from France, for example.
Can we agree that Levee's White Cliffs argument was flawed in that respect? From both of our points of view.
-
My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat. It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france" and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".
That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the cliffs of dover from France, for example.
Can we agree that Levee's White Cliffs argument was flawed in that respect? From both of our points of view.
Agreed. He is selectively using evidence that supports his argument and discounting evidence that does not.
-
Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.
Username, I will provide here, the very best information on the Michelson-Morley disaster of 1887, so that all can see how the aether concept has been conveniently eliminated from the official physics.
Sok, I think that you saw that you need to study much more than you have done up until now; your level of understanding of physics is an eclectic shambles openly inviting anyone in the vicinity to rip it into shreds. You need to study the motivation which drove A. Michelson and E. Morley to perform the experiment of 1887, and what caused J. Maxwell to eliminate the vortex ether terms in his equations.
Here is a site which will help everybody to understand aether further (the classic material is of course, Tesla's quote which I posted earlier):
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html
The atom is an aetheric vortex, and not at all composed of particles. Plenty of sources, exceptionally documented to show you this fact.
Here's how the original Maxwell equations were modified, material you won't find in official physics course taught in universities:
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773
http://www.indopedia.org/Talk:Maxwell's_equations.html
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html
Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
( www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)
On the michelson-morley experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.
And again, the extraordinary books which demonstrate the errors/fallacies present in Einstein's work:
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm includes exceptional accounts of the errors committed by Galileo, Newton and Einstein
For those interested in the cosmogony-aether connection I can recommend three superb books:
http://www.amazon.ca/Kabbalah-Adolph-Franck/dp/0766146200
O.M. Aivanhov: Looking into the Invisible
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-into-Invisible-Intuition-Clairvoyance/dp/1895978181 and
http://www.transitionsbookplace.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=str&Product_Code=1895978076&Category_Code=AVNH&Product_Count=0
Now, let's get to the photograph posted by you...it is important, always, to include the original source of the photograph, just like I have done here, in order not to invite other kinds of comments...
Here's why:
This is an original photograph:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/c/d/0000r6ws_cdy7zd3s.jpg
And this one, modified:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/onthepage/various/pamant2.jpg
So, we would have to know the original source for the photo, but we will pretend that sok was correct and that he posted the right stuff.
Let us take a slight detour and investigate what is going in Holland, Michigan:
http://www.countrytours.com/Tours_US/ALM/images/map.gif (map of lake michigan)
And now the story, from a distance of 128 km (80 miles) the people of Holland can see clearly the buildings of the city of Milwaukee:
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml
Observe the nonsensical comments made by the NWS, regarding atmospheric reffraction...this is a phenomenon to be observed, under special conditions, in the Arctic and the Antarctica, ice reflected by clouds, and you'd immediately realize what is going on...
Contrary to the official propaganda, atmospheric reffraction does not play a role in the flat earth/round earth debate...
Here are some extraordinary photographs showing mountains (distance of 150 km) from a city (sea level), no atmospheric reffraction at all:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg
Jim, we have all read your comments on these threads; my photographs shows clearly that there is no curvature, not even one micron, between White Cliffs Dover and Cap Gris Nez; you can whine all you want, and uncleverly try various play-of-words with us, but it does not work...
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
Sok, please specify the distance involved, the curvature, and who made this photograph, and where exactly it was taken, from where; we need more details, in order to analyze what you are saying here, see what Tom just said: That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs...
Shadowstrife, same comment to you; when you will have something interesting to say, please let us know; until then, study hard to see how a spherically shaped earth could not have possibly existed in the first place...I offer evidence that is well known to everybody, the White Cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, not to mention a binocular/telescope, and the photographs are included here with a source...so far nobody has presented any evidence re: the round earth that even would require more than two seconds of attention...
So, sok, we all waiting for your sources, distances, curvature, the whole thing...just like I have done here...
-
You can't possibly claim to make observations to that degree of accuracy from the pictures you posted. You claim that the earth can't be round because you don't observe curvature over that (relatively short) distance, yet when faced with a picture that goes against your argument you blame it on refraction.
-
Jim, I hope that you are all there...I never mentioned atmospheric reffraction as a possible motive for anything, on the contrary, I said that it cannot be taken into account.
The pictures show very clearly that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, between England and France; your theory says that there should be a curvature of 22.5 meters there; if there is not, as you can clearly see, then the Earth is flat between White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez. Again, you can do your own experiment to find out for yourself how things really are when it comes to this debate...you will find that the Earth is flat.
-
Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.
Username, I will provide here, the very best information on the Michelson-Morley disaster of 1887, so that all can see how the aether concept has been conveniently eliminated from the official physics.
Sok, I think that you saw that you need to study much more than you have done up until now; your level of understanding of physics is an eclectic shambles openly inviting anyone in the vicinity to rip it into shreds. You need to study the motivation which drove A. Michelson and E. Morley to perform the experiment of 1887, and what caused J. Maxwell to eliminate the vortex ether terms in his equations.
If you studied more than me you wouldn't make such claims like: "Plasma is bewtween aether and a gas" and "Antimatter is not an positron and an antipositron." An "antipositron" would be an electron. Apparently you never heard of this.
Here is a site which will help everybody to understand aether further (the classic material is of course, Tesla's quote which I posted earlier):
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html
The atom is an aetheric vortex, and not at all composed of particles. Plenty of sources, exceptionally documented to show you this fact.
And what about the millions of experiments that show that an atom is made of parts? Your computer is using atoms right now. WHY ARE YOU IN CAPABLE OF ATTACKING EVERY PART OF MY ARGUMENT?
Here's how the original Maxwell equations were modified, material you won't find in official physics course taught in universities:
http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773
http://www.indopedia.org/Talk:Maxwell's_equations.html
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html
http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html
And? His equations work without an aether modifier. Go figure. Also, you know nayone and their mother can make an Angelfire site right?.
Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
( www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)
Its 2008 not 1864. Physics has advanced since then.
On the michelson-morley experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
They never found the aether.
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.
And again, the extraordinary books which demonstrate the errors/fallacies present in Einstein's work:
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm includes exceptional accounts of the errors committed by Galileo, Newton and Einstein
For those interested in the cosmogony-aether connection I can recommend three superb books:
http://www.amazon.ca/Kabbalah-Adolph-Franck/dp/0766146200
Repeat links and I already told you the errors are known to everyone but you.
O.M. Aivanhov: Looking into the Invisible
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-into-Invisible-Intuition-Clairvoyance/dp/1895978181 and
http://www.transitionsbookplace.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=str&Product_Code=1895978076&Category_Code=AVNH&Product_Count=0
These have nothing to do with anything.
Now, let's get to the photograph posted by you...it is important, always, to include the original source of the photograph, just like I have done here, in order not to invite other kinds of comments...
I don't have the information.
Here's why:
This is an original photograph:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/c/d/0000r6ws_cdy7zd3s.jpg
And this one, modified:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/onthepage/various/pamant2.jpg
Thats a screen shot of a flight simulator game. Its not a photograph.
So, we would have to know the original source for the photo, but we will pretend that sok was correct and that he posted the right stuff.
Let us take a slight detour and investigate what is going in Holland, Michigan:
http://www.countrytours.com/Tours_US/ALM/images/map.gif (map of lake michigan)
And now the story, from a distance of 128 km (80 miles) the people of Holland can see clearly the buildings of the city of Milwaukee:
http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml
Did you even read your links?
Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street, he looked out from his deck overlooking the lake and saw something he had never seen before -- Wisconsin.
As you gain altitude you can see further. Its common knowledge.
Observe the nonsensical comments made by the NWS, regarding atmospheric reffraction...this is a phenomenon to be observed, under special conditions, in the Arctic and the Antarctica, ice reflected by clouds, and you'd immediately realize what is going on...
Contrary to the official propaganda, atmospheric reffraction does not play a role in the flat earth/round earth debate...
Here are some extraordinary photographs showing mountains (distance of 150 km) from a city (sea level), no atmospheric reffraction at all:
Actually it does.
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg
I see this every day. Those pictures are around 20 miles. Nothing in them proves a flat earth.
Jim, we have all read your comments on these threads; my photographs shows clearly that there is no curvature, not even one micron, between White Cliffs Dover and Cap Gris Nez; you can whine all you want, and uncleverly try various play-of-words with us, but it does not work...
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
Notice how the pics are not from the beach. What height were they taken from? I already know you do not have an answer.
Sok, please specify the distance involved, the curvature, and who made this photograph, and where exactly it was taken, from where; we need more details, in order to analyze what you are saying here, see what Tom just said: That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs...
Shadowstrife, same comment to you; when you will have something interesting to say, please let us know; until then, study hard to see how a spherically shaped earth could not have possibly existed in the first place...I offer evidence that is well known to everybody, the White Cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, not to mention a binocular/telescope, and the photographs are included here with a source...so far nobody has presented any evidence re: the round earth that even would require more than two seconds of attention...
So, sok, we all waiting for your sources, distances, curvature, the whole thing...just like I have done here...
And I'm waiting for you to disprove one thing I have said.
The only other person to ever claim atoms don't exist is 17 November. He was owned in that argument. And since you might be him....
-
Also, your calculations assume the earth is a perfect sphere.
-
Sok, again, you seem very confused...and your photograph suddenly is starting to melt down...
What do you mean "I don't have the information."?
I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...
I am beginning to suspect that the photograph you have posted here without any supporting information (you say you don't have the curvature, distance, etc.), has been modified lightly and here is why:
If you type Seattle horizon skyline on google search images you will find pictures which do not confirm what you have posted here without any documentation:
http://www.numine.com/albums/alki_beach/skyline1.jpg (first page, Seattle horizon skyline)
http://peteandcarol.com/0303-Seattle.jpg (from http://peteandcarol.com/Slides.asp )
You see now, sok, unless you provide us with the information required, we cannot say much about your photograph...and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you did not provide us with a modified photograph...
Your comments about any physics subject become more and more nonrelevant...because you simply have not studied enough to know what is going on...I liked "the computer is using atoms right now", keep it up!!!...you do not know what you are saying in relation to the links I posted, especially the story from Holland...are you using English as a third language? I already provided all the information required (places, heights, photos, curvature, distance)...you have not so far...
Jim, even if you take into consideration a radius of 6300 km, or even 6400 km, it doesn't matter...modifications are very small...
-
I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...
The picture was taken from 50km, I believe that's a curvature of around 49m
-
What you believe is very nice...but does not apply here, Jim...let Sok provide the right information, and original sources...
You have no idea what distance is involved there, and what the curvature is...you are trying to get out of this situation now...did you really think that something like this would work with me here?
-
The picture came from Flickr, the photographer posted that infomation.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/4007941/
-
Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.
Well of course, you are Tom.
-
Sok, again, you seem very confused...and your photograph suddenly is starting to melt down...
no
What do you mean "I don't have the information."?
I didn't take the picture. Why can't you answer the heights at which your photos were taken?
I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...
I am beginning to suspect that the photograph you have posted here without any supporting information (you say you don't have the curvature, distance, etc.), has been modified lightly and here is why:
If you type Seattle horizon skyline on google search images you will find pictures which do not confirm what you have posted here without any documentation:
http://www.numine.com/albums/alki_beach/skyline1.jpg (first page, Seattle horizon skyline)
http://peteandcarol.com/0303-Seattle.jpg (from http://peteandcarol.com/Slides.asp )
They are not the same type of picture. The pic I posted is from water level with a telescopic lens. None of the pictures you post are from the water level.
You see now, sok, unless you provide us with the information required, we cannot say much about your photograph...and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you did not provide us with a modified photograph...
I'm still waiting for your information.
Your comments about any physics subject become more and more nonrelevant...because you simply have not studied enough to know what is going on...I liked "the computer is using atoms right now", keep it up!!!...you do not know what you are saying in relation to the links I posted, especially the story from Holland...are you using English as a third language? I already provided all the information required (places, heights, photos, curvature, distance)...you have not so far...
ok 17 november. Glad to see you cannot touch any of my arguments. You cannot quote every line of what I post like I can do to your post. You know nothing, thats why you try and let links to other websites talk for you. But you fail at this as you find random links that fit what you want to believe and ignore the ones that don't.
