# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: robintex on April 06, 2013, 11:17:37 AM

Title: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on April 06, 2013, 11:17:37 AM
I got disgusted with the way this subject was going and originally deleted my OP but am re-inserting if just for the record.

A radio signal aimed at the moon and transmitted from the earth to the moon on  an Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce" operation  travels to the moon and "bounces" off the moon and is returned and travels back to the earth and is received back at the earth 2.55 seconds later for the "round trip" time.

2.55 seconds divided by 2 equals 1.275 seconds for the "one way return" from the moon.

The speed of radio waves has been proven to be 186,000 miles per second. The earth's atmosphere has been proven to be of a neglible effect. The rest of the distance is "outer space" or a vacuum which has no effect.

1.275 seconds  times 186,000 miles per second equals 237,150 miles :D

I rest my case. So do hundreds of amateur radio operators. Period.

The result is not as precise as those done by other methods, but is close enough to prove the point.

How does this  method compare with the FE Measurement of 15 KM ?

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 01:06:21 PM
2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.

It gives 4.259×10^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 06, 2013, 01:13:02 PM
2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.

It gives 4.259×10^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

Check your math. You need to do the operations in order, it's not 2.55/(2*186,000), it's

2.55 / 2 * 186,000 = 237,150
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 01:16:45 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Salviati on April 06, 2013, 01:21:38 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second)

(300,000 Km/sec x 2.55sec)/2 = 382,500 Km

Of course i'm not going to use those barbarian imperial measures.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 01:25:06 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second)

(300,000 Km/sec x 2.55sec)/2 = 382,500 Km

Of course i'm not going to use those barbarian imperial measures.
Oh, so you've decided to have the '2' as a denominator on its own. I think this shows how flawed the OP's equation is and how silly shmeggley looks leaping to its defence purely because it mentions the earth is round and he likes that as a concept.

2.55 seconds / 2 x 186,000 miles/second= 238,000 miles (approximately)
??? No it doesn't.

It gives 4.259×10^-9 s^2/m  (seconds2/meter), which is a nonsense.

How do Flat Earth'ers explain the discrepancy ?
How do you explain the discrepancy?

Check your math. You need to do the operations in order, it's not 2.55/(2*186,000), it's

2.55 / 2 * 186,000 = 237,150

::)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 06, 2013, 01:25:47 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 01:27:45 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
No, the equation was wrong. Hence the reason the units were muffed up.

Your new attempt is equally as laughable as you are now multiplying where before you tried to divide.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Salviati on April 06, 2013, 01:29:09 PM
Oh, so you've decided to have the '2' as a denominator on its own. I think this shows how flawed the OP's equation is and how silly shmeggley looks leaping to its defence purely because it mentions the earth is round and he likes that as a concept.
Better if you go to hoe potato fields  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 06, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
That still leaves you with an answer in seconds/(miles/second) which is seconds squared per mile. A dimensional nonsense. Feel free to cancel away and see what you are left with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Your inability to do basic math is not really helping your argument, but I'm here to educate so:

2.55 s / 2 (unitless) * 186000 mi/s

s*mis = mi
No, the equation was wrong. Hence the reason the units were muffed up.

Your new attempt is equally as laughable as you are now multiplying where before you tried to divide.

This is depressing. I can now understand how you can come to the conclusions that you do. Even when you're shown where you're wrong you can't admit it.

Anyone else have a better argument how the moon bounce is wrong?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Sculder on April 06, 2013, 01:50:21 PM
The calculation is rather simple; it's already been done. Given a time of 2.55 seconds and a speed of light of 299,792km...

2.55seconds x 299792 km/s / 2 = 382,200km (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282.55seconds+x+299792km%2Fs%29%2F2+%3D) or ~~ 0.993 × mean Moon-Earth distance.

The 'moonbounce' or EME communication produces a measurement very close to the accepted value for the average Earth-Moon distance of 384,400km.

Now the discussion can go beyond Th*rk's trolling attempts. Th*rk is terrible, people. Ignore him.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 02:01:27 PM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 06, 2013, 03:01:00 PM

They both work by transmitting an receiving radio signals, so I don't see a problem there. Ham is nowhere near as accurate for locating a target in 2 or 3 dimensions of course, but is still perfectly capable of measuring range.

In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself...

Did you work that out yourself? I'd like to see the calculations on the size of the dish and the amount of power required for a moon bounce. Anyone (other than Thork, who has demonstrated appalling mathematical ability) want to provide those numbers?

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Because the radio you are referring to losing reception in a valley is attempting to communicate via line of sight with the other transceiver, and does not have the capability to bounce it's signal off the moon. Someone who knows more about ham radio operation can elaborate on that.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: A Doubter on April 06, 2013, 03:04:37 PM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Can you see the moon from the valley?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 03:08:50 PM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

Can you see the moon from the valley?
Yes. Can I get KISS FM from the moon?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Sculder on April 06, 2013, 03:36:33 PM
Ham radio is just a synonym for amateur radio. It's not a term that describes the equipment used. This being said, the idea that the equipment needed to perform a moonbounce experiment is somehow outside the realm of possibility for an amateur radio enthusiast is a misconception. The idea that you'd need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself is a blatant lie. Unless you're talking of a tiny football field (http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~miyagawa/photo/travel/madurodam/stadium.jpg) (lol) and your idea of a small "power station" is something the size of a portable generator.

There's a list of EME radio enthusiasts/stations here (http://ok1teh.nagano.cz/eme_log432.htm#gal). Many of them have websites and/or e-mail addresses. Most of them seem to use radio transmitters of no more than 2000W; in fact some claim to use radio transmitters of less than 1000W. Quite a few of them use relatively small antennas or dishes; less than 10m. Some even on the scale of 4-5m.

If someone wants to prove that amateur EME communication is a lie and put one more nail in the coffin of the "round Earth", they might try contacting some of these enthusiasts. They might also try to find an expert in radio communication, someone trustworthy, and go have a look. Talk to those people, see if they have a "legitimate" equipment setup or not. Hell, try to convince them to perform a moon-bounce for you. Who knows, maybe some of these amateurs would welcome a visit. It's worth a shot.

Yeah, I know... silly me. I'm suggesting that the people in charge of the Flat Earth society, or its more prominent members, might actually go out and do some honest-to-god investigating.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Thork on April 06, 2013, 03:45:01 PM
Some pictures of the dishes on the wiki moon bounce page.

Bandying the words 'amateur' and 'enthusiast' is incredibly deceitful. Those words conjure images of some old codger talking to truck drivers.
(http://www.flumc.info/cgi-script/csArticles/images2/images08-2/20080626a.jpg)

Not someone with the power to subject half a continent to HARP experiments.

Do not make out that any one can do this on a shoe string budget if they so please.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Sculder on April 06, 2013, 04:19:50 PM
Just contact someone at your local Federal Communications Commission Office (FCC) or the American Radio Relay League in Newington, Connecticut if you won't take my word for it.  ;D
I find it hard to dispute a commonly known fact.

Or any "Ham" or Professional Engineer in the field of  Radio for that matter.
Some hams have even done this with powers in the milliwatts.

And please do not confuse Amateur Radio with "CB" or Citizen's Band Radio. Amateur Radio Operators are licensed by the FCC and must take and pass an examination concerning regulations and theory in order to be granted a license.

Any one can purchase a CB Transceiver and operate on a special band without a license (11 meters for example.) There are good "CB'ers" but "CB" is a dirty word to a lot of hams. Some truckers have given CB sort of a bad image.

Let's make it simple. Divide the round trip time in half and multiply by the speed of radio waves and you will still come up with about 238,00 miles or 382,200 kilometers. Check your math again.

Silly me, too. I'm no math whiz. But there does seem to be a rather big difference between 3000
miles and 238,000 miles. I probably used the wrong symbols for division and multiplication in my example listed.

I'd be amazed if they'd actually contact anyone on this. The main page of the Flat Earth wiki reads:
Quote
Throughout the years it has become a duty of each Flat Earth Society member, to meet the common round earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society have drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely "cut the cumberer down!"

It seems that all this lofty talk boils down to "let's debate stuff to death on a forum". That's fine by me, as I admit I'm here for entertainment. But I don't think that's very healthy for a society that "is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax. "

To me it seems a case of the bark being bigger than the bite.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 06, 2013, 04:26:03 PM
Some pictures of the dishes on the wiki moon bounce page.

Bandying the words 'amateur' and 'enthusiast' is incredibly deceitful. Those words conjure images of some old codger talking to truck drivers.
(http://www.flumc.info/cgi-script/csArticles/images2/images08-2/20080626a.jpg)

Not someone with the power to subject half a continent to HARP experiments.

Do not make out that any one can do this on a shoe string budget if they so please.
None of these are "the size of a football field" nor do they require "a small power station" to operate. I'm sure these guys invested a bit of money but it's not a military/NASA size budget. No one is suggesting you can make these out of tin cans and string.

All this in the end is only another diversion anyway, since it has nothing to do with whether you can measure the distance to the moon with radio waves or not.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Sculder on April 06, 2013, 04:34:53 PM
I'm going back to the "Come to the Flat Earth Society Forum for Entertainment" Mode. ;D

Hey, Sculder !  ....Let's give it up !.....It's useless ! I'm beginning to feel sorry for even posting in the first place and expecting something that makes sense from the FE'ers. My aplogies to the FE.
Since I am an amateur radio operator I do no exist. I'm a fake.

Do you reckon you have a big enough antenna to be part of the HAARP conspiracy?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 07, 2013, 08:10:15 PM
Thork your Wolfram calculation is entered differently than what was posted. You might want to refresh on the order of operations. BEDMAS!

2.55s/2*186,000mi/s

is different than

2.55s/(2*186,000mi/s)

Googleotomy's calculation is correct. He calculated the time it took for a radio signal to go to the moon and back (2.55s), divided it by 2 to get the average length of one leg of the trip (2.55s/2=1.275s), and then multiplied the result by the speed of light (1.275s*186,000mi/s=227,150 mi)

I have a hard time believing you did not know this.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: FlatOrange on April 07, 2013, 08:59:16 PM
Thork wins over a lot of FErs by making a post that appears to trump the OP.

Links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)) no matter what they are to, seem to act as fact for whatever his rebuttal is.

Even though the main issues of the argument haven't even been broached, the thread is successfully derailed.

Whether it's a subconscious trait of FErs to derail a thread before any real debating begins or simply a trait of any person when they can't defend their beliefs, it just seems that's the way most threads go.  Enter sceptimatic and then you have nonsense debates that take all of the RErs time, much like n00bs take up a lot of FErs time.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 10:04:36 AM
Well when someone is brashly ignorant or willfully derailing your thread, then you end up spending more time than you ever want to get the original point across.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:32:40 PM
Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 12:53:47 PM
Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

How could it? The Sun is pointed in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: FlatOrange on April 08, 2013, 12:54:51 PM
Well, you also think that the moon reflects the Sun's light, so it's fair to say that you misunderstand the nature of the Moon entirely.

You know what also reflects light? Skin, water, trees, sand, etc.

You know what doesn't reflect light? Black holes
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
The sun is not pointed in any direction. It sends light in all directions.
Interesting theory. But I doubt it would be able to concentrate the luminance of the Earth and maintain the intensity that it does if it reflected the light in all directions.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 01:25:11 PM
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: A Doubter on April 08, 2013, 02:14:15 PM
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.

So not visible light then?  Light in the infrared?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on April 08, 2013, 02:25:43 PM
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.

Care to explain how a "reflector" about 30 miles across, manages to take the tiny percentage of infrared coming from the Earth's surface, and converts it into a full spectrum of light that illuminates half the Earth's surface at once?

Not to mention the fact that we have, you know, actually studied the sun, can see that it's a mass of hydrogen and helium which has a measurable rotation. Not sure how that constitutes a "focusing reflector".
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 05:49:45 PM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 08, 2013, 06:06:43 PM
Oh I agree.  I was just explaining how the FE hypothesists measured the distance.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 08, 2013, 07:57:42 PM
And just like I'm waiting to see any kind of answer on this thread (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57963.0.html). :)
I think we'll all be waiting a while!
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 08, 2013, 11:52:58 PM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2013, 12:25:46 AM
The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 04:54:50 AM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE) flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 05:46:19 AM
The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
I have no clue what measurements you are referring to. Eratosthenes did this measurements all the way back in 240BCE.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 09, 2013, 06:09:10 AM
The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
I have no clue what measurements you are referring to. Eratosthenes did this measurements all the way back in 240BCE.

Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 06:14:28 AM
Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Claiming to be more intelligent than one of the wisest men in history? Frankly, you disgust me.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 06:18:18 AM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE) flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 09, 2013, 06:31:09 AM
Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Claiming to be more intelligent than one of the wisest men in history? Frankly, you disgust me.

Don't put words in my mouth.

He was indeed a wise man, and he believed the Earth to be round.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 06:50:53 AM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE) flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 06:55:45 AM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE) flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.
No.

I don't. I keep asking how you can explain the difference between where the sun appears in the sky, and where it should be according to your own theory. Bendy light is ridiculous, yes. So please provide me an explanation for the position of the sun that does not use bendy light.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 08:02:21 AM
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE) flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.
No.

I don't. I keep asking how you can explain the difference between where the sun appears in the sky, and where it should be according to your own theory. Bendy light is ridiculous, yes. So please provide me an explanation for the position of the sun that does not use bendy light.
I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 08:27:41 AM

I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.
As I said before, it's all in this thead: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE)

But I'll explain my part again.

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north. As shown:

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2013, 08:42:11 AM
Would there not be a point you could observe the sun rising that would be approximately east? I am not following you.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 08:48:55 AM
Would there not be a point you could observe the sun rising that would be approximately east? I am not following you.
At the equinox, the sun lights half the earth at a time. If you map that on a flat earth map, it means the sun lights one complete semicircle at a time, half the map. That means, for someone standing at the boundary between day and night, the sun is 1 quarter of the way around the earth. As shown in my diagram above. So someone standing on the equator looking east, would actually see the sun about 45 degrees to the north.

We know that doesn't happen. At the equinox, on the equator, the sun rises directly to the east.

It is currently only a couple weeks after the spring equinox. And I am located fairly close to the equator. So I should see the sun rise about 40 degrees to the north. I don't, so FET is wrong.

Scintific Method has done the math on this in the thread I linked, and can probably explain it better than me.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 08:49:17 AM
We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 09, 2013, 08:51:16 AM
Muggsy-Can you provide a calculation of the sun's angular diameter at that point?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 08:52:09 AM
We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.

No. No it wasn't. That was when it was rising. That's the whole point.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 08:56:52 AM
We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.

No. No it wasn't. That was when it was rising. That's the whole point.
You seem to know very well that flat-earthers do not observe that the Sun rises at all.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 09:00:30 AM
Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 09, 2013, 09:18:58 AM
Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.
That's not correct. When the Sun is directly over the Prime Meridian, it is just coming up here. At that point, it is very much east. Using your same logic, the eternal polar day would be impossible using only Round Earth Doctrine.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Ironscotsman on April 09, 2013, 09:24:16 AM
Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.
That's not correct. When the Sun is directly over the Prime Meridian, it is just coming up here. At that point, it is very much east. Using your same logic, the eternal polar day would be impossible using only Round Earth Doctrine.
Where, for you, is "here"

If you mean the united states, then yes, the sun is in the east. But that's my point. Because east is a circle, when we look east, we don't see east. So if the sun is in the east, we should see it not in the east.

You know what, nevermind. I was enjoying this. But I'm realizing how stupid having to explain this is. I'm done.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 09, 2013, 08:51:26 PM

I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.
As I said before, it's all in this thead: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE)

But I'll explain my part again.

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north. As shown:

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.

This is really, really simple: we see the sun rising in the East every day (not exactly East every day, that only happens on the equinox, but generally in the East), and towards Decemeber, we see it rising more South of East, wherever you are on earth. The big problem with FET is that, without bendy light (which has been pretty thoroughly debunked), the sun should be seen to rise consistently North of East, all through the year, and by quite a long way I might add! At the equator, it should rise 45 degrees North of East on the equinox, but it doesn't, it rises due East.

It is becoming very clear that some FE'ers belief of FET stems from a total lack of understanding of basic geometry.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on April 09, 2013, 10:07:38 PM
My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: muggsybogues1 on April 10, 2013, 05:58:01 AM

My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.
This assumption could very well be the reason for the discrepancy.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 10, 2013, 06:10:53 AM
The failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment to demonstrate the inconstancy of the speed of light your vague objection devoid of value.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Homesick Martian on April 10, 2013, 02:47:40 PM
My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.

If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Homesick Martian on April 10, 2013, 02:51:57 PM
The failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment to demonstrate the inconstancy of the speed of light your vague objection devoid of value.

Did you know that Geocentrists apply the very same experiment to proove that earth is stationary? I wonder why FEs never do.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 10, 2013, 07:45:08 PM
If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?

While light has never been demonstrated to slow down over time (unless it's passing through different mediums) if it were true, scientists would have fucked up in a big way and our understanding of the Universe would be pushed back centuries. Considering the metre (and thus the Imperial system as well) is defined based on the speed of light, I'm pretty sure they're confident that it's a constant value.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Dog on April 16, 2013, 12:26:12 PM
Anyone?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: A Doubter on April 16, 2013, 01:27:11 PM
My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.

If it happened that light "tires down", becomes slower, on its way to the moon, would we be aware of it?

If any thing I suppose someone could suppose that light speeds up once it gets free of the earth's atmosphere. (I'm not saying this is true of course , but someone [I won't mention any names.]) might "suppose" this. ;D

Let me!  Let me!

Are you saying the speed of light in the vacuum of space is precisely same as the speed of light in the medium of the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: A Doubter on April 16, 2013, 02:35:08 PM
Does that mean that there is no refraction as light leaves or arrives on the earth's surface?  I assume that means that the atmosphere is not a heavy enough medium to affect the speect of light, but logically there must be some effect, however small.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: TheEarthIsFake on April 17, 2013, 05:51:11 AM
2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
2                                   1  second
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2013, 06:21:47 AM
2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
2                                   1  second
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.

Ok
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 17, 2013, 10:11:27 AM
2.55 seconds   (Multiplied by) 186,000 miles = 238,000 miles (approximately)
2                                   1  second
You're wrong.
It's obviously 3000, if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284. Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.

OK. Where did the 24733.72533980 come from ?

I never knew something so simple could get so complicated until I discoverd the Flat Earth Society Forum Website !  ;D

He divided by sqrt(2pi).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 17, 2013, 10:26:56 AM
OK

PuttahThanks for the explanation. It should have been obvious if I had bothered to work it out, but I am another one of the lazy RE's on this forum.

haha I feel bad for lying to you ;D

Notice that
if you subtract 24733.72533980 from 186000, you get 11976.284.
is not true, and that

Multiply that by 2.55 seconds and you get 3000.
is even more obviously not true.  ;)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on April 17, 2013, 11:34:32 AM
I suppose you could say that light "tires down" , "becomes slower" on its way to the moon when it passes through the earth's atmosphere and "speeds up", "becomes faster" once it gets to the vacuum of outer space.

Well, the light does have to out run the effects of the UA on the way up, but it gets to coast on the way back.  Light is kinda lazy that way.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2013, 11:39:35 AM
I suppose you could say that light "tires down" , "becomes slower" on its way to the moon when it passes through the earth's atmosphere and "speeds up", "becomes faster" once it gets to the vacuum of outer space.

Well, the light does have to out run the effects of the UA on the way up, but it gets to coast on the way back.  Light is kinda lazy that way.

Light's velocity is constant. It effortlessly outruns the UA.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rogue420 on April 18, 2013, 01:23:29 AM
Is it possible that the atmospheric bubble or whatever it really is, maybe provide a form of resistance to all wavelength energy? So if you try to measure it with anything that is wave form, maybe MaYBE it is delayed, even by a little would mean that the calculations would give vastly different numbers. I am curious as to how they came up with the moon being 3000 miles up. But one thing I am very convinved of is that the arguments for a flat earth sum up to being either true of false. Some may be true and some not. But the ones that I am impressed with mean one thing to me, either the earth is indeed flat, or the earth and all we can see and experience is in fact a hologram. If we live in a giant hologram, then the hologram of earth could be a dodecahedron or any shape for that matter and the rules that were programmed into it would apply to our reality. Even though its all a complete illusion. That is the only way that gravity and a spherical earth and the universe makes sense, either its flat and an unknown force it pushing us up at 32 dt per second forever, and/OR this is a hologram. Based on quantum physics, and especially the double slit experiment and the MRI brain scan experiment that measured how long before you make a decision and are able to move your body, your brain knows what you are going to do up to MaYBE MORE than 6 seconds BEFORE. These are only two examples of many more experiments that are proving this reality to be an illusion, a holographic universe. I am fascinated by all of this, and the more I learn the more I learn that I dont know much. But no question is stupid and everything you are told NEEDS, no, DEMANDS to be questioned. In the end we are all responsible for our ourselves. Use that power wisely. And please love each other. Anything you want to do from the heart, from love, is possible and doable and nobody has the right to tell you  that you cannot do it. Peace and much love!
JRogue :)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on April 25, 2013, 04:08:52 PM
If the moon was only 3,000 miles from the earth instead of 250,000 miles why wouldn't less powerful telescopes be used instead of the more powerful ones used presently ?

I'm sure the consensus around here is probably that rather than the craters being relatively large and the moon far away, the craters are actually small and the moon is closer.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: odes on April 28, 2013, 10:03:46 PM
I am unqualified to answer the OP. However I can propose a couple of questions which might be of interest.

1. Is sending something to the moon (e.g. a wavelength) the best way to measure distance? What if there is something we don't understand about the intervening space, or about the thing (e.g. wavelength) we are sending?

2. Would something coming from the moon be a better source of information? For example, why can't a trigonometric evaluation of moonlight (careful to shield yourself) be used? I have read posts criticizing the trigonometry of sun distance measurements but can't it somehow be worked out? If we can put a man on the moon, can't we take angles of light? Oops, maybe that came out wrong. Some habits die hard.

Anyway I would say that just because my keys are lost doesn't mean that they are by the lamp-post. In other words, my ability to send wavelengths in a direction doesn't mean that those wavelengths are the ideal method of achieving an end.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: odes on April 28, 2013, 10:36:04 PM
Why should the moon bounce your signal back right away? Could that be a problem in your experiment?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2013, 12:34:00 PM

The Big Questions:
Why am I and a large number of amateur radio operators getting a distance of  an example of aproximately 238,000 miles from the earth to the moon from our observations and computations ?

If the correct distance is 3,000 miles where is /are the error / errors in our observations and computations ? That is all that I am asking. I have seen no answers as yet.

Radio waves are ether waves which travel through aether.

That is why your calculations are completely bogus.

Nikola Tesla went all the way to Germany to demonstrate to Hertz how catastrophically wrong Hertz's experiment was:

"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel.  He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory.  But in reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance.  On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion.  He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air."

Ether drift discovered and proved by Dr. Dayton Miller:

The work done by Dr. Dayton Miller on detecting ether (telluric currents):

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

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

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

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.

As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein.

Now, the figure of 3000 miles for the Moon-Earth distance is also completely bogus.

Here is the heavenly body which does cause the solar eclipse; since you have no choice but to accept it is the Moon itself, you can see in a single glance how wrong the official figures are about the distance from the Moon to the Earth.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html (http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

ANTARCTICA, BLACK SUN PHOTOGRAPHS - THE MOON DOES NOT CAUSE THE SOLAR ECLIPSE

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

SAME SIZE OF THE SUN/BLACK SUN AS IN THE ISS/ATLANTIS VIDEOS (see the previous message: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385207.html#msg1385207 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1385207.html#msg1385207) ): SOME 600 METERS IN DIAMETER

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

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

The image was the Astronomy Picture of the Day on December 8th, 2003, and was CNN.com's Space Scene of the week starting December 17th, 2003. My website got half a million hits during December 2003.

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4632.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/2_rotate_crop_colorcorrect.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 03, 2013, 03:35:18 PM
Radio waves are ether waves which travel through aether.
...
No, they aren't.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 03, 2013, 03:41:11 PM
Hasn't the aether idea been disproven multiple times?  If I read the article correctly, Miller's experiment was largely open to the elements, involved millions of data sets, and showed a collective positive effect of the aether on a scale that would not account for the force that we feel that pulls us to the Earth?  The data variations have since been attributed to temperature variations.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 03, 2013, 03:50:29 PM
Hasn't the aether idea been disproven multiple times?  If I read the article correctly, Miller's experiment was largely open to the elements, involved millions of data sets, and showed a collective positive effect of the aether on a scale that would not account for the force that we feel that pulls us to the Earth?  The data variations have since been attributed to temperature variations.
Actually FE believer like sandokhan have to ignore alot.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 03, 2013, 08:27:48 PM
You haven't done your homework, and certainly no research on this subject at all.

The aether idea has never been disproven, not even once.

In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.

Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.

Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

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

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.

And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm) (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html)

Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.

It is the end of this thread and the photographs taken in Antarctica destroy any RE fantasies about the alleged 284,000 km between the Moon and the Earth.

Here is the complete disproval of the attractive gravity hypothesis and one of the best proofs of the existence of telluric current which do travel through aether.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.

Here are his own words:

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

Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 03, 2013, 09:47:03 PM
You haven't done your homework, and certainly no research on this subject at all.
Your research is 80 years old. Might I suggest you get with the times. Neutron were discovered, did you hear?

Quote
The aether idea has never been disproven, not even once.
There is nothing you can post to definitively say the aether exists. Aether isn't even necessary anymore as our understanding of physics has grown.
Quote
In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics.
What about his 1904 paper which showed nothing? Why does he have to take so much data? He can't see what he wants? He was looking for the aether so he made it so he could find it, which was not by his experiments. There were physicists back then that wanted to find the aether, they would have excepted his work had it actually worked. It was ignored and still is ignored because his research was null.

Quote
Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.
Telluric currents are not aether. Don't make stuff up.

Quote
Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)
Einstein wanted an aether. He wouldn't null an experiment looking for what he wanted unless the experiment didn't work.

Quote
As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

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

Quote
It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.
Who would have guess observable evidence would help his theory? Not to mention gravitational lensing, not just redshifting, can be seen during an eclipse. You going to explain how aether bends light around the moon?

Quote
And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html (http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html)

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm) (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html)
Now disprove [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment], or is research from 1959 too new?
Just a reminder, science went on after Einstein.

Quote
Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.
So no one cant find it these days? They make MichelsonMorley apparatuses that sit on your desk these days. No one found the aether, give it up.

Quote
It is the end of this thread and the photographs taken in Antarctica destroy any RE fantasies about the alleged 284,000 km between the Moon and the Earth.
No, they don't. Not to mention your photos show the sun setting behind the horizon, which is impossible in the FET without making up magical optics properties.

Quote
Here is the complete disproval of the attractive gravity hypothesis and one of the best proofs of the existence of telluric current which do travel through aether.
Telluric current has nothing to do with gravity.

Quote
Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

In Dr. Bruce DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment, a ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

Dr. Bruce DePalma's experiment shatters the "law" of attractive gravity.
Gyroscopes have already been discussed. Nothing about them breaks physics. They do seem to, but it's just a property of a spinning object.As a reminder, to spin an object, you have to add energy. To say a spinning ball and non spinning ball are the same, is incorrect.

Quote
Here are his own words:

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

Torsion physics DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.
[/quote]
Still no.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 06:22:29 AM
The radio wave measurements are not the only measurements of the distance; just one of many methods used.

Why does this method and  all of the other methods curiously arrive at the same distance ?

What is the true ? distance in your measurements ?

What other (many) methods did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 10:47:50 AM
The methods used to officially calculate distances on an astronomical scale are well known; my brief message was meant to give you a chance to come back to the discussion, for some
reason, you did not realize this.

You did mention some: laser technology, radar...and there are others: principle of parallax, the cepheid variable stars...

The new chronologist Uwe Topper brought new light upon an "ancient" method used to calculate distances, so we will start with this.

In school we learned that Eratosthenes (276-194 B.C.), director of the great library at Alexandria, was the first to determine the size of the earth. Yet his alleged method does not convince me at all.

The following procedure is described: He assumed that Alexandria and Syene (now Assuan on the Nile before the first cataract) are situated on the same meridian and are exactly 5000 stades distant from each other. The latitudinal difference is given as 7°12' which is accurate. But these towns don't lie on the same meridian - Alexandria is 30° eastern longitude and Syene is 33°. The difference of 3° amounts to more than 300 km. We don't know how Eratosthenes determined these towns are 5000 stades distant (which is close enough). From these data Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our planet to be 252,000 stades, which is astonishingly correct. The stade used in Egypt is 157,5 m, and thus the earth's circumference 39,690 km which is fairly correct (today a bit more than 40,000). It means roundabout 110 km distance between two parallels (today 111 km).

The latitudinal difference between Alexandria and Syene, 7°12', is exactly a 50th part of the whole circumference. If this had been applied correctly in the calculation, the circumference would have come to 250,000 stades, or 2000 stades short of what Eratosthenes assumed. This suggests he knew the outcome in advance and only looked for measures that let to the right result.

My doubts are reinforced if we consider the length of the stade: 40,000 stades make the radius of the earth, and 1° of the earth's circumference equals exactly 700 stades. Thus I conclude the stade is a measure deducted from the size of the earth. If Eratosthenes applied it to measure and calculate the earth, he used the knowledge that people had used before him. And he had to twist his mathematical elaboration a bit to arrive at the same result.

(here Eratosthenes has been dealt with a long time ago, from several points of view)

The fundamental discoveries of Nikola Tesla, Dayton Miller and other great physicists show that light is variable and not constant.

In the official science, the Einstein shift is said to have been verified by the Pound-Rebka experiment.

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

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

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

If we bring the existence of ether (telluric currents) and aether (medium of propagation of ether) into our discussion, then everything changes with the modern methods used to calculate distances (laser, radar and others).

Here is a work which investigates this approach:

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Stellar%20parallax-aberration%20is%20geocentric.pdf (http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no113/Stellar%20parallax-aberration%20is%20geocentric.pdf)

The discoveries of Dr. T. Henry Moray do prove that telluric currents = ether, here is an extraordinary work on this subject:

http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm (http://johnbedini.net/john34/eternal%20lanterns.htm)

Here are some other works on geocentric stellar parallax:

http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax (http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Stellar-Parallax)

http://geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm (http://geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm)

Light is variable and passes/propagates/travels through a medium (aether) which can have different densities, that is why any method used to calculate distances (to the Moon, to the stars) which ignores this basic fact will lead to catastrophic results.

You did mention laser beam reflectors left by astronauts.

However, no astronauts ever reached the moon, especially the Apollo 11 crew:

Moon Hoax (http://#ws)

Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage (http://#)

A "reflector" is nothing else than a very small device which uses Tesla technology and orbits in front of the Moon all the time (see my Satellite Conspiracy thread).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2013, 11:25:21 AM
...
I'll let some one else join in if they wish.

...
I tried, he was too scared to respond.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 12:07:08 PM
But I did visit the local observatory: it confirms everything I have been writing about, especially as it relates to the planet Jupiter and its satellites.