-
Sokarul, the time for scientific discussions between us (or that matter, between you and anybody else here) has ended. You have shown everyone that you simply have no idea why you are here, why you post messages...at the level you are now, you only know about 5% of what is needed to fully understand the heliocentric system, not to mention the rest of the theories out there...all your quotes and messages point out the fact that physics is not one of your strong points...the heights of the cliffs (when included) in my photos have been mentioned many times...even for hapless scientists like yourself...
Jim, we do not know exactly when that photograph was posted there, sokarul mentioned Seattle seen behind the horizon, those were his words, now you tell us it's Toronto...but it has been modified to give the appearance of a curvature...I'll show why...
Let me show you real-time photographs which expose the fraud in that image you posted...
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg
HERE IS NOW THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH SHOWS THAT THE GUY ON FLICKR MODIFIED AND FALSIFIED HIS PHOTOGRAPH TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS ABOUT A ROUND EARTH, HE ALSO LIES ABOUT THE 50 KM DISTANCE...THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN REAL-TIME SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, IT WAS TAKEN FROM 53 KM DISTANCE FROM TORONTO:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoNight.jpg)
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
(Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom)
Sokarul and Jim, I suggest that you both take up Underwater Finger Painting; you have no credibility whatsoever left here...you have just given me the chance to show all of you, that the Earth is completely flat over the Lake Ontario, the above photographs show absolutely no curvature from a distance of 53 km (about 50 meters curvature, in case of a round earth scenario, which does not exist in reality)...have a nice day, both of you!
-
Sokarul, the time for scientific discussions between us (or that matter, between you and anybody else here) has ended. You have shown everyone that you simply have no idea why you are here, why you post messages...at the level you are now, you only know about 5% of what is needed to fully understand the heliocentric system, not to mention the rest of the theories out there...all your quotes and messages point out the fact that physics is not one of your strong points...the heights of the cliffs (when included) in my photos have been mentioned many times...even for hapless scientists like yourself...
Jim, we do not know exactly when that photograph was posted there, sokarul mentioned Seattle seen behind the horizon, those were his words, now you tell us it's Toronto...but it has been modified to give the appearance of a curvature...I'll show why...
Let me show you real-time photographs which expose the fraud in that image you posted...
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg
HERE IS NOW THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH SHOWS THAT THE GUY ON FLICKR MODIFIED AND FALSIFIED HIS PHOTOGRAPH TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS ABOUT A ROUND EARTH, HE ALSO LIES ABOUT THE 50 KM DISTANCE...THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN REAL-TIME SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, IT WAS TAKEN FROM 53 KM DISTANCE FROM TORONTO:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoNight.jpg)
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html
(Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom)
Sokarul and Jim, I suggest that you both take up Underwater Finger Painting; you have no credibility whatsoever left here...you have just given me the chance to show all of you, that the Earth is completely flat over the Lake Ontario, the above photographs show absolutely no curvature from a distance of 53 km (about 50 meters curvature, in case of a round earth scenario, which does not exist in reality)...have a nice day, both of you!
Are you really that stupid? None of the pictures you posted are from WATER LEVEL. Try again.
-
You are losing your marbles chum or get a tutor. The photographs are self-explanatory.
You are the dumbass asking for explanations already provided in this thread that you can't understand anyways. You haven't proved me wrong at least once.
But I am here to help along the way...it does not matter from what height they were taken, given a curvature of 50 meters, unless you are in a hot air baloon when you make them; the photographs show clearly no curvature whatsoever over the Lake Ontario all the way to Toronto. If there was a curvature, it would be clearly visible, no mistake about that, you couldn't see the shoreline. Given a midpoint visual obstacle of 50 meters, if there was one, even if the photograph was shot from 75 meters in height, you'd see it (the curvature), you couldn't miss it; but, as you can see clearly, the height from which it was made is well under 50 meters, and then, you would have seen that curvature all over the screen, if there was one, drone-head.
Your photograph shows that it was modified crudely to include a curvature absolutely inexistent in reality. Get out of that comatose and muddled thinking of yours and see what the photographs I posted tell you: no curvature observable there, there is no ascending slope, no maximum midpoint curvature of 50 meters, and no descending slope to the opposite shoreline. Your photograph has been modified, I have to tell you again, by that guy on flickr, you have to be a real idiot to believe in that photograph, to give me the chance to prove you wrong yet again, or to base your opinions on shit like that, but in your case, it's no surprise...
-
Can you actually view the picture and/or think? See the picture again, re-read what he said, and try again.
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
-
You are losing your marbles chum or get a tutor. The photographs are self-explanatory.
You are the dumbass asking for explanations already provided in this thread that you can't understand anyways. You haven't proved me wrong at least once.
I don't need any explinations from you. You have no idea what you talk about so you list random links from random people so you don't have to use any of your own knowledge.
But I am here to help along the way...it does not matter from what height they were taken, given a curvature of 50 meters, unless you are in a hot air baloon when you make them; the photographs show clearly no curvature whatsoever over the Lake Ontario all the way to Toronto. If there was a curvature, it would be clearly visible, no mistake about that, you couldn't see the shoreline. Given a midpoint visual obstacle of 50 meters, if there was one, even if the photograph was shot from 75 meters in height, you'd see it (the curvature), you couldn't miss it; but, as you can see clearly, the height from which it was made is well under 50 meters, and then, you would have seen that curvature all over the screen, if there was one, drone-head.
Why can't you understand that when you go up in altitude you can see further? The picture I posted was taken at water line. None of the pictures you posted are at water line. The first one is clearly from a helicopter. I would venture they all are as it woudl be way easier to go out there in a helicopter and take a picture and then come back.
Your photograph shows that it was modified crudely to include a curvature absolutely inexistent in reality. Get out of that comatose and muddled thinking of yours and see what the photographs I posted tell you: no curvature observable there, there is no ascending slope, no maximum midpoint curvature of 50 meters, and no descending slope to the opposite shoreline. Your photograph has been modified, I have to tell you again, by that guy on flickr, you have to be a real idiot to believe in that photograph, to give me the chance to prove you wrong yet again, or to base your opinions on shit like that, but in your case, it's no surprise...
You base your claims on angelfire websites. Anyone can make those. You think that atoms don't exist and the aether does. Don't even give me shit.
[/quote]
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
-
Sokrates, that photograph of yours is a practical joke, don't you get it? Look carefully at the downtown Toronto buildings (Toronto Tower), it was taken from a much closer distance (I would say under 20 miles), and using Adobe Photoshop, was pasted with a image taken who knows where, at the bottom of a wave, or with a modified flat sea level surface photograph taken somewhere else.
The photographs taken on the site http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html as you can clearly see, are profesionally made, the photographer even has access to a newtonian reflector telescope.
Let me show why your argument does not hold at all, and why you are mistaken about this whole matter.
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
The next photograph, that you all know already, was taken from Cap Gris Nez cliffs, (about 50 meters), and shows absolutely the same thing, no curvature; therefore, on the Lake Ontario photographs, even if the photographs were taken, say from 100 meters altitude, it would not matter at all, you would clearly see the curvature of 50 meters, that is what I am trying to tell you. Rest assured, it was not taken from a helicopter, most probably from a boat, from a height of well under 50 meters. Then, the curvature would have been visible for all of us to see.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
The photograph that I just showed to you, namely:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
(from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html which contain even more photographs which completely prove the flat earth theory)
is a very sure and precise proof that on Lake Ontario, the surface of the lake is completely flat with no curvature whatsoever; from 53 km (curvature of 50 meters), there is absolutely no curvature to be observed.
On lake Michigan, froma distance of 128 km, Milwaukee can be clearly seen from Holland, see http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml
Now on the strait of Gibraltar, it doesn't matter which height you go to, there is no curvature whatsoever, again:
(http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg)
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1850556/2/istockphoto_1850556_strait_of_gibraltar)
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/6/000e97gt_56j7oxcw.jpg)
And here is photograph taken from the island of Corfu, you can see the shorelines of Albania and Greece...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mainland_seen_from_Corfu.jpg
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/u/000e97gt_yu94a56s.jpg)
There are plenty of other photographs taken on Lake Ontario, which show there is no curvature, among them:
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg
fhsy94, you will be the laughing stock of your friends and family when the full extent of your mediocre belief in the round earth hoax becomes apparent...
-
I wonder when you're going to get tired of this, Levee. I know I'm bored of you.
-
Sokrates, that photograph of yours is a practical joke, don't you get it? Look carefully at the downtown Toronto buildings (Toronto Tower), it was taken from a much closer distance (I would say under 20 miles), and using Adobe Photoshop, was pasted with a image taken who knows where, at the bottom of a wave, or with a modified flat sea level surface photograph taken somewhere else.
Its called a telescopic lens.
The photographs taken on the site http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html as you can clearly see, are profesionally made, the photographer even has access to a newtonian reflector telescope.
Did you even read the site? The site is pictures of mirages. Heres a quote from a site it links too.
10,000ft Mount Cerro La Encantada on the Baja California peninsula is frequently visible from Puerto Penasco 186km away just before sunset. The mountain looms to about four times its normal height making it visible over the horizon.
As you can see, on normal days the images are much different.
Let me show why your argument does not hold at all, and why you are mistaken about this whole matter.
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
The next photograph, that you all know already, was taken from Cap Gris Nez cliffs, (about 50 meters), and shows absolutely the same thing, no curvature; therefore, on the Lake Ontario photographs, even if the photographs were taken, say from 100 meters altitude, it would not matter at all, you would clearly see the curvature of 50 meters, that is what I am trying to tell you. Rest assured, it was not taken from a helicopter, most probably from a boat, from a height of well under 50 meters. Then, the curvature would have been visible for all of us to see.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
WHy can you not comprend that as you rise is elevation, the horizon gets further away? 50 meters in altitude would negate 50 m of curvature.
The photograph that I just showed to you, namely:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
(from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html which contain even more photographs which completely prove the flat earth theory)
AHd you read the site you would of seen that those are Mirages. Its even in the link.
is a very sure and precise proof that on Lake Ontario, the surface of the lake is completely flat with no curvature whatsoever; from 53 km (curvature of 50 meters), there is absolutely no curvature to be observed.
Its proof you have no idea what you are talking about.
On lake Michigan, froma distance of 128 km, Milwaukee can be clearly seen from Holland, see http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml
Read your link, it explains why it can be seen on certain days with the right conditions. Normal days it cant be seen. Read the link
Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street, he looked out from his deck overlooking the lake and saw something he had never seen before -- Wisconsin.
According to you he should see it every day. But he had never seen it before. Thus no proof of flat earth but proof of physics.
Now on the strait of Gibraltar, it doesn't matter which height you go to, there is no curvature whatsoever, again:
(http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg)
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1850556/2/istockphoto_1850556_strait_of_gibraltar)
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/6/000e97gt_56j7oxcw.jpg)
The strait of Gibraltar is a whole 8 miles wide at its closes place.
And here is photograph taken from the island of Corfu, you can see the shorelines of Albania and Greece...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mainland_seen_from_Corfu.jpg
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/u/000e97gt_yu94a56s.jpg)
Thats like 20 miles.
There are plenty of other photographs taken on Lake Ontario, which show there is no curvature, among them:
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg
lol these pictures are from a mile away.
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
you're only 16?! damnit now I can't stalk you and have your babies
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
you're only 16?! damnit now I can't stalk you and have your babies
I thought you were 12 years old as well.
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
you're only 16?! damnit now I can't stalk you and have your babies
I thought you were 12 years old as well.
why?
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
you're only 16?! damnit now I can't stalk you and have your babies
I thought you were 12 years old as well.
why?
I don't know, but I did think you were under 18.