My recommendation to you is to strongly research a subject before the thought crosses your mind that, for some reason, you were apt to comment on it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2013, 12:12:56 PM
But I did visit the local observatory: it confirms everything I have been writing about, especially as it relates to the planet Jupiter and its satellites.
No, it didn't.
Thousands of scientists can't keep missing the fact that the sun is only 3,000 miles away and not 92,960,000 miles. That can't happen. Just look at it logically. That difference is so big it would have been found out long ago.
Quote
My recommendation to you is to strongly research a subject before the thought crosses your mind that, for some reason, you were apt to comment on it.
I suggest you get with the times and leave the 1905 research. You only look where you want for what you want to see.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2013, 01:16:42 PM
Sandokhan there are a few places where you have the orthodox physics wrong:

1. The speed of light was long known to be constant and it was a major problem that came to a head in the Michaelson-Morley experiment that hoped to prove the existence of the ether. It utterly failed to show anything except what was already known. Light in a vacuum travels at a constant and relativistic speed.

2. Time dilation is not caused by gravity. Rather gravity and time dilation both arise from space time geometry.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 01:45:37 PM
The speed of light was not known to be constant, not in 1877, not in 1905, not today.

There is no such thing as space-time geometry. Here is the step by step demonstration.

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

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

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

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

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

(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Riemann_surface_log.jpg/220px-Riemann_surface_log.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

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

REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (one of the best works on the variability of light)

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

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

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

ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

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

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

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

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

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

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm) (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2013, 03:08:07 PM
You are just looking where you want again and you are taking Tesla's opinion as facts. Yet you ignore his radio and x ray research which contradicts you earlier when you said radio waves were ether waves.

Scanning your Einstein fallacy link it claims the big bang is a fallacy.  Laughable.

Your Reason why Einstein was wrong link it so some guys theory. The guy isn't even a scientist. You should totally believe him even though he has never conducted an experiment.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 04, 2013, 03:54:19 PM
In the Tesla quote it appears that he is positing a causal relationship with no empirical evidence.  Experimentation shows that spacetime, as described in the General Theory of Relativity is curved; for emphasis: Empirical evidence and observation confirm that spacetime is curved, opinons do not matter.

Riemann may not have meant 4D geometry to include time, but Riemann was not doing relativistic theories.  Einstein used Riemann geometry as a tool to construct his theories.

Likewise with Minkowski, he was not building the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein was.  Einstein applied this branch of mathematics to the real world and whatever you think about Einstein having no explanation for why, it does not matter.  What matters is that the theory accurately predicts physical phenomena, on almost all scales.  Therefore, conceiving of reality as a spacetime continuum is a useful and accurate description.

Whether or not General Relativity is absurd has little to do with how successful it is.  Einstein's remarks have little to do with how successful it is.  The fact of the matter is that the theory has made predictions of observable phenomena, and those predictions turned out to be accurate.  General Relativity is about as true as you can call anything.

The material you provided to support the incorrectness of Einstein does not do so.  Theosophy is not physics.  Einstein's work may have philisophical implications, but its primary purpose is to describe reality empirically, which it does an excellent job of.  Your link on the variability of light is probably out of date since FTL neutrinos at the OPERA detector were found not to exist, but rather a technical error with the equipment was the cause of the inaccurate reading.  The constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum remains.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 04, 2013, 09:59:26 PM
There isn't a single experiment to support or prove the worthless hypothesis called the theory of relativity (special or general).

It is based solely on the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, as we have seen, was a disaster.

Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect."  Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

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

Einsteins relativity theory is a central plank of 20th-century science and is commonly said to have passed every experimental test with flying colours. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for all the experimental data and astronomical observations cited in support of the special and general theories of relativity, and the internal inconsistencies and unwarranted assumptions of standard relativity theory have been pointed out by dozens of scientists.

Pari Spolter writes: Many physicists who believe Einsteins theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einsteins relativity. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma. Thomas Phipps writes: The (politically obligatory) claim that Einsteins theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.

William Cantrell identifies several reasons why Einsteins relativity theory has remained so popular:

First, the alternative theories have never been given much attention nor taught at any university. Second, the establishmentarians have invested a lifetime of learning in maintaining the status quo, and they will act to protect their investment. . . . Third, Einsteins theory, being rather vaguely defined and self-contradictory by its own construction, allows some practitioners to display an aura of elitism and hubris in their ability to manipulate it. There is an exclusive quality to the theory  like a country club, and that is part of its allure. Fourth, to admit a fundamental mistake in such a hyped-up theory would be an embarrassment, not only to the physics community at large, but also to the memory of a man whose portrait hangs in nearly every physics department around the world.

G. de Purucker took a more critical stance: The theory of Relativity is founded on unquestionable essentials or points of truth, but the deductions drawn in many cases by many Relativist speculators appear to be mere brain-mind constructions or phantasies.

In 1949 Einstein wisely remarked: There is not a single concept, of which I am convinced that it will survive, and I am not sure whether I am on the right way at all.

This statement applies especially to the baseless assumption that the speed of light is a constant.

In addition to Lorentz, other Nobel Prize winners who opposed Einstein included Planck, Michelson, Ernest Rutherford, and Frederick Soddy. Louis Essen wrote:

Insofar as [Einsteins] theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.

There is no real evidence for the curvature of space. We can speak of curved lines, paths, and surfaces in space, but the idea that space itself can be curved is meaningless unless we conjure up a fourth dimension of space for it to be curved in. G. de Purucker called the concept of curved space a mathematical pipe-dream.

Pari Spolter characterizes relativity theory as science fiction or pseudoscience. She writes: Mathematics, which is the most advanced science, should be used to analyze observations and experimental data. It should not be used to create a new physical science based on hypothetical equations. Al Kelly comments: Relativity theory has assumed the status of a religion whose mysteries are to be believed without question. For how long can nonsense stave off common sense?

Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

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

Sections:

The Wrong Turn #1: FitzGerald Length Contraction
Wrong Turn #2: Relativistic Time Dilation
Non-Evidence A: Flights of Fantasy
Non-Evidence B: GPS Satellites
Non-Evidence C: Muon Decay

The Wrong Turn #3: Mass Distortion
The Wrong Turn #4: The Universal Speed Limit
Wrong Turn #5: Space-time

The Second Postulate regarding the speed of light as both constant and unsurpassable
was unoriginal because it came right from Poincaré, as we have just seen.
Both of these postulates are set forth in the introduction of this paper, second paragraph.
Yet, inasmuch as Albert presents no persuasive experimental or observational evidence in support of them, they are simply not acceptable and we need not proceed with any of his
reasoning or arguments, mathematical or otherwise, that follow, as they are not worth the paper they are printed on. To do so would be philosophy or academic math, maybe, but not science.

In 1962, J. Fox, of the Carnegie Institute of Technology published a paper in the
American Journal of Physics in which he reviewed the experimental evidence in support of the
Second Postulate and concluded that the evidence was either irrelevant or inconclusive.70 This was over half a century after the inception of special relativity. Yet even today relativist scientists would have us turn our minds off and accept the Second Postulate as dogma and an absolute law of physics.

Here is Tesla's classic experiment: FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)

With the discrediting of the Second Postulate, in the words of MIT-trained geophysicist
Enders Robinson, PhD we must kiss relativity theory goodbye.

Einstein‟s theory of relativity is substantially science fiction, fantasy or philosophy,
and represents the worst of science: how science can become political, how political factors can affect funding, how funding can affect scientists‟ jobs and careers, how experimental data can be manipulated to serve as propaganda, and how theory can be presented as fact.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html) (all the sections especially: Tests that have been carried out that show Einstein was wrong)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 04, 2013, 10:11:13 PM
Recycling the same incorrect assumptions does not make your argument correct.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: neimoka on May 05, 2013, 03:32:25 AM
especially as there *are* means to directly observe relativity, such as time dilation.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: neimoka on May 05, 2013, 03:48:13 AM
phew, that Amesbury "paper" - someone thinks this is a product of serious research? Focus is on "brainwashing", "Zionist conspiracy", "relativist propaganda" etc instead of any actual data... puh-lease.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 06:50:19 AM
(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

Nikola Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor-coated light bulb which was illuminated without wires by an electromagnetic field from the "Tesla Coil" (the energy was transmitted through the telluric currents).

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1891-05-20.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1891-05-20.htm)

There is no subject more captivating, more worthy of study, than nature.  To understand this great mechanism, to discover the forces which are active, and the laws which govern them, is the highest aim of the intellect of man.

Nature has stored up in the universe infinite energy.  The eternal recipient and transmitter of this infinite energy is the ether.  The recognition of the existence of ether, and of the functions it performs, is one of the most important results of modern scientific research.  The mere abandoning of the idea of action at a distance, the assumption of a medium pervading all space and connecting all gross matter, has freed the minds of thinkers of an ever present doubt, and, by opening a new horizonnew and unforeseen possibilitieshas given fresh interest to phenomena with which we are familiar of old.

(http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/Tesla_Wireless_Lightbulb_Wide.jpg)

(http://www.teslasociety.com/Tesla_Fluorescent2.gif)
(Tesla holding wireless lightbulbs, more photographs)

Neon lamps are in the public favor and are being used for store windows and in signs quite extensively, said Dr. Tesla, but I had similar filamentless, gas-filled electric lamps in my laboratory at Houston Street over thirty years ago. I even had these lamps standardized to 50 candlepower each, and used them instead of the orthodox illuminating devices. It seems that I was also far ahead of my time in the use of filamentless tubes, bent in the shapes of characters and other forms, as now extensively used. The light from properly filled vacuum tubes is of indescribable beauty, hygienic and more economical, and the lamps last forever."

Tesla upholds the startling theory formulated by him long ago, that the radio transmitters as now used, do not emit Hertz waves, as commonly believed, but waves of sound. He says that a Hertz wave would only be possible in a solid ether, but he has demonstrated already in 1897 that the ether is a gas, which can only transmit waves of sound; that is such as are propagated by alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium in which transverse waves are absolutely impossible. Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art. As soon as the expert become convinced of this fact they will find a natural and simple explanation of all the puzzling phenomena of the so-called radio.

Tesla's classic 1900 experiment proves that light can and does travel faster than 299,792,458 m/s; moreover, it proves the existence of telluric currents (ether), which means that terrestrial gravity is a force exerted by the pressure of the same telluric currents.

Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].

Tesla Patent/original paper:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)

Dayton Miller's ether drift results nulify Einstein's baseless assumptions.

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
 Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.)

"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect."  Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

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

The lightbulb held by Tesla defies any relativity theories, and evidences the discoveries of the ether waves by D. Miller: radio waves and light waves are actually ether waves.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 05, 2013, 06:53:22 AM
I'm not even going to try to quote one of these Sandokhan text walls. Sandokhan, it seems you have built your entire argument out of dissenting opinions. Just because they "challenge" (well they try) the status quo doesn't mean they are right.

As for data supporting relativity, it is still being found even today:

http://m.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6483/20130426/strange-binary-star-system-reveals-einsteins-theory-gravity-holds-true.htm (http://m.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6483/20130426/strange-binary-star-system-reveals-einsteins-theory-gravity-holds-true.htm)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 07:09:52 AM
You have not prepared your message well at all.

Here is what is going on:

Methods
We report on radio-timing observations of the pulsar J0348+0432 and phase-resolved optical spectroscopy of its white-dwarf companion, which is in a 2.46-hour orbit. We used these to derive the component masses and orbital parameters, infer the systems motion, and constrain its age.

However, these methods of measuring mass/age are completely flawed, as they do not take into account the existence of ether, evidenced in my previous messages.

Moreover, we are back at fudging the data, as did Einstein himself in 1919 and 1922.

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html (http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html) (white-dwarf spectroscopy, completely flawed)

Thorium/Neodymium Ratio and Age of Universe

Mitchell Waldrop, a reporter for Science, interviewed Harvey Butcher who had discovered an interesting way to determine the age of the universe using essentially the same principles from radiometric dating. He measured the ratios of thorium (Th) and neodymium (Nd) in the sun and 20 nearby stars spectroscopically. Analyzing stars' spectral lines to determine the abundance of parent/daughter ratio is fairly simple. The stars have done the hard work of preparing the sample by vaporizing these isotopes and mixing them in their atmospheres. Each element has its own characteristic absorption lines: three for thorium and one for neodymium. Neodymium is a stable daughter product of thorium. Butcher says:

"What I expected to find was a change in the ratio of thorium to neodymium between the oldest and youngest stars."

"Virtually all the original thorium is still there, even in the oldest of the sampled stars," writes Waldrop.

Butcher expected that the ratio would be as much as two or three times smaller in the older stars, the white dwarfs, because the thorium would have had more time to decay. What he actually did find, however, was almost no variation in the thorium/neodymium ratio. Butcher suggested that, based upon the results of his measurements, the galaxy must be about five billion years younger than previously thought, possibly as young as 8 billion years. If "virtually all the original thorium is still there," the stars can't have aged much.

I looked at the data published in his 1987 report in Nature and compared the estimated age for each of the stars tested, including our sun, with the actual spectral data. The Th/Nd ratios of the sun and the other stars were essentially the same, although the age of some stars was supposed to be 600 million years and others 15-19 billion years.

After Butcher made this information available, Waldrop reports that Schramm was strongly skeptical of it, saying "it was a very uncertain kind of measurement and the results were grossly over-interpreted."

Schramm's assessment of Butcher's results pivoted on whether Butcher's instruments could read the faint spectral lines representing the concentrations of thorium and neodymium. Nuclear fusion reactions in supernova and other violent events produce thorium. To decide how much thorium and neodymium should be present in stars, one has to make assumptions about when and how much thorium was made during the life of the galaxy. Butcher had to keep his assumptions of thorium production consistent with the abundance of thorium in meteorites and moon rocks because they, too, coalesced from the supernovae products along with the sun and the rest of the solar system. He says that once a star is born, its outer atmosphere provides an unchanging sample of the general composition of the Galaxy at that time, modified only by the free decay of radioactive species.

Do your homework before coming here with unverified and false claims...
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2013, 07:50:39 AM
There are many experiments that confirmed both Special and General Relativity. Special relativity has been confirmed trillions of times in particle accelerators. If there was an issue with the theory in that domain it would be painfully obvious. Here is a whole page on tests of general relativity: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)

These theories were not solely based on the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

In regards to dissent it is entirely possible that there are phenomena that Relativity does not explain and in fact, quantum gravity was almost immediately recognized as a problem for General Relavitivity. I have never seen a scientist who did not think relativity would not one day be replaced with a more successful theory, I have also never seen a scientist who was not excited by this idea.

It should be telling that Miller could never reproduce his own positive results and when the experiment was reconstructed in 1955 by Robert Shankland, he found that the positive result claimed by Miller was unlikely.

I cannot comment on and am unaware of any scientists with plausible alternatives to Relativity. I would like to hear more.

There is a lot in that paper debunking Einstein. It basically asserts that everything Einstein said about relativity is wrong and then often goes on to show he was plagiarizing other people's work, who had said he was wrong, but yet they were speaking about space-time as a physical property as well?  It's fishy but required more investigation. I have just read about space-time curvature in cosmology and the paper you linked to displays an ignorance on the topic. Einstein predicted space-time would curve in the presence of matter not that all of space-time was definitively curved. It remained a possibility until measurements were taken of the CMB that showed in fact that our universe is a flat, zero-energy (that is gravitational energy=all other energy) universe. So the flat-universe assertion does not contradict Einstein.

Einstein did not provide experimental evidence it's true, but he did make experimental predictions. It is mentioned that the perihelion of mercury could be explained by the gravitaional fields acting upon it and that is true, but classical gravitation could not derive the magnitude of it's perihelion, whereas Einstein's equations did.

That Tesla patent makes estimates and postulations, there are no empirical results to show, in fact, that electricity could propagate that quickly.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 08:54:16 AM
All the tests you bring as bibliographical references are flawed: they assume that the speed of light is a constant, just like Einstein did, just like Pound and Rebka did during their experiment.

Read the reference on Miller, you will discover how Shankland maneuvered very skillfully in order to discredit Miller's work and eliminate his discovery from any textbooks on physics.

You do not understand do you? There is no such thing as space-time curvature: all the physics involved in inventing this mindless concept was the movement of the right arm of H. Minkowsky erasing on the blackboard the x4 variable in Riemann's n-dimensional approach to logarithm branch analysis with a sponge and then replacing it with t (time).

Tesla NEVER made any postulates: he always experimented carefully before stating his conclusions (Einstein makes his postulates BEFORE any physical experiments, and no experiments were done to prove that the speed of light is constant).

Let us get back to Tesla, so that we can discover how the wireless bulb functions.

"Expressed briefly, (cit. patent 645576) my present invention, based upon these discoveries, consists then in producing at one point an electrical pressure of such character and magnitude as to cause thereby a current to traverse elevated strata of the air between the point of generation and a distant point at which the energy is to be received and utilized".

This is energy transmitted through ether waves - here is the proof:

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

A wireless bulb held by Tesla, receiving energy through ether waves from his coil transmitter.

Tesla spent about eight months in Colorado Springs. Something of his work and results from this period can be gleaned from articles in "American Inventor" and "Western Electrican". For instance, it is stated that Tesla intended to carry out wireless transmission of signals to Paris in 1900. An article of November 1899 reports that he was making rapid progress with his system for wireless transmission of signals and that there was no way of interfering with messages sent by it. Tesla returned to New York on the 11th of January 1900.

Tesla's disruptive discharges produced longitudinal waves in the aether. Unlike transverse waves that vary in amplitude up and down, longitudinal waves only move in the direction of propagation. They could be described as a series of compressions and rarefactions in the atmosphere of aether. (from the Tesla Unleashes the Aether article: http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/ (http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/) )

Of course to broadcast power it had to be received. He designed a variety of receivers. Some of these receivers were composed of metallic plates. When the longitudinal waves impacted them a current would be induced that could power lights or motors. Tesla actually discovered that he could focus the output of his device into a narrow beam utilizing a special tube. This allowed him to specifically direct the longitudinal waves in the aether at target plates. Interestingly, after such a beam had been active for an extended period of time, he could turn off his apparatus, but the flow of aether would remain. He could place another receiver in the path of the beam and power light bulbs without the device being turned on!

Apparently, the aether has a property that allows for a sort of momentum to accumulate. Once the aether is flowing or pulsing it starts to build up an inertia or a self sustaining effect. In many tests, his systems would continue transmitting power after his apparatus was cut off from input power. Additionally, sometimes an illuminating glow around his setups would continually grow and expand. This happened around his giant transmitter towers in Colorado and New York.

The longitudinal waves then flow out to the thicker copper windings, and then into loads connected across them. They could then power light bulbs, motors, or other devices.

He was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.

No estimates, no postulations, just pure real-world physics, the physics of ether waves.

(http://www.freegrab.net/Wardenclyffe-Tower-Animation-pics1.gif)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 09:03:43 AM
It is mentioned that the perihelion of mercury could be explained by the gravitaional fields acting upon it and that is true, but classical gravitation could not derive the magnitude of it's perihelion, whereas Einstein's equations did.

You haven't done your homework, unfortunately.

HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm) (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercurys orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)

The advance of the perihelion of Mercurys orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun).  Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science.  In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercurys orbit, he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ...  This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einsteins scientific life, perhaps in all his life.  Nature had spoken to him.

Fact:  The equation that accounted for Mercurys orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented.  The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light.  After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerbers article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einsteins Relativity papers).  The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerbers priority.  Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerbers formula had been published in Machs Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.  So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerbers assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong.  So he studied the question.  He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics.  Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it.  He saw that Gerbers method made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.  Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerbers derivation was wrong through and through.

So how did Einstein get the same formula?  Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.  So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princetons Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier.  This man said it was his impression that, knowing the answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2013, 09:28:52 AM
A few things:  This gentleman who had an impression of Einstein's process, perhaps you should not take it as gospel?  Perhaps he does not know what he is talking about?

Einstein made the prediction of Mercury's perihelion before completing the theory. Revamping his theory to incorporate observation seems entirely appropriate. That the theory made accurate predictions after this modification would be a positive result, not a strike against it.

You make a couple of assertions, one is that Einstein is a fraud, the other is that both theories are entirely inaccurate. The first Assertion, although relevant to history, is unimportant scientifically. The second assertion, that not a single feature of relativity withstands experimentation seems unlikely in the extreme. You are claiming that an unknown scientist came forth and proposed a bold theory, and that it was accepted in to the orthodoxy with no valid experimental confirmation, to the contrary of the entire scientific practice. I don't buy it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 09:44:19 AM
The fame of Einstein is due solely to the publicity machine of the press: there are no experiments which prove that the speed of light is constant.

Here is an experiment which does prove the existence of ether waves.

BRUCE DEPALMA SPINNING BALL EXPERIMENT

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)

Throwing Experiments

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

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

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

Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.

Let us now get back to Tesla's wireless bulb, a clear defiance of the theory of relativity: the existence of ether waves.

A single photograph is enough to shatter the theory of relativity to pieces:

http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg (http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2013, 10:03:30 AM
Every recording of a neutrino at the OPERA detector has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. That is one of thousands of experiments that do so.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 05, 2013, 10:13:44 AM
Where to start?
1. Tesla coils produce electricity similar to static electricity. No magic there. Spark plugs in your car do the same thing. High voltage low current.

2. If Tesla showed the speed of light to be 1.5 times what we say it is, then we would say it is what he found. But look at your own quote

Quote
Nikola Tesla:

The most essential requirement is that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain period of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about 471,240 kilometers per second [292,822 miles per second, a velocity equal to one and a half times the "official" speed of light].
He isn't talking about an experiment he did. Sounds more like a thought experiment. You can't estimate time in an experiment and experiments don't have requirements of the data.

3.Saying ether is real does not somehow null the rest of science. Here is a video about the stars you were talking about. See how many people were involved? Your opinion does not disprove their findings.
(http://

4. Scientists are out there, this second, trying to either confirm Einstein or disprove him. It's nothing new. Theories can be found to be wrong.

5. Give up on the spinning ball crap. Gyroscopes do not disprove anything.
The same video I posted many times. Nothing wrong with it.
(http://)

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 11:39:13 AM
The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 when it was found that, from the standpoint of relativity theory, beta decay (the decay of a neutron into a proton and an electron) seemed to violate the conservation of energy. Wolfgang Pauli saved the day by inventing the neutrino, a particle that would be emitted along with every electron and carry away energy and momentum (the emitted particle is nowadays said to be an antineutrino).

W.A. Scott Murray described this as an implausible ad hoc suggestion designed to make the experimental facts agree with the theory and not far removed from a confidence trick.

Aspden calls the neutrino a figment of the imagination invented in order to make the books balance and says that it simply denotes the capacity of the aether to absorb energy and momentum.

A subquark is composed of strings of bosons and antibosons. A boson = a neutrino = a photon and does have mass.

Let us remember that in one extension to the Standard Model, left- and right-handed neutrinos exist. These Dirac neutrinos acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism but right-handed neutrinos interact much more weakly than any other particles.

Your assertion is misleading. The Opera experiment dealt with the light-speed LIMIT, not its constancy.

To break the speed of light and send a signal through ether waves (neutrinos/bosons) a new concept of physics, discovered by Tesla, comes into play: ball lightning.

Here is an exceptionally documented work (hundreds of cases) on the existence of ball lightning, Ball Lightning: Paradox of Physics -

sokarul, you must first graduate from the lower forums, to even dream of debating here.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

To compare wireless bulb technology to spark plugs says it all.

Tesla's patent/research paper on how the experiment was conducted:

http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf (http://www.classictesla.com/Patent/us000787412.pdf)

Eric Laithwaite's gyroscopes experiments in no way are related to the DePalma spinning ball experiment or the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

A clear violation of the law of attractive gravity, no other comments are needed.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 05, 2013, 12:10:01 PM
Try harder sandokhan.
(http://)
(http://)
Static electricity can light lightbulbs.
You are incapable of thinking critically at all.

Second, Tesla's wireless technology does not break physics. It's used today. Here is how. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/wireless-power1.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/wireless-power1.htm)
No magic, no ether waves. Just normal science.

Why don't you explain in your own words(if you are even capable of that) how Tesla's wireless technology sends "energy waves through ether"?

You can't see how spinning the ball changes it. Why does the non spinning ball follow gravitation? Why is it when the ball stops spinning it follows gravitation? How much energy was put into spinning the ball?

Explain in your own words how the spin ball " violation of the law of attractive gravity"? Explain how you came to your conclusions to the spin ball experiment when the author doesn't make the same consultations?

Quote
Eric Laithwaite's gyroscopes experiments in no way are related to the DePalma spinning ball experiment or the Kozyrev gyroscope experiments.
You say the spinning ball is lighter and the experiment I posted shows the gyroscope appearing lighter. How is that not the same?

You don't grasp anything you talk about. That is why you just fill your posts with the same links over and over.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 01:51:37 PM
You dummy, this is explained in junior high school physics.

http://www.scientificsonline.com/human-powered-light-bulb.html (http://www.scientificsonline.com/human-powered-light-bulb.html)
http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/human-conductor (http://www.stevespanglerscience.com/experiment/human-conductor)

Your level of understanding physics is not only laughable, it is catastrophic.

Tesla was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.

When Nikola Tesla invented the AC (alternating current) induction motor, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for \$1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.

This is no spark plug, sokarul. Tesla transmitted 100 million volts WIRELESSLY over a distance of 26 miles which lit up 200 light bulbs.

Tesla's wireless technology can only be explained in the context of ether waves.

Tesla NEVER used Hertz waves.

Nikola Tesla advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance. Tesla foretold of a brilliant new future for humankind, using his non-Hertian "wireless system," including the ability to generate power and transmit it anywhere.

I already posted the article Tesla Unleashes the Aether on how energy can be transmitted through ether waves.

http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/ (http://pesn.com/2011/04/19/9501813_Tesla_Coils_Unleash_Aether/)

You can't really be that ignorant, or can you?

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

Here is the "law" of universal gravitation:

The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY, THE SPINNING BALL WEIGHS LESS.

In E. Laithwaite's case, accusations of using counter weights or non-visible wires have been brought; in DePalma's experiment all we have is a spinning ball which defies attractive gravity by weighing less than its non-spinning counterpart.

Somebody wrote: time multiplied by the the speed of radio waves equals distance.

That's right, but what are radio waves? This is the intelligent question you must ask yourself.

Tesla clearly demonstrated that radio waves ARE NOT Hertzian waves, on the contrary, they are ether waves. The speed of light is a variable as it travels through ether waves, which in turn propagate through aether.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: iwanttobelieve on May 05, 2013, 04:22:02 PM
sandokhan, why is half your face a Tiger?

Does the rock band Survivor have any influence?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 05, 2013, 04:25:56 PM
Samdokhan-I am surprised to hear you do not believe in neutrinos since it is one of the proofs you used for super luminal speeds. What the heck is a subquark anyway?  What is a string if bosons and antibosons?  Neutrinos are technically leptons, like electrons, not bosons.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 05, 2013, 04:42:41 PM
Here is an analysis of your much loved Miller experiment that doesn't get the light of day that "proves an aether exists"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf)

"V. Conclusion
Dayton Miller was a prisoner of his time. In the 1920s and 30s digital signal processing was unknown, and the
serious flaws of the data reduction algorithm used by all such experiments went unnoticed. Also, the use of errorbars
and quantitative error analyses were in their infancy. These aspects of the state of scientific knowledge combined to
permit him to be fooled into thinking his interferometer measurements did indeed determine the absolute motion of
the earth. Even in 1955, Shankland et al did not have knowledge of these aspects of Miller's analysis.
Today, of course, digital signal processing is well known, digital computers are ubiquitous, and quantitative error
analyses are presented in essentially all scientific publications. The above discussions of Miller's analysis and data
are simply applications of now-standard techniques to his rather ancient data. This paper does not break any new
ground, it merely explains a longstanding puzzle: how could someone as competent as Dayton Miller obtain results
so inconsistent with other experiments?  As discussed above, he was a victim of every experimenters nightmare,
and was unknowingly looking at statistically insignificant patterns in his systematic drift that mimicked the
appearance of a real signal. So it's not surprising that his results were anomalous.
This paper has not only explained how Miller was fooled, it has also presented a re-analysis of his data. This new
analysis obtains a value of zero, and puts an upper bound on the absolute motion of the earth of 6 km/s (90%
confidence level). This is fully consistent with similar measurements, and with the null result predicted by Special
Relativity.
We are all prisoners of our time. While this paper gives solid and credible reasons to reject Millers result, it is
unfair to attempt to judge him by the standards of today. Indeed, recognizing that he could not possibly have known
about these flaws in his results permits us to admire him all the more for his dedication and perseverance in pursuing
these measurements. His instinct that more data is better was correct, and permitted the quantitative modeling of his
systematic drift."
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 05, 2013, 08:50:29 PM
You dummy, this is explained in junior high school physics.

Quote
Your level of understanding physics is not only laughable, it is catastrophic.

Tesla was able to transmit large amounts of power to receiver units over many miles of distance. In one experiment, he powered a small building full of one hundred watt light bulbs from a distance of over twenty seven miles. Motors and heating elements were also powered.
Ok.
Quote

In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.
This still goes on today. My toothbrush charges the same way.

Quote
When Nikola Tesla invented the AC (alternating current) induction motor, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for \$1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.
I am aware of the Tesla versus Edison story.  Tesla coils are still around today. Nothing strange.

Quote
This is no spark plug, sokarul. Tesla transmitted 100 million volts WIRELESSLY over a distance of 26 miles which lit up 200 light bulbs.
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didnt know.

Quote
Tesla's wireless technology can only be explained in the context of ether waves.
So electronics can make and use ether waves but no one can detect them. How convenient. As you said he invented AC. He worked with electricity, not ether waves.

Quote
Tesla NEVER used Hertz waves.
He used longitudinal waves. Sound waves are a type of longitudinal wave. He also dealt with telluric current. But he used the correct definition.

Quote from: Wikipedia
A telluric current or Earth current,[1] is an electric current which moves underground or through the sea.
Quote
Nikola Tesla advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance. Tesla foretold of a brilliant new future for humankind, using his non-Hertian "wireless system," including the ability to generate power and transmit it anywhere.
Why do you never mention he used the ground as a conductor for his waves? He sent wave through the ground. Ether wave work better in the ground? These ether wave sure are picky. Seismic waves are also in the ground and are longitudinal waves. I guess earth quakes must make ether waves too.
Quote
I already posted the article Tesla Unleashes the Aether on how energy can be transmitted through ether waves.
They were simply waves we already understand.

Quote
You can't really be that ignorant, or can you?
You are using your ignorance about what he did to make up what you think he did.

Quote
.
Just more copy paste of things which you do not understand.

Quote
In E. Laithwaite's case, accusations of using counter weights or non-visible wires have been brought; in DePalma's experiment all we have is a spinning ball which defies attractive gravity by weighing less than its non-spinning counterpart.
You just dont understand gyroscopes. They act differently. And to get the gyroscope effect you have to add energy. I dont know why you keep ignoring this.

Quote
Somebody wrote: time multiplied by the the speed of radio waves equals distance.

That's right, but what are radio waves? This is the intelligent question you must ask yourself.

Tesla clearly demonstrated that radio waves ARE NOT Hertzian waves, on the contrary, they are ether waves. The speed of light is a variable as it travels through ether waves, which in turn propagate through aether.

Once again, we know what he used and we know what radio waves are. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves.  You need to wake up to 2013.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 05, 2013, 09:21:37 PM
Here is the correct quantum model of the atom (from baryons to bosons):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,27426.msg1424613.html#msg1424613) (subquark quantum ether physics)

Yes, T. Roberts' work on Miller's results is well known, however...T. Roberts is a relativity theory fundamentalist, he says for instance: Relativity is well established in its domain of applicability...