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
ROFLMAO. You know, there are plenty of other ways to put '94 in your username. For the record, '91, 16, and funnily enough, smarter than you will ever be....now take your own advice, mkay? That, or actually re-read, and think.
you're only 16?! damnit now I can't stalk you and have your babies
I thought you were 12 years old as well.
why?
I don't know, but I did think you were under 18.
silly boy
-
I thought you were all 7 1/2 years old!
-
7 and 1/4.
-
fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...
I'm sorry, but I just have to point out that you called someone "fartshy" at the same time you were questioning their age/maturity level. That makes less sense than a lot of the pictures that you've posted
-
Levee will be on soon so I am bumping this to the end.
Sokrates, that photograph of yours is a practical joke, don't you get it? Look carefully at the downtown Toronto buildings (Toronto Tower), it was taken from a much closer distance (I would say under 20 miles), and using Adobe Photoshop, was pasted with a image taken who knows where, at the bottom of a wave, or with a modified flat sea level surface photograph taken somewhere else.
Its called a telescopic lens.
The photographs taken on the site http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html as you can clearly see, are profesionally made, the photographer even has access to a newtonian reflector telescope.
Did you even read the site? The site is pictures of mirages. Heres a quote from a site it links too.
10,000ft Mount Cerro La Encantada on the Baja California peninsula is frequently visible from Puerto Penasco 186km away just before sunset. The mountain looms to about four times its normal height making it visible over the horizon.
As you can see, on normal days the images are much different.
Let me show why your argument does not hold at all, and why you are mistaken about this whole matter.
(http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg)
The next photograph, that you all know already, was taken from Cap Gris Nez cliffs, (about 50 meters), and shows absolutely the same thing, no curvature; therefore, on the Lake Ontario photographs, even if the photographs were taken, say from 100 meters altitude, it would not matter at all, you would clearly see the curvature of 50 meters, that is what I am trying to tell you. Rest assured, it was not taken from a helicopter, most probably from a boat, from a height of well under 50 meters. Then, the curvature would have been visible for all of us to see.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
WHy can you not comprend that as you rise is elevation, the horizon gets further away? 50 meters in altitude would negate 50 m of curvature.
The photograph that I just showed to you, namely:
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
(from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html which contain even more photographs which completely prove the flat earth theory)
AHd you read the site you would of seen that those are Mirages. Its even in the link.
is a very sure and precise proof that on Lake Ontario, the surface of the lake is completely flat with no curvature whatsoever; from 53 km (curvature of 50 meters), there is absolutely no curvature to be observed.
Its proof you have no idea what you are talking about.
On lake Michigan, froma distance of 128 km, Milwaukee can be clearly seen from Holland, see http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml
Read your link, it explains why it can be seen on certain days with the right conditions. Normal days it cant be seen. Read the link
Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street, he looked out from his deck overlooking the lake and saw something he had never seen before -- Wisconsin.
According to you he should see it every day. But he had never seen it before. Thus no proof of flat earth but proof of physics.
Now on the strait of Gibraltar, it doesn't matter which height you go to, there is no curvature whatsoever, again:
(http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg)
(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1850556/2/istockphoto_1850556_strait_of_gibraltar)
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/6/000e97gt_56j7oxcw.jpg)
The strait of Gibraltar is a whole 8 miles wide at its closes place.
And here is photograph taken from the island of Corfu, you can see the shorelines of Albania and Greece...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mainland_seen_from_Corfu.jpg
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/u/000e97gt_yu94a56s.jpg)
Thats like 20 miles.
There are plenty of other photographs taken on Lake Ontario, which show there is no curvature, among them:
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg
lol these pictures are from a mile away.
-
If I lie on the floor I can still see the end of my street, damn the earth must be flat.
-
fikealox, your response dodges all the questions you have about this debate, and to which you have no answers, and depend on others to explain them for you...you have a delusional tunnel vision...and have already exhausted your bag of tricks...
travis, in case you did not guess, it takes more than a 1-2 line message from you to impress anyone here...we are still waiting for your first post that has something relevant to say...
sokrates, there is no need to copy all the time someone's previous response, and quote it here in full...you should exercise your memory and remember the relevant points, and try to answer them here, without quoting...
As you saw, your photograph is a practical joke, but you fell for it...and embarrassed yourself again, thinking that you had something going...
A helicopter could not have been used because the first two photographs were taken from the same spot...we could not imagine it hovering there for 6 hours just to satisfy sokrates' functional neuron...
sokrates, the mirages refer to the reflection on the lake of the images of the photographs, you get it now? Not at all to the atmospheric reffraction argument you had in mind, and which I already addressed here...if you remember...you have the photographs of the mountains (150 km) distance, which I posted earlier, with a height of about 2,200 meters (about the same distance as in your quote), and they can be observed very well...with no atmospheric reffraction phenomenon there to be seen...atmospheric reffraction is a desperate attempt to use Alice in Wonderland physics to hide the very obvious: mountain peaks can be observed from far away, all over the world, because the earth is flat...
50 m in altitude does not negate at all 50 meters of curvature...you do not know what you are saying there...at a altitude of 50 meters, you'd barely see the top of the midpoint maximum curvature of 50 meters...that is the point I have been trying to tell you here for the past few messages...even if you ascend to say 100 meters, the curvature would still be very visible...get it now?
The distance between Corfu and Albania, offers a curvature (in case of a round earth) which still would be observable...as you can see there...the shoreline is visible...no curvature between Albania and Corfu...
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/April2005/IMG_0700.JPG) (reflection on the lake, with no curvature)
Again, another shot of Toronto, with no curvature whatsoever...
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)
The controversial, false and impossible theories and ideas belonging to Koppernigk, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were injected directly into the plastic, unformed minds of children, by means of seizing a country's educational system and turning it into a vehicle for indoctrination.
At first, the period 1687-1720, scientists who were not part of Rosenkreuzer society, vehemently opposed and criticized Newton's Principia, especially the impossible gravitational concept. The debate, as it was, came to an end about 1720, when most of the opponents died or retired. After 1720, the ideas of the London Royal Society became obligatory material to be taught in Universities, first in England, and then in France, Holland, Sweden, and the rest of Europe--thus an entire generation was captured, without any intellectual resistance.
Arthur Koestler's analysis of Galileo:
The most egregious fact about the pre-1641 Galileo is that at the time he was vigorously defending Copernicanism before the Holy Office in 1633, he knew even then the system didn't work and that he had no substantial proof for it. Since he rejected Kepler's elliptical orbits (although he used Kepler's material whenever it was to his advantage, and claimed it as his own), and refused any compromise with the Jesuits who were going over to Brahe's geocentric model, he was stuck with Copernicus' forty-eight epicycles, yet he advertised the model as one that bypassed the earlier mechanical problems 'with one single motion of the earth.' It is obvious that either Galileo was lying or he never read Copernicus' book, which is one of the reasons Koestler refers to Copernicus' work as 'The book that nobody read.' Calling his bluff, Robert Bellarmine stated quite clearly to Galileo that the Church would not even consider changing its position on the cosmos unless Galileo could provide proof of his claims. In one of his more audacious moves, Galileo tried to prove his case by a strange concoction of theory and conjecture on the nature of tidal action. Having rejected as 'occultish' Kepler's explanation that the combination of the sun's and moon's gravity caused the daily tides, Galileo, even knowing that his own explanation could not be physically possible, nevertheless, to save his prestige, tried to convince the Catholic prelates that tides were caused by the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's monthly changes in orbital velocity. In addition, his theory addressed only a 24-hour tidal cycle, but even sailors knew, and reported to the common folk, that the tides alternated every 12 hours. Galileo then tried to explain the discrepancy by postulating that the ocean floor varied in depth. No wonder Koestler concludes his remarks with:
There can be no doubt that Galileo's theory of the tides was based on unconscious self-deception.. making the complexities of Copernicus appear deceptively simple, was part of a deliberate strategy, based on Galileo's contempt for the intelligence of his contemporaries. We have seen that scholars have always been prone to manias and obsessions, and inclined to cheat about details; but impostures like Galileo's are rare in the annals of science.
Again from Newton, the aether theory he knew to be correct:
In Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668, a rather Aristotelian downward impulsion of gravity is compared with the centrifugal force of the (Cartesian) solar vortex:
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.
Newton, 1675:
So may the gravitating attraction of the earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other such like aetherial spirit, not of the main body of phlegmatic aether, but of something very thinly and subtilely diffused through it, perhaps of an unctious, or gummy tenacious and springy nature.
The notion came to him while observing how a lens on his table when rubbed would attract little bits of paper: ‘yet would the papers as they hung under the glass recieve some new motion, inclining this way or that way, according as I moved my finger.' He surmised that there must be some subtle ether causing this, which was a fair enough way of referring to static electricity, and that the ether of gravity was of a different kind.
As ‘nature is a perpetual circulatory worker', so this gravitational ether circulated, thereby pulling things downwards. It was a rather vitalistic and alchemical theory:
the vast body of the earth, which may be everywhere to the very centre in perpetual working, may continually condense so much of this spirit as to cause it from above to descend with great celerity for a supply.
Again, Newton, 1679:
A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679, wherein ‘ye cause of gravity' was to be found, not as earlier in a flux of downward-rushing particles, but in a static gradient of texture in an aether, from grosser particles above to subtler ones below.38 The gradient extended to Earth's centre:
from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.
Newton's Principia had one major problem, however. How could two objects attract each other across a vacuum? This was a theory like that of Aristotle's, but now a stone did not have just a 'natural tendency' to fall to Earth, far more incredibly it had a 'natural tendency' to be attracted to every other object in the universe. Descartes had a rational explanation for why stones fell to Earth and why planets orbited the Sun. Newton's theory, however, was based on some magic power of matter to be attracted to all other matter and this was anything but rational.
-
Here is a photograph made in England, right at the White Cliffs, Dover; no curvature whatsoever all the way to Cap Gris Nez...
(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/3/3/0000r6ws_33qqohel.jpg)
http://stmargaretsphotodiary.blogspot.com/2007_01_07_archive.html
And, of course, White Cliffs Dover seen from Cap Gris Nez...
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/f/f5/400px-France_manche_vue_dover.JPG)
The cliffs on both sides of the English Channel can be seen entirely, cliff base/shoreline to top...
-
sokrates, there is no need to copy all the time someone's previous response, and quote it here in full...you should exercise your memory and remember the relevant points, and try to answer them here, without quoting...
Its the proper way to debate. You have ignored so many arguments you would of lost the debate long ago.
As you saw, your photograph is a practical joke, but you fell for it...and embarrassed yourself again, thinking that you had something going...
You mena to say you are scared of the photo.
A helicopter could not have been used because the first two photographs were taken from the same spot...we could not imagine it hovering there for 6 hours just to satisfy sokrates' functional neuron...
God forbid they make two trips. Either way still not at water level.
sokrates, the mirages refer to the reflection on the lake of the images of the photographs, you get it now? Not at all to the atmospheric reffraction argument you had in mind, and which I already addressed here...if you remember...you have the photographs of the mountains (150 km) distance, which I posted earlier, with a height of about 2,200 meters (about the same distance as in your quote), and they can be observed very well...with no atmospheric reffraction phenomenon there to be seen...atmospheric reffraction is a desperate attempt to use Alice in Wonderland physics to hide the very obvious: mountain peaks can be observed from far away, all over the world, because the earth is flat...
You know you are going completely against the links you post.
50 m in altitude does not negate at all 50 meters of curvature...you do not know what you are saying there...at a altitude of 50 meters, you'd barely see the top of the midpoint maximum curvature of 50 meters...that is the point I have been trying to tell you here for the past few messages...even if you ascend to say 100 meters, the curvature would still be very visible...get it now?
As you move up the horizon gets further away. Do you understand that? For objuects in the front curvature will disapear. The curvature will be present in the back ground.
The distance between Corfu and Albania, offers a curvature (in case of a round earth) which still would be observable...as you can see there...the shoreline is visible...no curvature between Albania and Corfu...
You cannot say that the curvature is not there. Small curvatures are hard to notice at shorter distances. Why are you expecting to see a curvature like you would from space?
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/April2005/IMG_0700.JPG) (reflection on the lake, with no curvature)
Again, another shot of Toronto, with no curvature whatsoever...
(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG)
Once again you are going against your link and once againt he picture isn't even close to water level.
The controversial, false and impossible theories and ideas belonging to Koppernigk, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were injected directly into the plastic, unformed minds of children, by means of seizing a country's educational system and turning it into a vehicle for indoctrination.
Aluminum foil hat. O wait aluminum doesn't exist right?
At first, the period 1687-1720, scientists who were not part of Rosenkreuzer society, vehemently opposed and criticized Newton's Principia, especially the impossible gravitational concept. The debate, as it was, came to an end about 1720, when most of the opponents died or retired. After 1720, the ideas of the London Royal Society became obligatory material to be taught in Universities, first in England, and then in France, Holland, Sweden, and the rest of Europe--thus an entire generation was captured, without any intellectual resistance.
There are expierments that prove the earth is round. The well experiment is one of them.
Arthur Koestler's analysis of Galileo:
The most egregious fact about the pre-1641 Galileo is that at the time he was vigorously defending Copernicanism before the Holy Office in 1633, he knew even then the system didn't work and that he had no substantial proof for it. Since he rejected Kepler's elliptical orbits (although he used Kepler's material whenever it was to his advantage, and claimed it as his own), and refused any compromise with the Jesuits who were going over to Brahe's geocentric model, he was stuck with Copernicus' forty-eight epicycles, yet he advertised the model as one that bypassed the earlier mechanical problems 'with one single motion of the earth.' It is obvious that either Galileo was lying or he never read Copernicus' book, which is one of the reasons Koestler refers to Copernicus' work as 'The book that nobody read.' Calling his bluff, Robert Bellarmine stated quite clearly to Galileo that the Church would not even consider changing its position on the cosmos unless Galileo could provide proof of his claims. In one of his more audacious moves, Galileo tried to prove his case by a strange concoction of theory and conjecture on the nature of tidal action. Having rejected as 'occultish' Kepler's explanation that the combination of the sun's and moon's gravity caused the daily tides, Galileo, even knowing that his own explanation could not be physically possible, nevertheless, to save his prestige, tried to convince the Catholic prelates that tides were caused by the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's monthly changes in orbital velocity. In addition, his theory addressed only a 24-hour tidal cycle, but even sailors knew, and reported to the common folk, that the tides alternated every 12 hours. Galileo then tried to explain the discrepancy by postulating that the ocean floor varied in depth. No wonder Koestler concludes his remarks with:
you typed all this to talk about tides? Sailors have tidal charts that tell them the tides. These of course use the RE model and of course they work.
There can be no doubt that Galileo's theory of the tides was based on unconscious self-deception.. making the complexities of Copernicus appear deceptively simple, was part of a deliberate strategy, based on Galileo's contempt for the intelligence of his contemporaries. We have seen that scholars have always been prone to manias and obsessions, and inclined to cheat about details; but impostures like Galileo's are rare in the annals of science.
ok dude.
Again from Newton, the aether theory he knew to be correct:
In Newton's student notes on Descartes (c. 1668, a rather Aristotelian downward impulsion of gravity is compared with the centrifugal force of the (Cartesian) solar vortex:
Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.
The aether that has still never been found.
Newton, 1675:
So may the gravitating attraction of the earth be caused by the continual condensation of some other such like aetherial spirit, not of the main body of phlegmatic aether, but of something very thinly and subtilely diffused through it, perhaps of an unctious, or gummy tenacious and springy nature.
The notion came to him while observing how a lens on his table when rubbed would attract little bits of paper: ‘yet would the papers as they hung under the glass recieve some new motion, inclining this way or that way, according as I moved my finger.' He surmised that there must be some subtle ether causing this, which was a fair enough way of referring to static electricity, and that the ether of gravity was of a different kind.
He has since been proven wrong. We know where gravitation comes from.
As ‘nature is a perpetual circulatory worker', so this gravitational ether circulated, thereby pulling things downwards. It was a rather vitalistic and alchemical theory:
the vast body of the earth, which may be everywhere to the very centre in perpetual working, may continually condense so much of this spirit as to cause it from above to descend with great celerity for a supply.
No evidence what so ever.
Again, Newton, 1679:
A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679, wherein ‘ye cause of gravity' was to be found, not as earlier in a flux of downward-rushing particles, but in a static gradient of texture in an aether, from grosser particles above to subtler ones below.38 The gradient extended to Earth's centre:
from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.
Newton's Principia had one major problem, however. How could two objects attract each other across a vacuum? This was a theory like that of Aristotle's, but now a stone did not have just a 'natural tendency' to fall to Earth, far more incredibly it had a 'natural tendency' to be attracted to every other object in the universe. Descartes had a rational explanation for why stones fell to Earth and why planets orbited the Sun. Newton's theory, however, was based on some magic power of matter to be attracted to all other matter and this was anything but rational.
Its 2008, not 1679. You know they used to think a pile of rags could spawn rats.
-
Alright Levee. I will completely forsake all my personal experiments that prove a RE for two simple proofs from you. I want you to place a 50m tall stick on both sides of the area you will be taking your photo. Then I want you to back up to around 40km and see how well you can see that VERY tiny 50m tall stick. Next I would like for you to show me a picture of a ship floating around 60km away without it's base concealed below the horizon.
As another point... These photos are from the Concorde which cruises around an altitude of 40,000 ft. Look how subtle the curvature is at this altitude.
(http://www.braniffpages.com/edgeofspace.jpg)
Now look at this photo from a boat. You can see an obvious curvature of the Earth.
(http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk/tn_DSCF0113.jpg)
As a parting word, I would recommend you go outside, look up at the actual sun. Then drive to the ocean, rent a power boat. Take your boat 50miles out and see what the horizon looks like. Until then, stop arguing a hypothesis in which anyone can simply prove by doing what I just suggested.
-
Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...
You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...
Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.
You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.
You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).
Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.
Ball lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.
Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.
Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.
Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.
Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.
The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.
This is all well and good. You still have not accounted for how all the destructive forces emitted from the Sun (Solar flares 3x the diameter of the Sun, X-Rays, UV Rays, Gamma Rays) somehow do not mess our entire earth up? The solar flares alone (not to mention the Magnetic fields they contain) would constantly be striking our surface. Their magnetic fields would makes electrical conduits impossible. Another point that needs consideration is sunspots. We can see sunspots disappear upon rotation and reappear on the other side, only to move across the surface again and repeat the process.
-
sokarul, I think it is time that our discussion on this subject (photographic evidence/flat earth debate) came to an end.
Your involuntary thread bumping served a very good purpose: to let us all know that there is absolutely no curvature over the Lake Ontario (a distance of 53 km); the photographs clearly were made from a height of (well) under 50 meters (150 feet)...I think you are 1/10000th of this forum.
Your round earth wet dreams are very nice, but certainly you are no defender of the heliocentric system, nor a lawyer for Itzhak Newton.
I appreciate, though, your presence here, and wish you much success in all your endeavours...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michemus, a very good message from you...congratulations...with the exception of the photographs you posted which mean absolutely nothing and add nothing to our debate; they cannot be used for either flat earth or round earth theory discussions, there is no subtle curvature there, as you say...; if you like photography, you have here at your disposal all the evidence you need to soundly prove the flat earth theory and to show that there is absolute no curvature at the Earth's surface over the strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, Lake Ontario and over the distance between S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands and California.
What is the point about the solar flares? Look closely at the first message posted here; the real size of the Sun and of the planets/Iss/Atlantis; research carefully the five solar paradoxes, one of them (solid sun surface paradox) will show you that the Sun is covered with a plasma layer...also the fact that between the Sun and the Earth we have the heavenly dome which actually protects us from all that radiation...also, I included some details which show what the real energy source of the Sun is, and that this source cannot be nuclear or electric at all, as evidenced by the sun neutrino paradox and the sun coronal heating paradox...
RE: sunspots...well, here you hit the jackpot because they prove that the Sun cannot have a spherical shape at all:
(from I. Velikovsky's Cosmos without Gravitation):
11. 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?
12. 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.(16) 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.
13. 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).
Also:
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Michemus, please read also http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1 the impossibility of the big bang/string theory scenarios to see how from the start no stars/galaxies could have been formed in the first place, much information about the impossible scenario of a heliocentric planetary system...
And remember the five solar paradoxes...if I have the time I will describe them here...starting with the faint young sun paradox...
An extraordinary documentary for you: MYSTERIES OF THE SACRED UNIVERSE, it describes the theory of the flat earth as evidenced by Vedic Cosmology, it includes many wonderful diagrams/graphics which will be of help; the author, R. Thompson, however, superimposes his heliocentric views on the geocentric theory, but if we ignore this, we have at our disposal a very good source of information...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-538297875584368796&q=mysteries+of+the+sacred+universe&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
(www.video.google.com, search mysteries of the sacred universe)
There are many other points and issues that we have not been addressing here...the fact the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals (which, if you read the impossibility of the big bang article, you will see that they could not have been formed at all) from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have ben followeed immediately by cooling (I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, which I urge all of you to read right away, especially the chapters: In an immense Universe; The sun ages; The world ages; Origin of Comets; The quarters of the world displaced; The fifty-two year period; Poles uprooted; The Water clock; Disarranged months; Year of 360 days; Years of 10 months; more details in the next three paragraphs)...
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reason this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
The velocity of the axial rotation of the sun at the time the planetary system was built could not have been sufficient to enable bands of matter to break away; but even if they had broken away, they would not have balled into globes.
Also the origin of the salt in the oceans poses a very interesting problem for the heliocentric system, see:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htm
Also, if you have the time, read Earth in Upheaval by I. Velikovsky.
What Velikovsky does in his books is to totally destroy and demolish the Newtonian/Keplerian heliocentrical system, presenting thousand of references and many proofs which show that the Earth, in the heliocentric version, stopped from rotating around its own axis/orbiting the Sun, several times in the past several thousand years...
If we have the time, we will go into the unimaginable errors committed by Zecharia Sitchin (The 12th Planet), who interpreted in the wrongest possible manner the Enuma Elish, The Sumerian Creation Epic.
Two of the very best sites on past planetary catastrophism:
http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/othercat.htm
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari
The very best proofs that the Earth could not possibly cause the lunar eclipse were offered by Rowbotham in http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm (just two mistakes there...the fact that he assumes it is the Moon which causes the solar eclipse and the fact that the Moon can and does reflect sunlight, which he denies apparently...).
What then are the two heavenly bodies which do cause the solar/lunar eclipse? To answer this question, for those interested, will take you into the most extraordinary search in the past, to reconstruct what happened 5.800 years ago (the first planetary catastrophy), 4.250 years ago (the Great Flood), 3.600 years ago (the Exodus), and thus be able to know exactly what is in store for us given that we are so near to the end of the Fifth Epoch (there is no global warming; the weather is changing because we are nearing the end of a world age).
Research the link between Tiamat/Nibiru, Rahu/Ketu, Fenrir/Hati/Skoll and the mysterious disappearance from the sky of two stars, 5.800 years ago, Sirius B and Sirius C (the records, including the Dogon tribe legends, explain clearly that the remains of the collision of Sirius B and Jupiter are what now orbit Sirius A; the star itself became one of our planets).
-
Now, to prove again that the Earth cannot possibly rotate around its own axis (the cloud trajectory and a new, extremely interesting argument):
The cloud trajectory argument which proves the Earth does not rotate around its own axis (from Galileo Was Wrong, to satisfy TheEngineer's requirements...):
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.
Atmospheric circulation:
The conventional model
Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.
The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:
If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.
If we are on a rotating Earth with non-viscous air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.