James DeMeo did have a chance to respond to his statistical analysis, here it is:

http://sci.physics.relativity.narkive.com/PudLfhbR/dayton-miller-s-data-have-no-real-signal#post1 (http://sci.physics.relativity.narkive.com/PudLfhbR/dayton-miller-s-data-have-no-real-signal#post1) (scroll down to DeMeo's responses, I included only some brief passages)

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

You evaluated Miller's August 1927 data set, but this is hardly
mentioned in his 1933 paper which you cited, and which is among his
most important ones on the subject. The 1933 paper covered a short
history of the ether-drift determinations, but primarily focused upon
his significant 1925-1926 experiments undertaken atop Mt. Wilson. The
Mt. Wilson experiments are what you should be discussing, not the
insignificant tests in Cleveland either before or after Mt. Wilson.
You proclaim, without evidence firstly that the direction of
ether-drift and velocity determinations were "not significantly better
than any other" direction or velocity -- this might be true for the
1927 data you examined. I have not seen it so cannot say. But it is
most definitely NOT the case for the 1925 and 1926 Mt. Wilson data,
which is what is presented in Miller's 1933 paper.

Shankland, et al, did their best to bury Miller's work forever. They
failed, as their approach was sloppy and showed an ignorance of how the
ether-drift experiments were undertaken. Both they and you ignored the
central issue of the needs for doing these experiments over different
times of year. Yes, you can point to one seasonal epoch and try to
argue that the systematic pattern in Miller's data is due to this or
that. Shankland dismissed the patterns as due to "temperature", but
without any proof as such. You say it is some kind of systematic
error. But firstly you don't look at Miller's most important data
sets, from Mt. Wilson. Even Shankland at least reviewed the correct
data sets, though he "cherry picked" only those data sheets by which he
could compose a verbal argument. Secondly, and more importantly,
SYSTEMATIC SIDEREAL-DAY VARIATION IN THE AXIS OF ETHER-DRIFT, APPARENT
DURING ALL FOUR SEASONAL EPOCHS. The pattern was systematic, as MIller
noted repeatedly, as I show in my papers on Miller as well. When the
data are organized by civil-clock time, no pattern exists. When
organized by sidereal-clock (galactic) time, the pattern appears, and
is the same for all four epochs. There's simply no way you can use
math-arguments to overthrow such a pattern, especially since it has

How long will modern physics refuse to look at this
issue with open eyes and intelligent, fair-minded critique? Sorry to
say, Tom, your analysis is faulty on a number of levels, and does not
touch Miller's findings and conclusions anymore than the Shankland
hit-article did. It is a pity you did not consult with the advocates
of ether-drift prior to undertaking your analysis, as it could have
saved you a lot of time, and perhaps guided you to analyze the proper
set of data, from Mt. Wilson. But I still don't see how your method
can do more than point out the obvious, that the signal is often buried
in the noise. Lots of scientific problems suffer from this difficulty,
but progress nevertheless towards deeper understandings.

And there is more...

Dear Tom Roberts,

If I could summarize again:

1) You analyzed an apparently unpublished set of data from one of
Miller's tests in Cleveland, when the most serious data which requires
attention is from his Mt. Wilson experiments. I'm sure one could find
unpublished data from Michelson as well, or from Einstein's work -- it
may have historical significance, but is not the point of discussion if
you wish to refute what provides a foundation for much of new interest
in ether and ether-drift. I have no idea why Glen Deen gave you this
data set, instead of something from the Mt. Wilson experiments. Maybe
he can clarify this.

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

3) Even if we assume, the variance within the measurements for any one
of the four seasonal epochs at Mt. Wilson was large, to rest upon that
observation and go no farther is to miss the forest for the trees.
Larger patterns in data sets often are not apparent or ammenable to
analysis via statistical methodology, but rather require dynamical
methods of analysis, or sometimes graphical or
geographical-astrocartographical methods. For example:

4) I did not mean to imply that low-altitude ether-drift experiments
would yield "no signal" at all. They do, but apparently of a reduced
intensity. Consequently, we might ask if the August 1927 data which
you analyzed yielded a variation over sidereal-clock coordinates? And
if so, is this variation along the same sidereal hour axis as what
Miller noted for the Mt. Wilson experiments, even if the velocity
determination would be at a lower level? If so, that would be in
keeping with his overall theory and findings. Miller's pre-Mt.Wilson
tests in Cleveland DID occasionally show similar vectors, as did the
Morley-Miller and even the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yes, he did a
lot of testing and control experiments, as Einstein was at the time
proclaiming (without evidence) that Miller's work was the consequence
of "thermal artifacts". So he did a lot of work to show, exactly, how
the interferometer would react to both small and large external heating
effects, and precautions were undertaken, such as shielding the
interferometer arms with insulation, and so on. NONE of those
experiments -- Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, or Miller in Cleveland
ever produced a fully "null" or "zero" result, which by itself is
significant. But the data was best at Mt. Wilson, and likewise
Michelson-Pease-Pearson also got their best result at Mt. Wilson.
Miller addressed this consideration in the 1933 paper, and
Michelson-Morley were also aware of their own slight positive result,
stating in the 1887 paper the need to perform the experiment over other
seasonal periods -- which they never did. Only Miller did so. The
fact that all four seasonal epochs of the Mt. Wilson experiments
yielded similar sidereal-hour vectors for the axis of drift, and that
this also was the same (though reduced) axis which could be extracted
from the original Michelson-Morley experiment, is THE significant
consideration, even if the velocity determinations were slightly
variable. This is what we call a highly-structured pattern in the
data. The fact that Galaev later found a similar axis of drift in his
work, and the seasonal variations in "dark matter wind" also show a
similar pattern, is "icing on the cake" so to speak.

5) High "signal to noise" ratios plague other data sets from natural
phenomena, such as climate patterns. Daily precipitation is a function
of solar heating and shifting of wind and pressure patterns. But if we
look for variations in precipitation as an indicator of solar heating,
it requires a lot of years of data before we get a climatic curve which
approximates the smooth latitudinal shifting of the sun's location, and
hence, solar heating of the lower atmosphere. Over shorter periods,
rainfall quantities may be extremely variable with large quantities one
day or week, nothing the next day or week, and so on over the years,
with some years very wet, others in drought. If we presume ignorance
of how solar heating works to stimulate rains, we would be hard pressed
to find this pattern in all the "noise" of daily precipitation
variation. We would in fact only find the pattern by recording
precipitation over the year, and then averaging the data by week or
month. Only then, you get a pattern which is valuable, and allows some
degree of confidence and prediction of when a "rainy season" or "dry
season" will occur. Likewise also, I would imagine, with the
determinations of anisotropy in 3-deg.K. in open space -- a lot of
variation, no way to make "statistical analysis" but when it is plotted
on a map -- or along a simple graphical ordination representing
sidereal hour -- it makes a pattern which is important to consider.

Unfortunately, I have no computer-readable data files for Miller. My
role was mostly historical, basically finished after the data sets were
finally obtained, and others set out on that task. I cannot speak to
what Glen Deen and others are doing with the data. My larger interest
today is in the work of Galaev, who developed an elegant and very
simple interferometer using parallel light beams, and seems
potentially easier to use, less afflicted by vibrations, and possibly
could be rendered far more sensitive given current technology. My push
has been, for more experiments to be undertaken, rather than merely to
analyze Miller over and over. I must disagree that your DSP method
will ever critically undermine Miller's findings, if only because my
points above cannot be overcome by purely statistical arguments. If
Miller's four different seasonal epochs had yielded four different
points in the heavens, four different axes of ether-drift, then surely
a rejection of his work would be fully in order and legitimate. But I
encourage you to look again at Figure 2 in my Miller paper.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)
This shows Miller's data organized firstly by sidereal hour, and
secondly by civil clock time. By sidereal hour, there is a distinct
pattern in the data, one which appears to be robust enough even to
same data is organized by civil clock time, the pattern vanishes. This
is the issue which you need to address, and it will not be defeated
with DSP methods.

As noted, I do have copies of all of Miller's data sheets, being the
guy who stimilated their re-discovery from dusty storage rooms. You
mention only the one data sheet of Figure 8 from his 1933 paper, which
showed the results of 19 turns of the interferometer over about a
15-minute period. This is like, extracting rainfall records for one
month of one year, exclaiming there is "no solar-related pattern" and
ignoring all the rainfall data from many other months and years. Sure,
look at only one data sheet, and clear determinations may be
insufficient. But really, your DSP analysis was not of that data
sheet, nor of the hundreds of other data sheets from Mt. Wilson.

I have no interests to second-guess Miller's methods, and your claims
really don't suggest any serious reason why one should be concerned.
Nobody including Michelson had any problem with Miller's methods or
findings at the time when he was doing his work, other than Einstein,
who was no expert in the ether-drift methods. In fact Miller was the
student of Morley, and learned the methods as handed down from
Michelson and Michelson-Morley. You presume to have us believe you
know more about it than they did, even though you haven't undertaken an
analysis of the very same published data from which Miller's
conclusions were derived. And all the other validating experiments,
you simply ignore. Sorry to say, this is simply insufficient.

Regards,

James DeMeo

And here are Yuri Galaev's ether drift results, which cannot be ignored either:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm (http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_6.htm)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 06, 2013, 05:44:35 AM
When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.

However, our present-day Maxwell equations are not the original Maxwell equations:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf (http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf)

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

A true electromagnetic wave does not fall off as the distance from the source increases, that is, it is immune to the inverse square law of the usual Hertz waves.

Light exerts a force on a physical target. Maxwell calculated the force associated with radiation pressure to be,

F = dp/dt = (1/c)dE/dt

where E is energy, c is the speed of light, and p is momentum. By substituting p
= mc into the equation, where m equals aethereal mass, we obtain the
relationship,

c²dm = dE

which implies that electromagnetic radiation is a net flow of aethereal mass which is related to energy by the equation,

E = mc²

But just because the last equation relates numerical values, it certainly doesn‟t mean that
mass and energy are equivalent. The speed of light‟ is the Mach number‟ for the electric sea by analogy to the speed of sound in air, and it is only in connection with electromagnetic radiation in the electric sea that this famous equation possesses any physical significance. Gilbert Lewis published this approach to E = mc² in 1908.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf (http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe.pdf)

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf)

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.

Oliver Heaviside, described by Scientific American (Sept. 1950) as "self-taught and ... never connected with any university ... had [however] a remarkable and inexplicable ability (which was possessed also by Newton and Laplace ...) to arrive at mathematical results of considerable complexity without going through any conscious process of proof ..." According to other observers, Heaviside actually felt that Maxwell's use of quaternions and their description of the "potentials" of space was "... mystical, and should be murdered from the theory ..." which -- by drastically editing Maxwell's original work after the latter's untimely death, excising the scalar component of the quaternions and eliminating the hyperspatial characteristics of the directional (vector) components -- Oliver Heaviside effectively accomplished singlehanded.

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

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html (http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper1a.html)

http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html (http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html)

Now, ether wave theory does not need to resort to the original Maxwell equations, but these equations provide a different framework, a new approach for a new kind of electromagnetic theory, one which incorporates the discoveries of T. Henry Moray, Bruce DePalma and much more.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2013, 06:19:20 AM
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didnt know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 06, 2013, 06:34:38 AM
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didnt know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.

Quite true, they are almost always powered by an ignition coil (similar to a Tesla coil), which draws its power from either the battery, or the alternator (at about 12 volts). Alternatively, the plugs can be powered by a magneto, which is essentially a generator and coil in one package. So, now you know! ;)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 06, 2013, 07:00:04 AM
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didnt know.

Generally speaking, spark plugs do not operate from the battery, if you didn't know.

Quite true, they are almost always powered by an ignition coil (similar to a Tesla coil), which draws its power from either the battery, or the alternator (at about 12 volts). Alternatively, the plugs can be powered by a magneto, which is essentially a generator and coil in one package. So, now you know! ;)

The inductive properties of a coil are simply amazing.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 06, 2013, 07:36:44 AM
It is now time to see what an actual unit of electromagnetic radiation looks like.

http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf (http://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf) (mapping of magnetic fields)

(http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7055/87773492.jpg)

(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4750/ext1.jpg)

(http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4940/ext2.jpg)

(http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/a_hojo-wire.jpg)

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

(http://peswiki.com/images/a/ab/Ed_Leedskalnin-magnets_circulation.gif)

Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm)

Therefore, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet has four vortices (actually two, but each one is composed of a receptive and an emissive part), and a center, out of which these vortices emerge. This magnetic field consists of magnetic monopoles which travel in both senses (north-south AND south-north), in contradiction to what we have been taught so far (only north-south direction).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1401101.html#msg1401101)

The correct atomic weights predicted for each element decades ahead of the discovery some of them, and the start of the modern quantum physics.

For many decades, scientists have been trying to devise a single unified theory to explain all known physical phenomena, but a model that appears to unite the seemingly incompatible String Theory and Standard Model has existed for 100 years. It described baryons, mesons, quarks and preons over 50 years before conventional science. It stated that matter is composed of strings 80 years before string theory. It described the existence of anti-matter 30 years before conventional science. It described the Higgs field over 50 years before Peter Higgs. It described the existence of isotopes 5 years before conventional science.

Now we will see that the magnetic monopoles discovered recently, and which do form a magnetic field, are actually subquarks.

HYDROGEN ATOM: 18 SUBQUARKS - 9 LAEVOROTATORY AND 9 DEXTROROTATORY subquarks

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

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

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig001.gif)

Seven possible shapes for the atoms:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig010.gif)

A baryon, or the fourth state of ether (groups of nine subquarks):

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig009.gif)

Mesons, third state of ether, groups of six subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig008.gif)

Quarks, second state of ether, groups of three subquarks:

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig007.gif)

MAGNETIC MONOPOLES, SUBQUARKS, TACHYONS, PREONS, OMEGANS:

(http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/oc/fig003.gif)

First state of ether

A magnetic monopole or subquark consists of strings of bosons and antibosons (boson = photon = neutrino, please see my earlier description of neutrinos).

To achieve a faster than light speed means to somehow increase the vibration of an ordinary atom (groups of 18 subquarks) to a higher level which approaches that of the fourth state of ether made up of 9 groups of subquarks.

BASIC LAW OF ETHER WAVES (which consist, as we have seen, of two strings which travel in double torsion, one laevorotatory, one dextrorotatory) specified by Nikola Tesla:

ETHER IS MADE RIGID BY APPLYING HIGH VOLTAGE, HIGH FREQUENCY ELECTRICITY

This rigidness can become, eventually, ball lightning: ether waves which no longer travel through aether, but which are "trapped" in a torsion torus.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 06, 2013, 11:13:58 AM
Sandokhan, you denigrate others' ability to debate, but I have yet to see you make a cogent argument. It could well be because I am extremely simple minded though. Perhaps you can clarify your argument a bit, because it seems to me we have gone off topic here. Can you do this without resorting to huge walls of copypasta and endless links to conspiracy and/or fringe science websites? I mean GIF animations are all well and good but can you boil it down for us and simply state in a few sentences why we A) Can't trust radio wave measurements of Earth-Moon distance, B) How to correctly measure the distance?

So far all I am getting is Einstein dumb, Tesla smart, the Standard Model is wrong because ESP, and everything that contradicts your argument is wrong because hoaxes?