For the second argument, we should remember that an UFO is completely screened from any external physical forces (magnetic, electric, "gravitational" [the real source, the etheric pressure, and not the practical joke invented by Newton which he denied often in private letters]); making U-turns and 90 degree turns which defy the laws of mechanics (copied by Newton from Vedic sutras, extraordinary proofs in this regard); then, given that the Earth, as we are told, is orbiting the Sun at approximately 19 miles a second (29 km/s), that is 100,000 km/hr, an UFO would immediately disappear before our eyes and would have a hard time just catching up, at 100,000 km/hr speed, with the Earth; but, this does not happen at all, even though the flying saucer is completely screened from the pressure gravitation that we are all subjected to, meaning that the Earth is stationary and not rotating around its own axis. The best proofs of the UFO' existence has been offerred by Vladimir Terziski, with video material, in many conferences...
Now, for the best sites/information re: UFOs...
http://www.eyepod.org/Nazi-Disc-Photos.html
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/preveningl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL1ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL2ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL3ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL4ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL5ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL8ingl.htm
(an unusual site re: UFO matter)
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/HTMLdosya1/NaziUFOTechnology.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/hitler,nazis%20and%20the%20occult.htm
One of the most extraordinary sites:
http://missilegate.com/rfz/
-
For some time after it was accepted that planets (including Earth) circle the Sun, there was no direct proof that it is Earth that moves, and not the Sun.
Ancient astronomer Aristarchus thought that Earth goes around the Sun since he discovered that the Sun is much bigger than Earth. Copernicus (who is usually credited with the idea that planets go around the Sun) thought that Solar system centered on the Sun is more logical and beautiful, but had no definite proof. Kepler discovered that laws governing of orbits become much more simple if the Sun is in their center. Newton has shown that this is caused by the universal law of gravity. If gravity works, Earth and other planets have to go around the Sun, because it is much heavier.
There was no straightforward proof for the motion of Earth until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.
Another, much simpler, consequence of Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, than the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.
A common experiment illustrating parallax is just looking at a close object (a finger, a pencil etc) with one eye at the time. When you switch from one to the other eye, the object will appear to move against the background. Closer the object is to your eyes, more pronounced the effect is.
Parallax should not be confused with aberration: parallax arises from the change of Earth's position and depends on the distance to the star, while aberration is caused by Earth's great speed and does not depend on how far the star is.
Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).
A third discovery proving Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.
So, aberration (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's speed), parallax (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's changing position) and Doppler effect (slight change in color of stars due to Earth's speed) all prove that Earth is moving around the Sun, and not the other way round.
-
Levee you are an idiot. You still cannot comprehend how your own links proved you wrong and now you are talking about UFOs.
Your arguments are worthless. They are of narcberry quality. I will pick them apart when I feel like it.
-
Levee you are an idiot.
I could have sworn I instructed you to stop posting in this manner.
-
You mean you're not going to post anymore, Levee?
Thank you, Sokarul, you've done good work :D
-
michamus, we all appreciate your message...but it does not include the truth...and it might amount to just a high-school bull session...
As I have explained already, there were only 12 people in the ancient world who presented in public a heliocentric planetary version; Aristarchus was a disciple of Pythagoras, and was part of the cult dedicated to Sun worship...and was no astronomer at all...
A wonderful quote for you...
Now today everybody 'just knows' that the earth goes round the sun (heliocentrism). Yet
all attempts to show that the earth is moving have failed: 'We cannot feel our motion through
space; nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion.' Invoked
'proofs' such as the phenomenon of the earth's obliqueness (slight flattening at the poles), the
Doppler effect (the apparent change in frequency of light as it moves towards or away from
the observer), the Sagnac effect (stellar aberration and parallax), nutation, Herschel's star
streaming, the Coriolis forces (the cause of water tending to drain clockwise in the northern
hemisphere, anti-clockwise in the southern), and Foucault's pendulum ... are in fact more
easily explained by the entire universe rotating about the earth once a day. And the toil of
thousands of exasperated researchers ... all conclusively failed to show any rotational
movement whatsoever. The result showed that the earth is absolutely stationary, and that it is
the rest of the universe that is doing the moving. 'Unthinkable!' to the bamboozled modern
mind, 'with undesirable philosophical implications'; evolution is more unthinkable, yet most
of mankind hold by it -- 'proclaim a lie again and again and in due course all people will
believe you' (the late unlamented Goebbels).
All the research confirms or favours the Biblical Tychonic schema, with all the planets of
the solar system (except the earth, which is not a planet) in epicycular retinue about the sun ...
About the stellar parallax...
http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page26.htm
Missing Doppler effect...
http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html
michemus, did you read the impossibility of the big bang/string theory article? How can you come here and comment about astronomy without understanding that no galaxies/stars could have formed in the first place? Read that article (I gave you the link)...without which all discussions about astrophysics/cosmogony are futile...
Find out what the faint young sun paradox is all about; then come here and comment on heliocosmology...
Here are a few more sites about Hubble's errors (there are other sites, much more informative, but I will not include them here):
http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html
An extraordinary article about the Doppler effect errors:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
And here is another superb analysis of the Doppler effect errors:
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-17.htm
Also, an essay from an unusual point of view, on this subject:
http://www.whcs.org.uk/essays%20(1).htm
-
fikealox, you do not understand...I am not paid to post information here...and I do not have the time to stop and take care of clowns like sokarul all the time...my time on the net is limited...and I have already dedicated quite a lot of it here, on this forum, in order to provide the best information which will help you to make a better decision in your flat earth/round earth debate...it is not my forum...if the flatearthsociety moderators do not care that an imbecile like this sokarul can post garbage wherever he chooses, then it is not my business to try to correct (the time factor) these things here...I have other things to do...
-
Your arguments are worthless. They are of narcberry quality. I will pick them apart when I feel like it.
SURVEY SAYS: SOKARUL IS A DUMBFUCK!!!
Only a dumbfuck like sokarul can interpret a practical joke photograph as evidence in his favor.
TheEngineer, you should have immediately removed that comment from this imbecile, since he has shown he has nothing to say and is wasting everybody's time here.
I say this because my next message would have included the real flat earth map (the global Piri Reis map), how Columbus/Magellan/Cabot had access to exact flat earth maps which took them to their desired destination, and many other arguments; now, you will have to ask so(fuc)karul to provide this information for all of you...
And your post is any better? I'd much rather have Sokarul posting than you because all you do is spout a load of shit that we know you don't actually believe but you seem to get some kick out of it. So all in all you're just another Tom Bishop and one is enough for any forum so piss off.
-
Now, to prove again that the Earth cannot possibly rotate around its own axis (the cloud trajectory and a new, extremely interesting argument):
The cloud trajectory argument which proves the Earth does not rotate around its own axis (from Galileo Was Wrong, to satisfy TheEngineer's requirements...):
The clouds do not prove anything.
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.
Air patterns never came from the rotating earth. Where did you even come up with that?
Atmospheric circulation:
The conventional model
Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:
The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.
I have no idea what you are trying to explain. Are you trying to say what the re says or are you trying to go against what you believe?
The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph. Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:
If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.
There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.
There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.
The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.
Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always. But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.
Once again, no one claimed the jet stream came from a rotating earth.
If we are on a rotating Earth with non-viscous air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.
Wrong. Air is more than capable of matching the rotation of the earth.
Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.
Physics is the coupling mechanism. I suggest you check it out.
For the second argument, we should remember that an UFO is completely screened from any external physical forces (magnetic, electric, "gravitational" [the real source, the etheric pressure, and not the practical joke invented by Newton which he denied often in private letters]); making U-turns and 90 degree turns which defy the laws of mechanics (copied by Newton from Vedic sutras, extraordinary proofs in this regard); then, given that the Earth, as we are told, is orbiting the Sun at approximately 19 miles a second (29 km/s), that is 100,000 km/hr, an UFO would immediately disappear before our eyes and would have a hard time just catching up, at 100,000 km/hr speed, with the Earth; but, this does not happen at all, even though the flying saucer is completely screened from the pressure gravitation that we are all subjected to, meaning that the Earth is stationary and not rotating around its own axis. The best proofs of the UFO' existence has been offerred by Vladimir Terziski, with video material, in many conferences...
The FE states that the earth is traveling at .999999999999c. How could a UFO catch that if it can't even catch 100,000 km/hr?
Now, for the best sites/information re: UFOs...
http://www.eyepod.org/Nazi-Disc-Photos.html
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/preveningl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL1ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL2ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL3ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL4ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL5ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://ovni.do.sapo.pt/principal/antartica/antarct_ingl/VRIL8ingl.htm
(an unusual site re: UFO matter)
hahahaha
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/HTMLdosya1/NaziUFOTechnology.htm
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/hitler,nazis%20and%20the%20occult.htm
One of the most extraordinary sites:
http://missilegate.com/rfz/
Had those worked, they would of won the war.
[/quote]
-
sokarul, I think it is time that our discussion on this subject (photographic evidence/flat earth debate) came to an end.
Yeah, becasue your OWN LINKS PROVE YOU WRONG.
Your involuntary thread bumping served a very good purpose: to let us all know that there is absolutely no curvature over the Lake Ontario (a distance of 53 km); the photographs clearly were made from a height of (well) under 50 meters (150 feet)...I think you are 1/10000th of this forum.
I bumped it to get it at the end of the off topic posts. You cannot say at what heights the photos were taken at becasue you don't know. I am a little more than 1/10000th of this forum as it seems before I came back, fe'ers like you were running wild. I slowed you right down.
Your round earth wet dreams are very nice, but certainly you are no defender of the heliocentric system, nor a lawyer for Itzhak Newton.
I appreciate, though, your presence here, and wish you much success in all your endeavours...
You forgot some things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michemus, a very good message from you...congratulations...with the exception of the photographs you posted which mean absolutely nothing and add nothing to our debate; they cannot be used for either flat earth or round earth theory discussions, there is no subtle curvature there, as you say...; if you like photography, you have here at your disposal all the evidence you need to soundly prove the flat earth theory and to show that there is absolute no curvature at the Earth's surface over the strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, Lake Ontario and over the distance between S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands and California.
This was already proven false.
What is the point about the solar flares? Look closely at the first message posted here; the real size of the Sun and of the planets/Iss/Atlantis; research carefully the five solar paradoxes, one of them (solid sun surface paradox) will show you that the Sun is covered with a plasma layer...also the fact that between the Sun and the Earth we have the heavenly dome which actually protects us from all that radiation...also, I included some details which show what the real energy source of the Sun is, and that this source cannot be nuclear or electric at all, as evidenced by the sun neutrino paradox and the sun coronal heating paradox...
Your opinions cannot disprove all of physics. The heavy dome protects us? Whats a sunburn then? Humans have a pretty good idea how the sun works. Its 2008 after all.
RE: sunspots...well, here you hit the jackpot because they prove that the Sun cannot have a spherical shape at all:
(from I. Velikovsky's Cosmos without Gravitation):
11. 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?
12. 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.(16) 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.
13. 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).
These sound like they were writen by the same author as 100 proofs earth is not a globe.
Also:
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Because you are claims something that s not true. Thats why it doesn't happen.
Michemus, please read also http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1 the impossibility of the big bang/string theory scenarios to see how from the start no stars/galaxies could have been formed in the first place, much information about the impossible scenario of a heliocentric planetary system...
And remember the five solar paradoxes...if I have the time I will describe them here...starting with the faint young sun paradox...
When are you going to research all the physics that does work? You know like atoms and stuff.
An extraordinary documentary for you: MYSTERIES OF THE SACRED UNIVERSE, it describes the theory of the flat earth as evidenced by Vedic Cosmology, it includes many wonderful diagrams/graphics which will be of help; the author, R. Thompson, however, superimposes his heliocentric views on the geocentric theory, but if we ignore this, we have at our disposal a very good source of information...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-538297875584368796&q=mysteries+of+the+sacred+universe&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
(www.video.google.com, search mysteries of the sacred universe)
So you believe what you agree with and ignore what you don't.
There are many other points and issues that we have not been addressing here...the fact the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals (which, if you read the impossibility of the big bang article, you will see that they could not have been formed at all) from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have ben followeed immediately by cooling (I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, which I urge all of you to read right away, especially the chapters: In an immense Universe; The sun ages; The world ages; Origin of Comets; The quarters of the world displaced; The fifty-two year period; Poles uprooted; The Water clock; Disarranged months; Year of 360 days; Years of 10 months; more details in the next three paragraphs)...
Stop making up assumptions to prove your point. Its like me saying that a flat earth would lead to ducks with 4 legs and since ducks have only 2 legs the earth is round.
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reason this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
See again making stupid claims. When the earth was molten, there was no oxygen. Oxygen came later, after water even.
The velocity of the axial rotation of the sun at the time the planetary system was built could not have been sufficient to enable bands of matter to break away; but even if they had broken away, they would not have balled into globes.
I suggest you watch he show "The Universe" They cover how the planets and sun formed. And of course they don't need to make up random assumptions.
Also the origin of the salt in the oceans poses a very interesting problem for the heliocentric system, see:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htm
Did you see the date of his sources? Also that link no way proves the earth is flat. A flat earth would still have to get salt into the oceans.
Also, if you have the time, read Earth in Upheaval by I. Velikovsky.
What Velikovsky does in his books is to totally destroy and demolish the Newtonian/Keplerian heliocentrical system, presenting thousand of references and many proofs which show that the Earth, in the heliocentric version, stopped from rotating around its own axis/orbiting the Sun, several times in the past several thousand years...
And then read all the criticism Velikovsky received for his books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky He didn't destroy anything.
If we have the time, we will go into the unimaginable errors committed by Zecharia Sitchin (The 12th Planet), who interpreted in the wrongest possible manner the Enuma Elish, The Sumerian Creation Epic.
Are you going to assume stuff and make an ass out of you and me again?
Two of the very best sites on past planetary catastrophism:
http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/othercat.htm
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari
Weak sites
The very best proofs that the Earth could not possibly cause the lunar eclipse were offered by Rowbotham in http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm (just two mistakes there...the fact that he assumes it is the Moon which causes the solar eclipse and the fact that the Moon can and does reflect sunlight, which he denies apparently...).
Rowbotham had to make up his own physics becasue current physics didn't fit his ideas.
What then are the two heavenly bodies which do cause the solar/lunar eclipse? To answer this question, for those interested, will take you into the most extraordinary search in the past, to reconstruct what happened 5.800 years ago (the first planetary catastrophy), 4.250 years ago (the Great Flood), 3.600 years ago (the Exodus), and thus be able to know exactly what is in store for us given that we are so near to the end of the Fifth Epoch (there is no global warming; the weather is changing because we are nearing the end of a world age).
There is a lunar eclipse coming the 20th I think. Should I keep a lookout for the shadow object?
Research the link between Tiamat/Nibiru, Rahu/Ketu, Fenrir/Hati/Skoll and the mysterious disappearance from the sky of two stars, 5.800 years ago, Sirius B and Sirius C (the records, including the Dogon tribe legends, explain clearly that the remains of the collision of Sirius B and Jupiter are what now orbit Sirius A; the star itself became one of our planets).
lol
-
Sok, I pretty much have come to the conclusion that the FE response to practical physics, and demonstrated proofs of a RE are simply replied with "Nuh uh, I found a site that says something different... therefor the earth cannot be round!" Or my favorite. "Wouldn't we feel the Earth spinning and moving through space?" I learned the answer to that one the first time I rode in a car.
-
SURVEY SAYS: SOKARUL IS A DUMBFUCK!!!
Both of you need to stop.
-
The result showed that the earth is absolutely stationary
In our frame of reference, yes. In the Earth's frame of reference, no.
-
"If we are on a rotating Earth with non-viscous air subject only to gravity.."
Who said air is non viscous? If air wasn't viscous cars would be a whole lot more efficient.
-
TheEngineer, perhaps we need here a new section of this forum: a junior flat earth debate & discussion where infantiles like fhsy94 and sokarul can have a field day. If anyone there (under 18 years of age) proves worthy, then and only then could he/she post here, where we should have serious flat earth/round earth debates.
sokarul, please understand that you have lost your right to comment on anything relating to my messages or to anything concerning this site; you have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant, with a laughable and disastrous understanding of physics.
If the administrators will permit this ignorant to further post messages here, then that means that they truly do not care about the quality of the discussions which take place here.
Maybe a solution would be to enable each of us to moderate our own threads; to be able to remove/erase comments which are not pertinent to the discussions...
sokarul, how much more stupidity are we to endure from you? You do not know what you are saying, what you are commenting, you are showing yourself for what you truly are: an ignorant, you lack the basic knowledge to make intelligent comments; go back to the drawing board, study much more, do your homework, and only then you should come here and dare to say anything; and all this after you presented as evidence a practical joke, modified, photograph.
I. Velikovsky had five university degrees under his belt; was the roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton; after Einstein died a single book was found open on his desk, Worlds in Collision; which Einstein thought to be true; in 1972 Velikovsky destroyed Carl Sagan in a live debate, showing him all the errors of current astrophysics/cosmology knowledge.
If you do not know enough, study before you come here and post garbage. Read Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, it will help you very much. Read the subject (I have already posted here enough links) of the heavenly dome, and how the sunrays/light/energy/radiation is allowed to pass through this dome, where these openings are, and how they work.
Obviously you haven't read my messages; it is false to claim the Earth is travelling with close to the speed of light through space; many of the FAQ facts are wrong, I have already addressed this issue here; the Earth is absolutely stationary, located in the center of the Universe; read, do your homework, get rid of your ignorance.
FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS: if this ignorant will be permitted to post further here I have no choice but to stop posting; he has nothing pertinent to say, and is wasting his time, my time, and everybody's time here; he should be banned from this section of the forum for incompetence. Or you could give us the message removal/erasure function to our own threads, so that I can get rid of garbage posted on my threads.
michemus, all your questions have been answered, please study those links, and the photographs which are absolutely real, and you will come to the unescapable conclusion: the earth is stationary and with a flat surface. If you still do not believe this, you have at your disposal the experiment you can do anytime, nobody's stopping you...you have a mediocre understanding of this debate, I try to give enough information so that you will see how easily you have been deceived by the official story...
gaystain, the only shit is inside your messages, which for the past several months or so, amount to very little...change your style...to get different results...
jim, it is sometimes said that lower atmosphere layers are sensible to viscous interaction, so a movement of the ground causes the movement of those lower layers with it, but it is not proven at all. Upper layers are not exposed in such a way to the ground interaction, the official theory goes. If the atmosphere were stationary there would be winds of 1000 miles/hr (1600 km/hr) on the ground/surface. Now, if the atmosphere is turning with the earth at the same speed, how then can the air/clouds move anywhere "gravity" permits?
Another quote for you:
Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case.
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.
Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.
But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere.
Jim, please read all the other arguments I have posted here so far; and of course, read thoroughly the impossibility of the big bang/string theory article...
-
tiny bit off topic, but I would love an ignore user function.
-
ignore user is not enough; and not needed if we could remove/erase unwanted comments on our own threads, that is, to moderate our own threads here.
also, the junior flat earth debate & discussion should be an option here; we should not have to stop and answer useless questions from juvenile users.
-
Or just an area where we could discuss things with veteran users. Those with x amount of posts and y amount of time spent. I suppose that wouldn't stop some of them though.
-
Or just an area where we could discuss things with veteran users. Those with x amount of posts and y amount of time spent. I suppose that wouldn't stop some of them though.
Then you'd all get to discuss with me
Levee seriously, no one likes you. You're not fooling anyone here, well at least not anyone with half a brain. So I do hope you will stop posting.
-
"Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong."
You just lost any credibility you may have once had.
-
SURVEY SAYS: SOKARUL IS A DUMBFUCK!!!
Probably the only thing you've said worth reading.
-
Look closely and carefully (remove your glasses). Then you will see that the distance Mercury-Sun, and ISS-Sun is the same (about the same), given that there is a dome between the Iss and Sun, while Mercury is on the other side, so to speak.
Same distance, same size; that's is why these Sun transits were so important, because once and for all we could see the real or true sizes and distances of Mercury relative to the Sun/Iss.
Open your eyes, remove your glasses and hold up a can about 3 inches away from your face. Now, look at a person about 10' away. What do you see.......THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE! Oh man, its so obvious isn't it? When you can clearly see these two objects being the same size....they are one in the same! All people are cans and all cans are people. Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
-
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.
-
Jim, the argument is about the gravitational charge alignment, no needed to go after the credibility issue, given that you tried to include here falsified evidence, the photograph (the practical joke you tried to pull on us) you posted here...
Read the material I posted on the gravitons/gravitational anomalies; Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.
Of course, much more could be added re: air flow, relative motion, an equation to actually represent the charge alignment, there is also an extraordinary site with a fantastic debate between geocentrists and university physics graduates about the atmosphere flow argument, maybe I will include it here...
Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
Compare especially:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
-
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.
lol, you got the reference then.
-
Or at least they are the same size.....Its almost like I've just had a mystical experience. Something has just told me "Something just isn't right." I must investigate this immediately.
Grow up.
lol, you got the reference then.
Yes, it was quite clever and sharp.
-
TheEngineer, perhaps we need here a new section of this forum: a junior flat earth debate & discussion where infantiles like fhsy94 and sokarul can have a field day. If anyone there (under 18 years of age) proves worthy, then and only then could he/she post here, where we should have serious flat earth/round earth debates.
I''m 23.
sokarul, please understand that you have lost your right to comment on anything relating to my messages or to anything concerning this site; you have shown yourself to be nothing but an ignorant, with a laughable and disastrous understanding of physics.
You are the one trying to use 2d pictures to tell distanaces.
If the administrators will permit this ignorant to further post messages here, then that means that they truly do not care about the quality of the discussions which take place here.
You are scared of me becasue you cannot attack all of my attacks like I attack all of yours.
Maybe a solution would be to enable each of us to moderate our own threads; to be able to remove/erase comments which are not pertinent to the discussions...
So you can be a coward and delete posts that own you?
sokarul, how much more stupidity are we to endure from you? You do not know what you are saying, what you are commenting, you are showing yourself for what you truly are: an ignorant, you lack the basic knowledge to make intelligent comments; go back to the drawing board, study much more, do your homework, and only then you should come here and dare to say anything; and all this after you presented as evidence a practical joke, modified, photograph.
I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying you have no idea what the law of perspective is. What I present is a joke yet all your mirages are sound? Your own links prove you wrong.
I. Velikovsky had five university degrees under his belt; was the roommate of A. Einstein at Princeton; after Einstein died a single book was found open on his desk, Worlds in Collision; which Einstein thought to be true; in 1972 Velikovsky destroyed Carl Sagan in a live debate, showing him all the errors of current astrophysics/cosmology knowledge.
Stop making shit up. Everyone and their mother know Velikovsky made stuff up. Look it up, his works have been discredited long ago.
If you do not know enough, study before you come here and post garbage. Read Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, it will help you very much. Read the subject (I have already posted here enough links) of the heavenly dome, and how the sunrays/light/energy/radiation is allowed to pass through this dome, where these openings are, and how they work.
Why would I read something thats wrong?
Obviously you haven't read my messages; it is false to claim the Earth is travelling with close to the speed of light through space; many of the FAQ facts are wrong, I have already addressed this issue here; the Earth is absolutely stationary, located in the center of the Universe; read, do your homework, get rid of your ignorance.
To use acceleration to keep people on the ground makes the earths speed close to the speed of light. What ever you are saying it really is would of came out of thin air.
FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS: if this ignorant will be permitted to post further here I have no choice but to stop posting; he has nothing pertinent to say, and is wasting his time, my time, and everybody's time here; he should be banned from this section of the forum for incompetence. Or you could give us the message removal/erasure function to our own threads, so that I can get rid of garbage posted on my threads.
Good, I'm tired of going to random websites that anyone can create to read how you are wrong.
michemus, all your questions have been answered, please study those links, and the photographs which are absolutely real, and you will come to the unescapable conclusion: the earth is stationary and with a flat surface. If you still do not believe this, you have at your disposal the experiment you can do anytime, nobody's stopping you...you have a mediocre understanding of this debate, I try to give enough information so that you will see how easily you have been deceived by the official story...