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 06, 2013, 11:36:26 AM
It could be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will now bring to your atttention another bibliographical reference:

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't really much of a debate!  The vectorists simply steam- rolled right over the remaining quaternionists, sweeping all opposi tion before them.
They simply threw out the remaining vestiges of Maxwell's quaternion theory, and completely adopted Heaviside's interpretation.
Thus, a little over a decade later when Einstein wrote his general relativity theory , he did not know that the original work of Maxwell already indicated the unification of gravitation and electromagnetics, and indicated the ease with which local spacetime could be electrogravitationally curved locally and engineered.
Accordingly, he placed the scientists of the West on a road which rigorously assumed that a unified field theory was yet to be discovered.  It also strongly discouraged any experimentation aimed at curving local spacetime, for it assumed that such could not be done.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 06, 2013, 01:20:15 PM
It could be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will now bring to your atttention another bibliographical reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since you seem to know precisely where Einstein went wrong, I am not sure why you spend your time on this forum instead of writing a paper on it. Have you submitted any of your findings to physics journals? If not, why not? If yes, what journal and what was the result? Do you realize that your claims imply that you are smarter than many of the (reportedly) greatest physicists of all time? Do you think that your really do have the answers everyone is looking for, but the scientific community just can't handle it? I mean, really, what exactly is your deal Sandokhan?  :-\
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 06, 2013, 09:13:39 PM
The "Black Sun" business gives you a very precise proof that there are no 384,000 km between the Earth and the Moon:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 06, 2013, 11:05:20 PM
No matter how many times you post those pictures Sandokhan, you still fail to make a point.

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

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

You skipped over my other questions about the status of your theory. Have you published, or submitted? By your silence on the subject I am guessing not. Could this be because your theories are actually just unpublishable nonsense? Seems quite likely to me, but what do I know, I still think the Earth is round. ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 06, 2013, 11:27:37 PM
We can tell immediately what we are missing from the original Maxwell equations.

Here is the theory.

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

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

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

Here are the proofs of the theory.

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

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

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

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the normal rules of all the physics weve been taught!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 04:46:43 AM
DePalma's work stated that the Newton equations were a special case which can only be applied to non-spinning objects.  He found no reason to throw out the notion of gravity as it is thought of today, though I'm sure you'll find a way to say he did.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 06:21:39 AM
DePalma's spinning ball experiment represents a flagrant violation of Newton's laws: for the same mass, the same supposed law of universal gravitation, the spinning ball weighed less.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(F. Tombe, Maxwell's Original Equations)

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

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

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

When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 06:41:13 AM
You're continually addressing a small portion of a post and then moving on to other concepts without addressing the rest and posting walls of text.  DePalma shows that Newton's equations do not work for spinning objects, that is evident.  He states that they are special case equations, meaning they apply under specific circumstances.  He not once states that our current view of gravity is wrong.  Stop avoiding points such as the question of how far away is the moon by your calculations using the Antarctic black sun?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 07, 2013, 06:53:25 AM
Given any interesting topic of discussion such as that of the spinning ball experiment's results automatically becomes dull and boring with the same old baseless conclusions made by the FE community.

"Oh look! Subjecting an object to extreme conditions gives us results we weren't expecting - everything about science must be wrong!"
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 06:58:02 AM
On the contrary, I addressed your message in the best way possible by demonstrating what actually happened during the spinning ball experiment: the nonrotating ball was subject ONLY to the dextrorotatory ether waves, while the rotating ball additionally attracted laevorotatory ether waves.

Moreover, I linked biohomochirality to terrestrial gravity.

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

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

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

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

It is as simple as that.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 07, 2013, 07:03:44 AM

Hasn't the Michelson-Morley experiment already concluded that the ether does not exist within their constraints? I mean, they were in search of it to quantify the medium in which light travels through, and they failed to find anything.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 07:10:31 AM

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

Oh but you're forgetting Miller's experiment which showed a "significant" effect but had no error estimates and was largely susceptible to environmental factors.  One person showing its existence versus everyone else not showing it and it not being shown again sense means that the one person is right.  We should do sando a favor and publish his findings for him.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 07:11:36 AM
puttah, wake up and go back to sleep.

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

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

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

http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm) (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 07:22:26 AM
Your memory has failed you dd.

Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, if the MM experiment actually is faulty, this does not prove the ether exists, but rather doesn't disprove it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 07:38:19 AM
The question of what is the distance to the moon is still being avoided.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 07:51:34 AM
On the contrary, I addressed your message in the best way possible by demonstrating what actually happened during the spinning ball experiment: the nonrotating ball was subject ONLY to the dextrorotatory ether waves, while the rotating ball additionally attracted laevorotatory ether waves.

Moreover, I linked biohomochirality to terrestrial gravity.

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

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

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

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

It is as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A single photograph is enough to shatter any RE illusions:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
(Fred Bruenjes, Antarctica, 2003)

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

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

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

The whole set of the photographs in Antarctica:

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

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

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

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

Nothing wrong you say?

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

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

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

Let us go back to the DePalma experiment.

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

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

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

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

I am not planning at the present time to publish papers; I have debated with many PhDs, MEs, MS, all of which had to acknowledge the existence of ether waves.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2013, 08:53:08 AM
Sandokhan-What is the source of this photo?  It looks like there is an odd blue aura around the person in the image, like it was snipped from another photo.  I am not sure, and anyone please pipe in, but it looks like the sun was just coloured in or something.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 09:00:24 AM
rama, how many times have we gone through this before?

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

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

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
I find it incredible that Felix Baumgartner could have reached a height of almost 40 km and not notice he was over 20 km above the Sun.  Wow.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 09:21:42 AM
Sandokhan-What is the source of this photo?  It looks like there is an odd blue aura around the person in the image, like it was snipped from another photo.  I am not sure, and anyone please pipe in, but it looks like the sun was just coloured in or something.
rama, how many times have we gone through this before?

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

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

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

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

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

Sandokhan, this is frankly embarrassing. And again, no calculation or anything else to support the 15km figure.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 07, 2013, 09:25:52 AM
Even odder that thousands of flights everyday go to altitudes of 13kms and never notice a change of angular diameter in the sun or moon much less the 300% change you would expect at that altitude. I've never seen it in the 30 odd flights I have taken in my life.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 09:36:35 AM
I have already debated in half a dozen of threads which brought up amateur rockets, high-altitude balloons/jumps.

Amateur Rockets

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

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

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

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

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

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

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

HERE ARE THE WORDS OF FRED BRUENJES HIMSELF:

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

Now, for a single photograph, this one:

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

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

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

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

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

TOTALLY UNEXPLAINED BY ANY RE.

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

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/2ndcontact_vidcap.jpg)

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

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4632.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/CRW_4641.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite/2_rotate_crop_colorcorrect.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

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

No commercial flight goes above some 8 km, read the first paragraphs of this message. Remember how altitude is measured using ether waves, the closer you get to the Schumann cavity the more distorted the signal will be.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 09:48:36 AM
Sandokhan, I can see you think this is really profound, but I will repeat: No matter how many times you post these pictures you are still wrong.

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 10:08:15 AM
Can you provide the names, specialties, and formats of the debates you have supposedly had with these PhDs, MEs, and MSs? I also see nothing wrong with the ISS transit on how it shows the sun can't be large and far away. Please explain why it shows this.  And you also fail to explain the lack of very obvious angular size differences in the sun between the ground and high altitudes such as planes and jumps such as Baumgartner's.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 10:14:48 AM
I am trying to tell you the truth about the real world, not the fantasy world you have been believing in, up until now.

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

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

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

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

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

Impossibility of a round Sun shape:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# (http://#)]ISS in front of the Sun

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

#ws (http://#ws)]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

SAME THING, SLOW MOTION

# (http://#)]Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun

ATLANTIS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN

International Space Station (ISS) crosses the moon (http://#)

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

# (http://#)]ISS Moon Transit

# (http://#)]ISS in front of the Sun

ISS IN FRONT OF THE SUN

# (http://#)]ISS sul Sole

# (http://#)]ISS Transit 20071216

# (http://#)]Mercury Transit With Jets 11-8-2006

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

# (http://#)]Mercury transit across the face of the Sun

# (http://#)]ISS Crosses The Moon

ISS CROSSES THE MOON

# (http://#)]ISS Crosses The Moon

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

To convince yourself the Earth is flat, read about the Tunguska explosion seen all the way from London.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 10:21:04 AM
Still avoiding multiple questions while presenting new information instead.  Come on man, you can do better than that.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 10:33:42 AM
No avoidance, I became aware of your previous message, only after I posted mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 10:40:20 AM
The apparent size of the sun would necessarily be much larger the higher your altitude.  There would be a very noticeable difference between commercial flights and the ground.

How can you determine that you aren't seeing a large very distant sun transit versus a small near sun transit? Nothing in the video points to either necessarily being true.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 10:44:43 AM
No avoidance, I became aware of your previous message, only after I posted mine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, in the REAL world, the Sun has an angular diameter of about 2.3 degrees? Are you sure about that?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 10:55:24 AM
It depends on where the photographs of the airplane and Sun were taken, you are generalizing too much.

I asked to you to COMPARE the Mercury transit with the ISS/Atlantis transits: SAME distance Mercury-Sun, ISS-Sun, and the same diameter. Pretty obvious.

Watch the slow motion video: Atlantis right next to the Sun, no 149,000,000 (- 400 km, of course) km between the two.

Take a look at the photographs of the Black Sun in Antarctica: just some 600 meters in diameter.

Calculations using the visual diameter must take into account the presence of ether waves right next to the Schumann cavity: that is why it is much better to compare the actual size of the ISS/Atlantis during transit, to that of the diameter of the Sun.

By the way, are going to tell us that in this photograph the "Moon" has 3,400 km in diameter?

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

I hope not.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 07, 2013, 12:15:32 PM
Ok 15km high sun... where is that number coming from? Maybe I missed something.

So let's - for now - ignore the fact that the 15km mark was broken in 1936. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record)) We'll also forget all the new records after that. With that behind us...

I'm assuming you've been on a plane. Cruising altitude is typically 30,000 feet or more. That's 9.1km. If the sun were only 15km above earth, this would put you 6 km away (2.5 times as close to the sun). Why, then, doesn't the sun look significantly bigger when you're in a plane? How is this explained in FE theory?

With the sun at 149,600,000 km, the 9.1km closer is negligible (the same relationship .004 inches has to a mile, if my math is correct). This easily explains why the sun looks the same size when viewed from the ground and a plane, does it not?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 12:23:02 PM
It depends on where the photographs of the airplane and Sun were taken, you are generalizing too much.

I asked to you to COMPARE the Mercury transit with the ISS/Atlantis transits: SAME distance Mercury-Sun, ISS-Sun, and the same diameter. Pretty obvious.

Watch the slow motion video: Atlantis right next to the Sun, no 149,000,000 (- 400 km, of course) km between the two.

Take a look at the photographs of the Black Sun in Antarctica: just some 600 meters in diameter.

Calculations using the visual diameter must take into account the presence of ether waves right next to the Schumann cavity: that is why it is much better to compare the actual size of the ISS/Atlantis during transit, to that of the diameter of the Sun.

By the way, are going to tell us that in this photograph the "Moon" has 3,400 km in diameter?

<pointless repetition of the "black sun" image removed for sanity's sake>

I hope not.

OK, think I got my second wind here.

I'm going to say there is no way to measure the diameter of the Moon in that picture without making some assumptions or adding some other data. So what assumption and/or data are you using to get 600m? Same goes for the ISS and shuttle videos.

Why would you need to take any ether waves into account for the Sun's angular diameter? What's wrong with the basic trig? Are you suggesting some kind of bendy light here? Whatever it is, if you need to take it into account, that's fine, just show us how it's calculated.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 12:43:09 PM
Here is why:

(http://www.nies.ch/sky/sun/Sun_Airplane.jpg)

Perhaps just a few km of a difference between the altitude of the airplane and the ISS/Atlantis orbiting altitude...an extraordinary photograph.

No bendy light, not ever.

We can easily discern the diameter of the Sun in the ISS/Atlantis transit videos, especially the slow transit: given the ISS has a diameter of some 50 meters, the Sun has a diameter of some 600 meters. Since you are so fond of precise measurements, you might inform us where the 149,000,000 km have disappeared in the following video:

#ws (http://#ws)]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

Now, with that 600 meter figure in perspective, we go to the Antarctica photograph: same height.

Both the transit videos and the Antarctica photographs give us a possibility to estimate, for the first time, the real size of the Moon and the Sun.

While you ponder this, read the Tunguksa file again, then you will understand that everything we have been told about the universe, from an astronomical point of view, is completely wrong.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2013, 12:58:41 PM
Sandokahn, perhaps this short instructional video will help you out with some of the confusion that you seem to be experiencing:
# (http://#)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 07, 2013, 01:08:47 PM
Here is why:

(http://www.nies.ch/sky/sun/Sun_Airplane.jpg)

Perhaps just a few km of a difference between the altitude of the airplane and the ISS/Atlantis orbiting altitude...an extraordinary photograph.

Have you ever been in a plane? If that picture was as you describe it (a plane only a few km away from a 600km sun), then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

I'll agree that the photos and videos you posted are all very cool to look at. However, they offer nothing in terms of measurement, because there is no scale. You need two points on a line to plot the line, but the photos only offer one. There are three measurements we're looking at in these pictures, we'll call them X, Y, and Z:

1) X = The size of the object in front of the sun (plane, shuttle, ISS)
2) Y = The size of the Sun
3) Z = The distance between the object and the Sun

We know X for all the pictures. We're trying to solve for Y. In order to do that, we would need Z. However, we don't have Z, so any claims to Y have to be assumed, as Z is completely assumed.

Seeing a silhouette of a space shuttle in front of the Sun does no more to determine its size than when I cover up the Sun with my thumb.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 01:18:48 PM
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.

No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.

Here is the truth about the world we live in, Atlantis/ISS right in front of the Sun:

International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

jp, you've tried your best...it doesn't work, you are embarrasing yourself.

You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

It doesn't work like that my friend: we KNOW THE SUPPOSED DISTANCE OF THE OFFICIAL THEORY.

THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE IS SOME 148,999,600 KM BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS.

Have you lost your mind to come here and tell us that in the above videos there are 148,999,600 km in-between?

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting right IN FRONT THE VISIBLE SUN, no 148,999,600 km distance, no 1,4 million km diameter for the Sun.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 01:34:42 PM
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.

Let's deal with one bad argument at a time, OK?

No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.

I'm not even trying to argue what the true distance to the sun is. I just want you to explain precisely how you get your 600 m figure and show your work.

Here is the truth about the world we live in, Atlantis/ISS right in front of the Sun:

International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

Posting these yet again is not helping you. It's getting a little sad.

jp, you've tried your best...it doesn't work, you are embarrasing yourself.

You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

It doesn't work like that my friend: we KNOW THE SUPPOSED DISTANCE OF THE OFFICIAL THEORY.

THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE IS SOME 148,999,600 KM BETWEEN THE SUN AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS.

Have you lost your mind to come here and tell us that in the above videos there are 148,999,600 km in-between?

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting right IN FRONT THE VISIBLE SUN, no 148,999,600 km distance, no 1,4 million km diameter for the Sun.

I would really like to know how you think this would look different than what we see in the video if those large distances were correct.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
Everything comes down to this: the official Sun-Earth distance is 149,000,000 km.

Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.

The dot underneath the Atlantis is the Hubble Telescope.

Again, a confirmation of the transit videos:

International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

Official distance Earth-Moon: 384,000 km.

(http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt85/Pb43905/nature-and-astro-photos/ISS-Moon-Transit-April-2009.jpg)

Again, SAME DISTANCE as in the Solar transit videos.

International Space Station (ISS) crosses the moon (http://#)

Now, take a look at the entire set of photographs taken in Antarctica: this is what the REAL world looks like.

You can either begin to question the official figures or go back to the fantasy world created by NASA.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 02:18:20 PM
You still haven't explained how those prove anything as to the distances to the sun or moon.   Please explain how those photos show a 15 km distance.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 02:24:23 PM
Everything comes down to this: the official Sun-Earth distance is 149,000,000 km.

Photographs taken by Thierry Legault, a photographer just as famous as Fred Bruenjes.

<pointless image>

<pointless image>

The dot underneath the Atlantis is the Hubble Telescope.

Again, a confirmation of the transit videos:

<pointless video>

<pointless video>

Official distance Earth-Moon: 384,000 km.

<pointless image>

Again, SAME DISTANCE as in the Solar transit videos.