You have no rebuttals.
gaystain, the only shit is inside your messages, which for the past several months or so, amount to very little...change your style...to get different results...
wow
jim, it is sometimes said that lower atmosphere layers are sensible to viscous interaction, so a movement of the ground causes the movement of those lower layers with it, but it is not proven at all. Upper layers are not exposed in such a way to the ground interaction, the official theory goes. If the atmosphere were stationary there would be winds of 1000 miles/hr (1600 km/hr) on the ground/surface. Now, if the atmosphere is turning with the earth at the same speed, how then can the air/clouds move anywhere "gravity" permits?
Its called physics.
Another quote for you:
Using the "round Earth" theory, setting an object on the earth would be like setting grains of sand on a beach ball. Certainly a few grains would stay - right around the top, the surface is nearly horizontal - but when you stray too far from the absolute top of the ball, the grains of sand start sliding off and falling onto the ground. The Earth, if round, should behave in exactly the same fashion. Because the top is a very localized region on a sphere, if the Earth were in fact round, there would be only a very small area of land that would be at all inhabitable. Stray to the outside fringes of the "safe zone", and you start walking at a tilt. The further out you go, the more you slant, until your very survival is determined by the tread on your boots. Reach a certain point, and you slide off the face of the planet entirely. Obviously, something is wrong.
Another narcberry claim. The answer is GRAVITAION. DO YOU UNDER STAND THAT?
In order to avoid the aforementioned scenario, (which obviously is inaccurate, as you very rarely hear of people falling off the face of the planet) we are forced to assume that, in the "round Earth" theory, there would be a gravitational field radiating from the center of the planet. All objects, be they rocks, insects, humans, or other planets would have, under Efimovich's theory, have a gravitational "charge" that would, under a certain alignment, cause them to be attracted to the center of the Earth. Unfortunately, like a magnet in a stronger magnetic field, it would undoubtedly require a long time to re-align an object's gravitational charge, were this the case.
Gravitation can be seen, its not made up like your theories.
Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface.
Once again its gravitation. You have no evidence of a "dome".
Conventional thinking would suggest that the water would just run down the sides of the Earth (to use the analogy again, like droplets running down the sides of a beach ball) and fall into outer space, while the air would dissipate. Using the earlier mentioned idea of "gravitational charge" gives some credibility to the theory. If the fluids were static, then exposure to the gravitational field for a long enough period of time would allow their molecules to align themselves with and be pulled in by the field.
If your narcberry stupid this woruld happen.
But fluids are not static, especially not in the atmosphere and oceans. Great ocean currents run both at the surface and deep below, carrying water across huge basins, keeping the solution far from stagnant. Jet streams of air travel at hundreds of miles per hour through the atmosphere.
Yes because they don't use your reason.
[/quote]
-
Jim, the argument is about the gravitational charge alignment, no needed to go after the credibility issue, given that you tried to include here falsified evidence, the photograph (the practical joke you tried to pull on us) you posted here...
Read the material I posted on the gravitons/gravitational anomalies; Velikovsky's Cosmos Without Gravitation.
Of course, much more could be added re: air flow, relative motion, an equation to actually represent the charge alignment, there is also an extraordinary site with a fantastic debate between geocentrists and university physics graduates about the atmosphere flow argument, maybe I will include it here...
Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
Compare especially:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
Perspective
(http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/4598/13665/f/58265-Leaning-tower-of-pisa-1.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/25/53533416_8b1c99fafe_m.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/102/304876399_ddb9815238.jpg)
-
Benocrates, I appreciate your comment...here is the evidence:
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
Summed up quite easily - perspective.
Still waiting on a distance overview. You realize of course when looking at the sun you see a gradient around the edge of the sun. This same gradient is seen in Spheres. Why would this gradient exist on a circular sun?
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters (50 meters Mercury, 75-100 meters Venus) in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, and Tiamat/Nibiru).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
Hmmm... quite possibly perspective... once again? You do understand the further away an object is, the smaller it seems to everything else? The sun's (sol) diameter is 1.392 × 10^9m and is at a distance of 2.5 × 10^20m. Mercury is 69,816,900km from sol and 2,439.7 km in diameter. Follow these steps (http://studiochalkboard.evansville.edu/lp-diminish.html) and you will find their dimensions will be quite similar to those "seen" from our surface from perspective
ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
and, of course: http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Perspective.
Mercury/Venus Sun Transit:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
Perspective.
Compare especially:
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
And finally, perspective.
I notice you stated nuclear technology is a lie? I suppose nuclear reactors create power from some other means? What about microwave ovens? I suppose their principles are a lie as well.
-
Hello, I've been away for a week on holiday. (Got some lovely pictures too!) Does Levee still think you can measure size and distance from a photograph, or has he seen the light? If not, then we as far as he is concerned there is strong evidence that both the moon and sun constantly change size and distance. Plus there are giant astronauts in space.
-
He probably still thinks that but who cares about him? Lets talk about your holiday. Where did you go and what did you get me? Show pictures!
-
I went to Gran Canaria, to a place on the south coast called San Augustin. I got you a lovely picture of the sinking ship effect (http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/3471/p1020075fo2.jpg), (which when I looked through binoculars looked exactly the same).
-
Poor ship, the whales got it :(
I'm sure my postcard is just delayed in the post
-
I don't have your address.
And you are right, the whales must be trained by the conspiracy! They must grab onto the bottoms of ships to make them sink.
-
As you have seen, the administrators/moderators have chosen not to respond to my request, and to let the ignorant (sokarul) to post further here.
Since their decisions are final and cannot be commented or discussed, I will leave this forum; if, at least, we had been given the removal of messages feature on our own threads, everything would have been different; as such, I cannot erase the spam posted by the sorry excuse for a scientist (sokarul), namely the unsubstantiated verbal vomit he has offered here.
At the end of this message, my last here, I will offer the best photograph so far, which proves (Conspiracy Agent, congratulations for your previous messages, but the sinking ship effect has already been explained in great details by Rowbotham, if you remember) beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, between Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover.
michemus, you do not understand how and when to apply the laws of perspective; look carefully at the photographs with the Sun transits, there are no 79,000,000 km between Atlantis and Mercury, there are no 148,000,000 km between Atlantis and the Sun, there are no 69,000,000 km between Mercury and the Sun.
These photographs show clearly the truth that Nasa does not want us to know; that the Sun is but a mere 28-30 km above us, and that Mercury is a metal disk with a diameter of about 50 meters. You can comment all you want on perspective, it does not apply here, understand. The photographs show clearly about the same distance ISS-Sun, Mercury-Sun, that is why these transits were so important in the first place, because for the first time we could catch the errors and fallacies of modern astronomy with the best possible photographic evidence.
Divito and michemus, you have at your disposal the experiment I already mentioned, you can use either a 9.6 km (1.8 meters curvature) or a 6.4 km (80 cm curvature, you sit in the boat or on the beach next to the sea/ocean) distance to convince yourselves once and for all that the Earth is flat and not round.
I thought that the moderators of this site would have been happy for someone to come here and, after 85 pages of debates, to finally prove to you, using many different photographs/arguments, that the Earth is flat.
But, they prefer an ignorant like sokarul to stay here further and post spam messages which are totally laughable.
Again, if they decide to give us the means to remove unwanted/spam messages, maybe I will come back one day...until then, farewell!!!
Let us now do a recap of the best photographs so far, which show us that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth; and, as I promised, I will post here, at the end, the most fantastic proof yet (a surprise).
http://www.expedition360.com/journal/archives/2007/09/
http://www.expedition360.com/journal/white_cliffs.jpg
The extraordinary photograph, taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, which shows that there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth, between White Cliffs Dover and France (distance of 34 km, with a curvature of 22.6 meters).
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:France_manche_vue_dover.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG
Again, no curvature over the English Channel, between White Cliffs Dover and France, at 22.6 meters, it would have been observable/visible immediately.
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/10/by_train_from_europe_to_africa_1.html
http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/straits_gibraltar.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/y/s/000e97gt_ys8osx2q.jpg
No curvature of the strait of Gibraltar (13 km distance, 3.3 meters curvature in case of a round earth).
A video documentary, Islamic History of Europe, which shows between 2:53 and 3:55, the author filmed on the beach (Spain), from shoulder level, and with clear images of the opposite shoreline (Morocco):
Over a distance of 53 km (with a curvature of 50 meters, that is a 20 story high building obstacle right in the middle, in case of a round earth scenario), there is absolutely no curvature over the Lake Ontario all the way to Toronto:
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoNight.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG
[Here is the site where you will find out that "On a clear day you can see right across from the Dover cliffs to the cliffs on the French coast at Cap Gris Nez" - http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/resource/articles/cliffs.asp ]
AND NOW, FOR THE MOST SUPERB PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN FROM THE BEACH OF CAP GRIS NEZ, FRANCE, AND SHOWING ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE OVER THE ENGLISH CHANNEL (34 KM DISTANCE, WITH A 22.6 METER ROUND EARTH CURVATURE), ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE CLIFFS, DOVER.
Here are the photographers on the beach of Cap Gris Nez:
http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1909270063/in/photostream/
HERE IS THE PHOTOGRAPH, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO CURVATURE WHATSOEVER, not even an inch, a centimeter or a micron, over the English Channel, between Cap Gris Nez and White Cliffs Dover:
http://flickr.com/photos/wstreet/1910078752/
Much great success to all of you here!!!...
-
To clarify some points that have been discussed lately (username, very useful and excellent messages at Why is the Earth Special):
1. Satellite Conspiracy
All satellites (geostationary/orbital) use Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device to function:
WHAT IS NOT SAID ABOUT THE SATELLITES
A TESLA FREE RADIANT ENERGY TYPE IS SO SMALL THAT CAN BE CAMOUFLAGED EASILY
Brooklyn Eagle July 10, 1932 Nikola Tesla states:
I have harnessed the cosmic rays and caused them to operate a motive device. Cosmic ray investigation is a subject that is very close to me. I was the first to discover these rays and I naturally feel toward them as I would toward my own flesh and blood. I have advanced a theory of the cosmic rays and at every step of my investigations I have found it completely justified. The attractive features of the cosmic rays is their constancy. They shower down on us throughout the whole 24 hours, and if a plant is developed to use their power it will not require devices for storing energy as would be necessary with devices using wind, tide or sunlight. All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light. More than 25 years ago I began my efforts to harness the cosmic rays and I can now state that I have succeeded in operating a motive device by means of them. I will tell you in the most general way, the cosmic ray ionizes the air, setting free many charges ions and electrons. These charges are captured in a condenser which is made to discharge through the circuit of the motor. I have hopes of building my motor on a large scale, but circumstances have not been favorable to carrying out my plan.
A satellite is a complex machine. All satellites are made up of several subsystems that work together as one large system to help the satellite achieve its mission. This simplified illustration shows the key parts of a remote-sensing satellite. The main subsystems are grouped by color.
http://www.smgaels.org/physics/97/MARIN32.GIF
http://www.nuenergy.org/images/gif/img00001.gif
http://www.thetech.org/hyper/satellite/images/anatomy.gif
With such a permanent supply of high quality energy, certainly the satellites are remote controlled from earth to make them go around or stay hovering in a specific place. They don't stay quite or moving because of any gravity - which is a lie- but because of the energy taken from those layers.
Two exceptional discussions about the satellites:
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/geosat.pdf
http://www.fixedearth.com/geosynchronous_sa.htm
2. Commercial/military flights
Straight line flying (with the exception of take-off/landing):
http://www.geistware.com/rcmodeling/aerobatics/maneuvers/straight_and_inverted_flight.htm
As stated, an observer on the ground would see the air going almost straight down behind the plane. This can be demonstrated by observing the tight column of air behind a propeller, a household fan, or under the rotors of a helicopter; all of which are rotating wings. If the air were coming off the blades at an angle the air would produce a cone rather than a tight column. If a plane were to fly over a very large scale, the scale would register the weight of the plane.