<pointless video>

Now, take a look at the entire set of photographs taken in Antarctica: this is what the REAL world looks like.

You can either begin to question the official figures or go back to the fantasy world created by NASA.

Oh my GOD Sandokhan, you are right! How could I have not seen this before! There is no way the Sun and Moon are that far away because of those images and videos you posted AGAIN!  ::)

I think this shows quite clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about, since, once again, you fail to provide any calculation of the distances and sizes that you claim. I am NOT trying to argue for the accepted distances and sizes (although they HAVE been confirmed countless times using multiple methods).

I'll take NASA's "fantasy" over your fantasy, I guess. You're not even making an argument anymore.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 07, 2013, 02:26:12 PM
The best instruction that you need is to read the Faint Young Paradox, perhaps then you will understand your utter ignorance displayed here, for the upteenth time.

I'm clearly missing something. What does that have to do with the distance between the sun and the Earth. I'll admit I don't know much about the faint young sun paradox, so if you want to explain how it's related, then I'd love to hear it.

Quote
No bullshit argument can save the RE: there are no 149,000,000 km in the transit videos no matter what you might say.

I didn't say the videos showed 149,600,000 km. What I said was that they show NOTHING about the distance between us and the Sun. If you'll look at the last part of my previous post, you'll see where I mention the three variable we're looking at - X, Y, and Z. Since all we have from those photos and videos is X, there is no possible way the videos can solve the distance problem.

So once again, how are you using those videos and photos to conclude a 15km distance and 600km diameter? The only mathematical way possible is by assuming values for Y or Z.

Quote
You ponder...

then why is the sun so small when looking out of the plane window? I've been on a plane several dozen times, and I can assure you that my view of the sun from a plane window has never been any different than what it looks like from the ground.

It depends on the altitude, distance from the Sun...in the photographs I provided everything looks very well.

That doesn't answer my question. I've been in planes at 30,000 feet. I've been on mountains at over 14,000 feet. I live at around 1,000 feet above sea level. Yet at all of these places, the sun looks the same size. Now, that can mean one of two things:

1) Those altitudes are lies.

Okay, let's say that's the case. What are the REAL altitudes then? Even if cruising altitude were only 10,000 feet, that would put me 3 kilometers closer to the sun, which is a pretty significant difference when the total distance is only 15 km.

or

2) The sun is more than 15km away.

I'm not even saying that it's 149,600,000km away, for the purpose of this experiment. But it would have to be significantly farther than 15km in order for it to remain the same size no matter where the viewing point is.

----

Now, I fear this may be posing too many questions in one post, because I have a feeling you're going to skip most of them, but I have one more for you:

Without using those pictures and videos, where do you come up with the 15km number? A link to someone else's math will be fine if you don't feel like going over it yourself. I'm genuinely curious to see how you figure this.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 02:57:03 PM
Sunset, full moon:

Sunrise:

(http://0.asset.soup.io/asset/2893/0992_20f1_960.jpeg)

Everest summit sunset:

(http://www.grantdixonphotography.com.au/lib_images/EverestSunset2.jpg)

(and remember the official estimates of summits rest on barometer readings, and triangulation methods, therefore a lower height is expected if we take into account the ether waves)

I am basing my 15 km estimate on the original altitude reached by the Explorer back in 1958, I do not have the link to the original work unfortunately, I will try to recover it: it says there the Explorer could not ascend beyond some 13 km because of the intense radiation.

You cannot claim the Sun looks the same (exactly the same) everywhere you went...

You are trying to turn the tables around, and it doesn't work with me.

The videos and photographs clearly contradict the official 149,000,000 km distance Earth-Sun, and the 384,000 km Earth-Moon distance.

The shuttle is passing RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN, to say otherwise invites derision.

Moreover, using the diameter of the ISS/Atlantis just passing in front the Sun, we can estimate the 600 meters or so for the Sun's diameter.

We can check this figure out in the Antarctica photos, everything works out fine.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 03:06:02 PM
You cannot take Nasa over ANYTHING else, not given the results of the DePalma experiment.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, no Nasa mission could ever have taken place as described.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2013, 03:27:40 PM
You cannot take Nasa over ANYTHING else, not given the results of the DePalma experiment.

Since there is no such thing as attractive gravity, no Nasa mission could ever have taken place as described.

And yet you keep posting pictures of the space shuttle, the ISS and Hubble Space Telescope as evidence of the true size and distance of the sun and moon.  Why would you do that if NASA missions are so unreliable?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 04:27:58 PM
Here is some fun math.  Speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec at the surface of the Earth.  The moon is 15km above the Earth.  The aether distortion starts to play a big part at roughly 12km (as you mentioned earlier).  It takes a radio signal 2.55 seconds to hit the moon and bounce back as was stated at the very beginning of this thread.

12km / 300,000 km/sec = 0.00004 seconds

Subtract this 2 times from 2.55 seconds (for both initial and return trip) 2.55-0.00008= 2.54992 seconds.  This is the amount of time it takes the signal to go 6km (again, both initial and return trips).

6km/2.54992s=2.35 km/s

This is very rough as I'm sure the aether would change in consistency as you gain altitude.  But this aether would need to have an absurdly high refractive index, 127,659.8 to be more exact from my calculations.  The highest known refractive index of any natural material is about 4, Germanium.  Light coming in from nearly every angle would be near vertical if this were the case.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 07, 2013, 04:34:32 PM
Hi Googleotomy, glad you're sticking around. Have you met Sandokhan? He is truly a delight.

He was about to explain how he knows the Sun and Moon (or should I say Black Sun!) are 600 m diskoids 15 km away, yet still only span .5 degrees in the sky, even when you are only a third the distance away from them, like when you are on a commercial airplane. Either that or he may post some more pictures first!
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 08:52:18 PM
markjo, you have really lost your touch.

All Nasa missions described by you do not use in any way, shape or form attractive gravity.

Given the extraordinary results of the DePalma, Nipher, Brown, Moray experiments indeed they could not.

All Nasa missions (ISS, Atlantis...), as do all satellites, use Nikola Tesla's Cosmic Ray Device, which utilizes the laevorotatory ether waves to supply energy.

This is how everybody is fooled to believe in these unmanned missions.

gg, you have already embarrassed yourself beyond recognition:

You have been shown that the original Maxwell equations are placed in a context where the speed of light becomes VARIABLE.

Einstein and yourself used/uses only the Hertzian wave-based estimates and relativist theories in which the speed of light is a constant.

This is completely wrong.

You wrote: The photographs are in no way a method of determining the diameter of the sun unless you know what kind of photographic equipment was used, such as the magnifying power of the telescopic lens which was obviously used in the photographs and the distance to the sun and the objects.

But they are a very precise way of determining distances, WHEN THE OFFICIAL EARTH-SUN DISTANCE IS 149,000,000 KM AND THE ISS/ATLANTIS IS LOCATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN.

You should change the wording in your quote: Radio waves are no way a method of determining distances on an astronomical basis, given the full set of Maxwell equations.

dd, take a look at one of the most famous experiments of the 19th century (1871), G.B. Airy's aether experiment, to see that this layer of aether does indeed have a very high refractive index at the very edge, but this index is variable; if we had the exact variability available, everything would become clear to you.

If you still are not convinced, please read again the DePalma and Nipher experiments: there is no such thing as Newton's law of universal attractive gravitation.

Full moon on Everest:

(http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/404/391/40439163_640.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTVJNgGk6z7KTdjzRCKNUrdjgSNP_IGLtDqJjOCmAwe1thl9kY7)

Bursa, Turkey, solstice, equinox photograph:

(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1209/seasons_tezel_960.jpg)

The picture is a composite of hourly images taken of the Sun above Bursa, Turkey on key days from solstice to equinox to solstice. The bottom Sun band was taken during the winter solstice in 2007 December, when the Sun could not rise very high in the sky nor stay above the horizon very long. This lack of Sun caused winter. The top Sun band was taken during the summer solstice in 2008 June, when the Sun rose highest in the sky and stayed above the horizon for more than 12 hours. This abundance of Sun caused summer. The middle band was taken during the Vernal Equinox in 2008 March, but it is the same sun band that Earthlings saw yesterday, the day of the Autumnal Equinox.

It matches exactly the diagram I posted in the alternative FE theory.

Again, read the details about DePalma's experiment: the spinning ball weighs less, for the same mass, and the supposed law of universal attractive gravitation which is the cornerstone of your whimsical beliefs.

It shows the correctness of the alternative FE model.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 07, 2013, 09:36:04 PM
Alright, let's try to keep this simple. Please explain the 15km and 600km figures WITHOUT using pictures. Use math and show us how this works.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 09:46:42 PM
Again, DePalma's doesn't make a claim that it debunks gravity.  He states that it has changed the knowledge of Newton's equations to show that they are specific circumstances equations, i.e. they only work on non-spinning objects.  The vast majority of objects on the Earth are not spinning with such rotation in relation to the Earth, so the equations work in most everyday situations (imagine that).  The spinning ball is a circumstance of matter being subjected to extreme conditions, and many odd things happen to the laws of physics under extreme conditions.  These lead to the equations being tinkered with to be able to explain the observations.

I'm assuming that by your repeated use of the phrase "right in front of" in reference to the ISS/Atlantis you are meaning that they are relatively close to them and the picture somehow shows that they must in fact be very close to them.  I still do not see HOW the pictures show that they HAVE to be RIGHT IN FRONT of the Sun or moon.  How is it that the pictures cannot be showing them passing in front of a distant Sun or moon?

As far as the moon pictures go, are these full moons taken from the same event at different elevations?  It is a common phenomena for the moon to vary in size between some full moons.  These are referred to as Super Moons, caused by the elliptical orbit of the moon and it being closer during these full moons than at other times of the year.  I know you don't believe that but that's just how it is.

Do you have evidence that Tesla's cosmic ray device powers all NASA missions and that they are unmanned?  The ISS videos would be very tough to fake due to their extensive lengths of uncut shots.

I did look at Airy's experiment, and surprise, another null result.  There sure are a lot of null results from people apparently making mistakes in their method or mistakes in the understanding of the workings of natural observations.

The picture of the suns is exactly what would be expected in a RE, what of it?

How is the sun able to transit in 24 hours in an aether that restricts the movement of light to under 1% of its value?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 10:17:47 PM
jp, if we had an exact refractive index for each layer of aether and ether waves, then of course, we could attempt to use math to reach a reasonable approximation; in the absence of such an index, our best shot is to use the transit videos and Bruenjes' photos in Antarctica.

For the third time let us go back to the DePalma experiment.

The spinning ball was performed in a vacuum eliminating the "extreme" conditions.

Do you understand where you are and what we are discussing here?

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

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

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

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the normal rules of all the physics weve been taught! It debunks attractive gravity!

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

It is the end for the universal law of attractive gravity as it is being taught in universities.

The spinning ball DEFIES the law of universal attraction: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF GRAVITATION, THIS SPINNING BALL ACTUALLY WEIGHED LESS, AND TRAVELLED HIGHER.

It shows immediately that Nasa has faked all and any of its missions.

All major powers copied Tesla's technology as best they could, they incorporated his cosmic ray device in the satellite/space shuttle technology: it is the only power supply which could provide 24 hour/day energy for a continuous orbit. ISS/Atlantis missions are unmanned and use Tesla's ether wave convertor to have a high supply of energy to continue orbiting above the earth.

I still do not see HOW the pictures show that they HAVE to be RIGHT IN FRONT of the Sun or moon.

This is exactly how:

Since you are so fond of precise measurements, you might inform us where the 149,000,000 km have disappeared in the following video:

#ws (http://#ws) (Embedding disabled, limit reached)]International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun.

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

Full moon size is irrelevant to the photographs: they show that the estimate of some 15 km is correct. It is the orbiting altitude that matters.

The picture of sun (solstice, equinox) is a confirmation of the sun model in the alternative FE theory. RE model of the sun is nonexistent: the faint young sun paradox DESTROYS any RE theories about the origin and age of the sun. Read also the demonstration of the impossibility of a spherical shape for the sun.

You have not done your homework regarding the Airy experiment.

"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.)

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

More details here: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm (http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Airy.htm)

Here is the historical figure known as I. Newton confirming all of this for you:

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Imagine the refractive index of such a flow of aether.

It is the high density of this aether which can be found BEYOND the Schumann cavity which provides the rotational gravitational force to keep in orbit the sun, moon, stars, planets.

Read Newton's quotes: he understood that there are TWO gravitational forces at work.

One of them is the terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure exerted by the ether waves.

The other one is of a rotational type.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 07, 2013, 10:41:39 PM
I'm done asking the same questions and getting the same response in the form of videos and pictures that cannot tell the distance to the sun or moon.  As was pointed out before, in order to make an accurate estimate of the distance, you must know the size of the ISS, distance to the ISS and the size of the sun.  To know the size of the sun, you would instead need the distance to it.  You can't assume one and use it to find the other then use that value to prove the original assumption.  I highly recommend you publish your work for the world to see that we have in fact been duped all along and that we are a mere 15 km away from a small flat disk that lightshalf of our flat disk planet at a time.  You haven't convinced me, just frustated me to no end with avoiding the HOW of the pictures.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Antonio on May 07, 2013, 10:43:59 PM
Hi
The picture of Fred Bruenjes ( who is just an amateur photograph ) has been shot with a 100-400 telephoto lens @400mm using a Canon  D60 body (1.6 crop factor). 400mm is a big focal.
The picture shows exactly the expected behaviour, and cannot be used by any means to give a relative or absolute distance of the sun.

Here is a basic explanation of the  telephoto lens perspective compression.

http://www.learnmyshot.com/Telephoto-Lens-Perspective-Compression-and-the-Angle-of-View (http://www.learnmyshot.com/Telephoto-Lens-Perspective-Compression-and-the-Angle-of-View)

You should note:
Quote
background appears closer to the subject when you increase the focal length of the lens

Here is also a wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29)

Here you have another example of relative size distortion:

The pictures of the iss/atlantis/planes in front of the sun have been shot with massive focal lenses, giving massive perspective compression.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 11:39:48 PM
antonio, you are using the word massive too many times...no amount of perspective compression will MAGICALLY change a distance of 384,000 km into just a few hundred km, it won't happen.

To resort to wikipedia articles is a sign of delusion...here are the words of a Scott Bideau himself:

Let me first clarify that lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene.

Here is a photograph shot with lenses of drastically different lengths, it won't change anything (17mm vs. 180mm):

No magic can compress a scene.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

There are no 384,000 km in this photograph, it is as simple as that.

In the following videos and photographs there no 149,000,000 km between the ISS and the Sun: for the RE to resort to magical compression is a sign of weakness.

International Space Station (ISS) - Space Shuttle Atlantis Docking Silhouette against sun. (http://#ws)

Space Shuttle Atlantis Seen in front of the Sun (http://#)

About Fred Bruenjes, it is clear you haven't done your homework at all:

On the 35 acre ICSTARS Astronomy Ranch, Fred converted his lifelong hobby of astronomy into a business. He founded Moonglow Technologies, an electronics firm dedicated to developing cutting edge astronomical products for the professional and amateur community. The Moonglow Technologies All Sky Cam now has installations on six continents and is a popular accessory for astro imagers and professional users alike. Moonglow also designs and manufactures components and test equipment for DayStar Filters' solar filters, which are used at professional solar observatories around the world. His work has been critical in projects such as the DayStar installation on the GONG global network of solar observatories, as well as space flown components scheduled for launch in 2012.

As an accomplished astrophotographer, Fred's images have been published by Astronomy Magazine, Sky & Telescope, National Geographic News, Hoshi Navi, Disney, APOD, Reuters, and many others. Particularly famous photos include his image of an eclipse chaser silhouetting the 2003 total solar eclipse in Antarctica. His images and video of the Space Shuttle Columbia's destruction in 2003 aided NASA's investigation into the cause of the disaster.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 07, 2013, 11:43:23 PM
Now, to finally convince all of you that everything I have been writing about is true, I am going to bring to the discussion the full power of the new radical chronology arguments.