When I am being proper and responsible, I am flying high, maybe even 3000 feet above the ground. From that height, on good days I can see almost forever around me, but the details of the ground below have started to blend together and flatten. The view becomes more oriented to the sky than the ground as I fly a straight line to my destination.
http://bobtilden.com/11E01.htm
Commercial aircraft prefer to fly “straight and level” because it is convenient. Air traffic controllers have to keep aircraft from flying into each other, and having pilots fly airplanes in straight lines makes a controller’s job possible. Also, people tend to get airsick when an airplane moves erratically, so straight and level flight makes things more comfortable for the passengers and crew.
Between 1957-1961, about seven Soviet astronauts died (being literally cooked alive) because of the huge radiation found at just 28 km above (below the Heavenly Dome).
Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder (the maximum height achieved was kept secret). Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'."
That is why the ISS/Atlantis fly with no astronauts aboard; the Cosmic Ray Device of Tesla is protected against the radiation.
All missions ran into a belt of resistance (the ether below the Dome) which slowed them down or forced them to fly lower; the first Soviet missions tried to go through, but all the astronauts died aboard from the radiation.
3. The Flat Earth Map
Columbus, Magellan, Cabot and Vespucci had at their disposal the best flat earth maps which took them to their desired destination; Piri Reis, the famed admiral of the Ottoman fleet, had the same maps and published them in Bahriya, here is his flat earth map of the world (it does not include the ring of ice Antarctica and beyond):
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/e/000e97gt_pem6hbvo.gif
Then we start understanding that the map that we have used from the elementary school ( http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/world_rel_803005AI_2003.jpg ) is not an equidistant representation of the distances among the different parts of the earth, but it is a powerful tool to deceive us miserably making us to believe in a distorted reality.
The person chosen to transform the flat earth map into the round earth version was none other than one of the most famous rosicrucians of all: Gerald Kremer, also known as Mercator.
Columbus knew exactly were he was going, and used the flat earth maps to get there.
Here is a wonderful proof that the earth is flat, from Columbus' journal:
COLUMBUS AND THE FLAT SURFACE OF THE OCEAN
Columbus received the reward offered by the king for being the first one to see a human signal coming from some unseen land. Let's read his own words:
Thursday, 11 October. Steered west-southwest; and encountered a heavier sea than they had met with before in the whole voyage. Saw pardelas and a green rush near the vessel. The crew of the Pinta saw a cane and a log; they also picked up a stick which appeared to have been carved with an iron tool, a piece of cane, a plant which grows on land, and a board. The crew of the Nina saw other signs of land, and a stalk loaded with rose berries. These signs encouraged them, and they all grew cheerful. Sailed this day till sunset, twenty-seven leagues.
After sunset steered their original course west and sailed twelve miles an hour till two hours after midnight, going ninety miles, which are twenty-two leagues and a half; and as the Pinta was the swiftest sailer, and kept ahead of the Admiral, she discovered land and made the signals which had been ordered. The land was first seen by a sailor called Rodrigo de Triana, although the Admiral at ten o'clock that evening standing on the quarter-deck saw a light, but so small a body that he could not affirm it to be land; calling to Pero Gutierrez, groom of the King's wardrobe, he told him he saw a light, and bid him look that way, which he did and saw it; he did the same to Rodrigo Sanchez of Segovia, whom the King and Queen had sent with the squadron as comptroller, but he was unable to see it from his situation. The Admiral again perceived it once or twice, appearing like the light of a wax candle moving up and down, which some thought an indication of land. But the Admiral held it for certain that land was near; for which reason, after they had said the Salve which the seamen are accustomed to repeat and chant after their fashion, the Admiral directed them to keep a strict watch upon the forecastle and look out diligently for land, and to him who should first discover it he promised a silken jacket, besides the reward which the King and Queen had offered, which was an annuity of ten thousand maravedis. At two o'clock in the morning the land was discovered, at two leagues' distance; they took in sail and remained under the square-sail lying to till day, which was Friday, when they found themselves near a small island, one of the Lucayos, called in the Indian language Guanahani. ...Saturday, 13 October. This is a large and level island, with trees extremely flourishing, and streams of water; there is a large lake in the middle of the island, but no mountains: the whole is completely covered with verdure and delightful to behold
The math is simple: 22½ leagues = 90 miles. From 10 to 2 hours after midnight there are 4 hours x 12 miles per hour = 48 miles. The land still was 2 leagues away, which is 8 miles, added to 48 gives 56 miles or above 90 kilometers. By his own words, there was not mountain. The ship could be some 3 meters above the water.
If the water of the ocean was curved, the island would be more than 600 meters below the line of sight of Columbus. Therefore neither he nor the others could see any light from that far a distance. Columbus and all those experts in high sea navigation knew these realities common among mariners: the water surface of the ocean is flat (except for the waves).
-
Re: aether.
Pages 2, 3, and 4 here, provide abundant and sufficient proofs for the existence of the aether.
Here is another proof: G. B. Airy's experiment (1871):
"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)
It is interesting that the original short two page report merely lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars are moving round the stationary earth.
Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.
See also: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page17.htm
-
"Light moves more slowly in a material medium than in the vacuum,
the velocity being inversely proportional to the refractive index
of the medium. The phenomenon of refraction is in fact caused by a
slewing of the wave-front in passing into a region of smaller velocity.” (from Eddington)
Any correct Earth – Sun (or, for that matter, Earth – Moon) distance measurement/calculation must take into account the non-homogeneous filling of space with a medium, namely the aether, which takes up a layer of about 3-5 kilometers underneath the Heavenly Dome, and fills up completely the space above the Dome. Also, the aether-like material which makes up the Dome, must be taken into account, and of course, the nature of the plasma layer which covers the solid surface of the sun (in the shape of a disk).
From Einstein:
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
From Hubble:
" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature…”
Nernst's Interpretation
Hubble made two mistakes:
The first one lay in choosing to research an interpretation of redshift that was exclusively within the field of Einsteinian relativity.
The second lay in the hypothesis that his "law" was "clearly linear", thus ignoring a fact that is well-known to any physicist, even an amateur one, namely that for small z values (redshift) a straight line constitutes a good "first approximation" of a logarithmic curve.
The Doppler effect, star aberration, and even the change of wavelength due to the Compton effect, can be explained by taking into consideration the aether field the existence of which was confirmed by many experiments made by Nikola Tesla (see also the Airy experiment).
The aether, by definition, is the light-carrying medium.
(see the Doppler effect alternative explanation links I provided earlier...)
-
Simultaneous solar and lunar eclipses in history:
Plinius Secundus in the Chapter XIII, Of Eclipses, in his SECOND BOOKE OF THE HISTORIE OF NATVRE:
Also that the Sunne and Moone twice in thirtie daies were darkened above the earth: howbeit seene this was not equally in all quarters, but of divers men in divers places: and that which maketh mee to marvell most of all in this wonder, is this, that when agreed it is by all, that the Moone light is dimmed by the shaddow of the earth, one while this eclipse happeneth in the West, and another while in the East: as also, by what reason it happened, that seeing after the Sunne is up, that shaddow which dusketh the light of the Moone, must needs be under the earth: it fell out once, that the Moone was eclipsed in the West, and both planets to be seen above the ground in our horison. For that in twelve daies both these lights were missing, and neither Sun nor Moone were seene: it chaunced in our time, when both the Vespasians (Emperors) were Consuls, the father the third time, and the son the second.
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
And him Herod and Archelaus and Philip, Annas and Caiaphas, with all the people, delivered to me, making a great uproar against me that I should try him. I therefore ordered him to be crucified, having first scourged him, and having found against him no cause of evil accusations or deeds.
And at the time he was crucified there was darkness over all the world, the sun being darkened at mid-day, and the stars appearing, but in them there appeared no lustre; and the moon, as if turned into blood, failed in her light. And the world was swallowed up by the lower regions, so that the very sanctuary of the temple, as they call it, could not be seen by the Jews in their fall; and they saw below them a chasm of the earth, with the roar of the thunders that fell upon it. (1) And in that terror dead men were seen that had risen, as the Jews themselves testified; and they said that it was Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, and Moses and Job, that had died, as they say, three thousand five hundred years before. And there were very many whom I also saw appearing in the body; and they were making a lamentation about the Jews, on account of the wickedness that bad come to pass through them, and the destruction of the Jews and of their law.
From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:
This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.
Mahabharata:
. . in course of the same month both the Moon and the Sun have undergone eclipses on the thirteenth days from the day of the first lunation. The Sun and the Moon therefore, by undergoing eclipses on unusual days, will cause a great slaughter of the creatures of the earth.
Plinius Secundus does not realize that given the simultaneous nature of the solar/lunar eclipses, the Earth could not be the cause of the lunar eclipse (see also the chapter in Rowbotham's book).
The Sun Transit photographs show clearly that the diameter of the Sun is about 5 km and not the 32 miles (50 km) offered by the FES.
-
Solar Paradox #1
As we have seen already, the big bang/superstring/M theories fail miserably in explaining the creation of matter, the creation of stars, the creation of our own planetary system.
See: http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1
And earlier, on this thread, we have seen how it would have been impossible for the sun to attain a spherical shape...
For those who still have doubts, they will have to deal with the faint young sun paradox.
The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system by D. Faulkner
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp
The nuclear fuel theory, as an energy source for the Sun/Stars, was invented by a rosicrucian, Hans Bethe, with no evidence or scientific proof whatsoever.
In theory, as its nuclear fuel ‘burns’ up, the sun’s core should shrink, and this would make the reactions occur more readily. Therefore, the sun should shine more brightly as it ages.
But this means that if billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth’s history.
Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of –3ºC. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.
The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.
A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.
Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.
Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.
As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 °C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.
Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary—laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.
This apparent contradiction—between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water—has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'
A supersite which shows the errors in radiodating with uranium/iron carbonates made by S. Mojzsis in investigating the faint young sun paradox:
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/ngh6ixb0w80lwvvqkxo.pdf
Evolutionists first tried to solve this “faint young Sun” problem by assuming that Earth’s atmosphere once had up to a thousand times more heat-trapping carbon dioxide than today. No evidence supports this and much opposes it. Actually, large amounts of carbon dioxide on a cool Earth would have produced “carbon dioxide ice clouds high in the atmosphere, reflecting the Sun’s radiation into outer space and locking Earth into a permanent ice age.”
A second approach assumes that Earth’s atmosphere had a thousand times more ammonia and methane, other heat-trapping gases. Unfortunately, sunlight quickly destroys both gases. Besides, ammonia would readily dissolve in water, making oceans toxic.
A third approach assumes that Earth had no continents, had much more carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and rotated once every 14 hours, so most clouds were concentrated at the equator. With liquid water covering the entire Earth, more of the Sun’s radiation would be absorbed, raising Earth’s temperature slightly. All three assumptions are questionable.
The theory of evolution was cooked up by none other than Erasmus Darwin (1796), the grandfather of C. Darwin, both rosicrucian members of the London Royal Society.
As I have mentioned already, the best book which completely destroys Darwin's theory is The Cosmic Serpent by Jeremy Narby (it includes very interesting flat earth maps drawn by the shamans of the Amazon).
Furthermore, suppose there really were some basic organic compounds formed from the 'primordial soup.' If there was any free oxygen in the atmosphere, it would oxidize those compounds -- in other words, it would destroy them. To resolve this dilemma, evolutionists have long hypothesized that there was no free oxygen in the Earth's ancient atmosphere.
However, geologists have now examined the Earth's oldest rocks and have concluded that the early Earth was probably rich in oxygen. Still, let's say the evolutionists are right -- there was no free oxygen in the early Earth. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer, and without the ozone layer, we would receive a lethal dose of the sun's radiation in just 0.3 seconds. How could the fragile beginnings of life have survived in such an environment?
See also Velikovsky's argument re: the iron core paradoxes I have included here on this thread.
The table of contents for both Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval on:
http://diglib.princeton.edu/ead/eadGetDoc.xq?id=/ead/mss/C0968.EAD.xml#series1subseriesA