Here is the complete demonstration that before 1700 AD the Earth could not possibly have orbited the Sun. Therefore in a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

GREGORIAN CALENDAR REFORM HOAX

A brief summary of the dating of the First Council of Nicaea and the startling conclusions following the fact that the Gregorian calendar reform never occurred in 1582 AD:

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastars Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Todays copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastars Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day  it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar  the XIV century  Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon  Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didnt happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

So, by approximately 1330 AD, when Vlastar wrote his account, the last condition of Easter was violated: if the first Sunday happened to be within two days after the full moon, the celebration of Easter was postponed until the next weekend. This change was necessary because of the difference between the real full moon and the one computed in the Easter Book. The error, of which Vlastar was aware, is twenty-four hours in 304 years.

Therefore the Easter Book must have been written around AD 722 (722 = 1330 - 2 x 304). Had Vlastar known of the Easter Books 325 AD canonization, he would have noticed the three-day gap that had accumulated between the dates of the computed and the real full moon in more than a thousand years. So he either was unaware of the Easter Book or knew the correct date when it was written, which could not be near 325 AD.

G. Nosovsky: So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaligers dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330  (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaligers dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!

Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesnt see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Councils dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastars age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaligers time.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784, whereas Vlastar had noted that all the restrictions except the last one have been kept firmly until now. When proposing the year 325, Scaliger had no way of detecting this fault, because in the sixteenth century the full-moon calculations for the distant past couldnt be performed with precision.

Another reason to doubt the validity of 325 AD is that the Easter dates repeat themselves every 532 years. The last cycle started in 1941, and previous ones were 1409 to 1940, 877 to 1408 and 345 to 876. But a periodic process is similar to drawing a circleyou can choose any starting point. Therefore, it seems peculiar for the council to have met in 325 AD and yet not to have begun the Easter cycle until 345.

Nosovsky thought it more reasonable that the First Council of Nicaea had taken place in 876 or 877 AD, the latter being the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with his full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

G. Nosovky:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia  according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if were to follow the consensual chronological version, well have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.

The above mentioned absurdity was noticed much later, when the state of astronomical science became satisfactory for said purpose, but it was too late already, since Scaligers version of chronology had already been canonized, rigidified, and baptized scientific, with all major corrections forbidden.

Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana, in the official chronology.

The major concerns of the Council involved regulating the conduct of church members. The Council expressed its decrees in the form of written rules or canons.

However, the most pressing issue, the fact that the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370 was NOT presented during this alleged Council of Laodicea.

We are told that the motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is about 11 minutes less. The accumulated error between these values was about 10 days (starting from the Council of Nicaea) when the reform was made, resulting in the equinox occurring on March 11 and moving steadily earlier in the calendar, also by the 16th century AD the winter solstice fell around December 11.

But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

Newton agrees with the date of December 11, 1582 as well; moreover, Britain and the British Empire adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (official chronology); again, more fiction at work: no European country could have possibly adopted the Gregorian calendar reformation in the period 1582-1800, given the absolute fact that the winter solstice must have falled on December 16 in the year 1582 AD, and not at all on December 11 (official chronology).

The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.

It is the end of all the RE delusions: no astronomical records of any axial precession, therefore the Earth has never orbited the Sun.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 07, 2013, 11:54:11 PM
This is a beautiful image, very nicely showing the even spacings between the sun's positions each hour. On a flat earth, those spacings would be more radially spaced (if that makes sense?) What I mean is, instead of looking like they've been spaced out with a ruler, as they do, they would look more like they had been spaced using the spokes of a bicycle wheel. You do need to take the fish eye lens effect into account of course, it is blatantly obvious that that is what has been used.

(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1209/seasons_tezel_960.jpg)

Thank you Sandokhan for providing evidence supporting round earth theory!
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 12:02:15 AM
Leave the altered history stuff out of here.  It is not relevant to figuring up the size and distance to any heavenly body.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2011-02/msg00107.html (http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2011-02/msg00107.html)

I saw no mention of a vacuum being used in DePalma's experiment.  So it would follow suit that air resistance would play a role.  This resistance is reduced by rotation.  But I'm sure you already know about this post on the net and have sufficiently found it flawed do to not considering the existence of aether.

Still posting the same videos without providing any information about why the must be very close to each other for the video to appear as it does.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 08, 2013, 12:12:21 AM

You are using a non sequitur type of argument: where did you learn that spacings would be more radially spaced? Not from my alternative FE theory.

On the contrary it is beautiful confirmation of the FE theory:

(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/8711/bun1copy.jpg)

The conclusions are as follows:

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe. And it means that the entire chronology of the official history has been forged at least after 1750 AD.

In the FE theory, the 50 seconds of arc per year (1 degree/71.6 years) change of longitude of the Pole Star is due to the movement of the Pole Star itself and NOT due to any axial precession of the Earth.

It is the end of all the RE delusions: no astronomical records of any axial precession, therefore the Earth has never orbited the Sun.

nonscientificmethod, there is no such thing as axial precession, the Earth has never orbited the Sun.

I cannot leave the AXIAL PRECESSION OUT OF IT.

dd, you are going to have to explain HOW is it possible that there are no astronomical records of any axial precession of the Earth.

SO FAR, YOU HAVE DEMANDED TO HAVE ANSWERS TO EACH AND EVERY ARGUMENT.

Now it is your turn to explain this anomaly.

Without axial precession, you do not have a proof that the Earth ever orbited the sun in the past.

If you cannot explain how this is possible: NO AXIAL PRECESSION IN THE PAST, it is all over for you, and your arguments.

I have already provided the link to the DePalma experiment: it was performed both in vacuum and without a vacuum.

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev (http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev)

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

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

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

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

As DePalma noted -- this completely violates the normal rules of all the physics weve been taught! It debunks attractive gravity!

A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart.

It is the end for the universal law of attractive gravity as it is being taught in universities.

The spinning ball DEFIES the law of universal attraction: FOR THE SAME MASS, AND THE SAME SUPPOSED LAW OF GRAVITATION, THIS SPINNING BALL ACTUALLY WEIGHED LESS, AND TRAVELLED HIGHER.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 08, 2013, 12:17:25 AM
The existence of the axial precession is ABSOLUTELY SIGNIFICANT to the shape of the Sun.

NO axial precession means the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past.

In a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, thus providing a solid proof for everything I have presented.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 12:18:26 AM
Also of notice in the Atlantis photo, the shuttle is 37 meters long.  This means that it would take between 15 and 20 shuttles to span the Sun directly on its surface.  Given the shuttle is really as much as 3 km away instead it should take slightly fewer to span across the Sun since the shuttle is closer.  Given those rough estimates, lets be generous and knock off only 1 for the difference, do you think itwould only take between 14 and 19 shuttles to cross the Sun in that photo?

You say I like precise measurements and yet I'm surprised that you aren't and haven't provided precise measurements.

As far as you demanding answers from me on that, I have made no such claim about the subject and owe you no answer.  You have made claims however and should be held accountable to your claims and be able to support them.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 08, 2013, 12:27:30 AM
Your measurements come from a dream, no 3 km distance (Atlantis-Sun). You are making up things as you go along.

I am making the ABSOLUTE CLAIM that the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past.

I can immediately prove that there was no axial precession in the past, and this starting with 1700 AD.

No axial precession means an end to the heliocentrical delusions.

No axial precession means that the Sun orbits the Earth, and in a geocentric system, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

How can you ignore this most important issue? You say that the Earth is orbiting the Sun: since there are no historical/astronomical records of such a pheomenon, your statement is false.

Here are the complete details of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR REFORM HOAX:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547)

NO axial precession = the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past = a geocentric system = the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The most precise argument, taking into consideration the chronology of history as we have been taught.

If you cannot provide an answer, it means you have no idea about the implications of the axial precession movement, it means you are believing in a phantasy, with no connections to the real world.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 08, 2013, 12:34:38 AM

You are using a non sequitur type of argument: where did you learn that spacings would be more radially spaced? Not from my alternative FE theory.

I think anyone with intelligence can work out why there would be a difference in spacings. It has to do with the difference between a sun circling over a flat earth (the only way to always have half the earth's surface lit at any one time), and a rotating round earth. It's a pretty substantial difference, and would be obvious in that photo.

Incidentally, there's no way this could work for a flat earth:

(http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/8711/bun1copy.jpg)

I really don't know why you posted it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 12:42:25 AM
I am in fact making no claim here as to whether the Earth orbits the Sun or not.  Do not put words in my mouth.  And do not derail away from the distance issues.  If you want to discuss something else, make another thread about it.

Earlier you had stated the ISS was between 12 and 14 km if I'm not mistaken.  This is where I get that number.  Even if it is only 1 km difference, you would still need between 15 and 20 to span the Sun.  And yet this still makes no claim to the size without the distance to the Sun and no claim to the distance without the size.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 01:11:30 AM
I've searched through multiple references to DePalma's experiment and I must amend my previous statements.  He is in fact saying what you have been saying.  However, I have not found referenced his methodology or any publishing of his results.  Just his own analysis of the results.  No reference to it being performed in a vacuum so it must be assumed it was performed under standard conditions.  Furthermore, since his methodology was not documented, we cannot repeat his experiment, let alone know that it was actually carried out.

Upon further review of this case it is looking even weaker as evidence of anything.  Without peer reviewed data and detailed methodology, it cannot be determined if the findings are valid.

There goes an argument against gravity.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 08, 2013, 01:31:47 AM
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.

So what it comes down to is to dismiss the experiment altogether, is that it?

At the time of the experiment DePalma was lecturing part-time at MIT.

The turning point in DePalmas scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960's when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?
One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalmas and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from highspeed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this
numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented
photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

He did perform the experiment in full vacuum: just imagine - the first question would have been, did you do the experiment in vacuum?

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev (http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev)

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

His experiments were duplicated hundreds of times in the former Soviet Union.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields, which Kozyrev called the "flow of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

So what you and everybody else here is saying is that your beliefs in the heliocentrical system are due to FAITH.

It should be the most important undertaking to carefully check IF in the past the Earth underwent any axial precessional movement.

I can prove immediately that, prior to 1700 AD (at least), no historical/astronomical records exist of any axial precession having taken place.

The Gregorian calendar reform is a hoax: in 1582 AD, the winter solstice MUST HAVE FALLEN on December 16, and not at all on December 11.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547)

NO axial precession = the Earth never orbited the Sun in the past = a geocentric system = the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The most precise argument, taking into consideration the chronology of history as we have been taught.

A complete proof of everything I have been discussing here: the sun is much smaller than the Earth.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: spaceman spiff on May 08, 2013, 03:50:09 AM
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 08, 2013, 04:05:03 AM
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 08, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.

Which is precisely what I've asked at least 4 times now and have just gotten that they cannot show it because they aren't that size.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 08, 2013, 07:04:16 AM
Quote
The most significant aspect of the ISS/Atlantis transit videos is this: there are no 149,000,000 km between the space shuttle and the Sun, and no 384,000 km between the shuttle and the moon. The sun could not possibly have 1,4 million km in diameter.

The most significant aspect of the Antarctica photographs is this: there are no 384,000 km between the photographer and the moon (black sun, of course), this moon does not have 3,400 km for its diameter.
Please explain how can you reach these conclusions from the pictures. Try not to go into the calendar hoax, or experiments on gravity. I want to know how, from the pictures alone, you can infer the distances involved. Thank you very much.

I, too, would like to know, in nice, concise terms, how distance or size can be determined from a picture, without assuming either.

Also, since the picture apparently so clearly proves that the sun is small and nearby, what would a large sun that's 150 million km away actually look like?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 08, 2013, 07:40:59 AM
I'm having a hard time following the logic that says the sun is just beyond the iss because "the iss passes right in front of it". I mean, by that logic, I could pass my thumb in front of the sun and say "look! The sun is smaller than the tip of my thumb, and no more than 3 feet away from me!" Yes, that's a pretty ridiculous example, but it does follow the same logic.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 08, 2013, 08:03:58 AM
Sandokhan, you appear to be struggling now. You have not once explained the Earth-Moon distance in terms of your theory. All you have done is repeat the same claims, and pile on your pet conspiracy theory.

Even if it were true that there were no axial precession in the past, this doesn't help your case. It could be that it was just never documented. If there really were no precession, it means only that. You don't just get to leap straight to a geocentric model.

Same with the spinning ball. If the results are real, they could be accounted. By no means does this disprove gravity.

I can see now why you post endlessly to nobody in Flat Earth Believers. You have nothing but a fantasy story that you love to tell, nothing but unsubstantiated claims.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 08, 2013, 08:35:10 AM
I can see now why you post endlessly to nobody in Flat Earth Believers. You have nothing but a fantasy story that you love to tell, nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

I thought I was the only one that found that weird.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 10, 2013, 06:00:01 AM
gg,  you do not seem to understand where you are...not to mention what is being debated here.

The speed of light is variable, not constant: this means your equation is worthless (even more than worthless, it is disastrous).

Please take your time and study the material posted here, especially the implications of the full set of Maxwell's original equations.

Your equation applied ONLY to hertzian waves: RADIO WAVES ARE NOT HERTZIAN WAVES, BUT ETHER/SCALAR WAVES.

Your knowledge of radio waves is beyond abysmmal...you are no match for my responses. You already know very well the Earth - Sun-Moon distance: some 15 km, as I have already stated and proved very clearly.

sch...here are the full details of the DePalma experiment, full defiance of the universal law of gravitation. As for the axial precession, you do not understand the mechanics of the heliocentric system: WITHOUT AXIAL PRECESSION, THERE IS NO EARTH ORBITING THE SUN: IN A GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM, THE SUN ORBITS THE EARTH.

At the time of the experiment DePalma was lecturing part-time at MIT.

The turning point in DePalmas scientific career came while he was a lecturer at M.I.T., in the late 1960's when he began pondering the inadequacies of physical explanations regarding the gyroscope. Were there deeper principles operating in the behavior of rotating objects?
One of the first experiments he did was designed to detect if there was any difference in gravitational effect on a rotating object verses non-rotating object. The idea was actually initiated by a student of DePalmas and after an extensive search in the literature, no evidence could be found that the experiment had been performed before.

At this time DePalma was a senior scientist specializing in photographic sciences with the Polaroid Land Corporation and lecturing part time at M.I.T. His expertise ranged from highspeed stroboscopic photography, his mentor was the highly regarded Dr. Harold Edgerton, to Physics and Electrical Engineering. With this background he designed an experiment using two 1 inch diameter ball bearings, one not rotating and one rotating 18,000 rpm produced by a hand router. The assembly then was given a precisely measured thrust and photographed in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light. Repeating this
numerous times, and analyzing the parallel trajectories of the ball bearings as documented
photographically, did indeed reveal a variation in the gravitational behavior of the rotating ball bearing verses the non-rotating ball bearing. The rotating ball given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster, and hit the bottom of its trajectory before the non-rotating ball bearing.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

He did perform the experiment in full vacuum: just imagine - the first question would have been, did you do the experiment in vacuum?

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev (http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/books-free-online/20-the-divine-cosmos/95-the-divine-cosmos-chapter-01-the-breakthroughs-of-dr-na-kozyrev)

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

His experiments were duplicated hundreds of times in the former Soviet Union.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

Please take your time to correct the full-blown delusions in your message, especially in view of the above: the DePalma experiments are very well documented they defy the law of universal gravitation to the fullest.

So far, I have been able to debunk your freshman arguments in less than five minutes.

My alternative FE has never been defeated in any way, shape or form, NO RE has been able to survive a direct debate, in fact given the delusion called the round earth theory, it doesn't even take much to debunk it.

I have already explained everything you wanted about the ISS/Atlantis transit videos/photos.

#ws (http://#ws)

# (http://#)

Scott Bideau, professional photographer:

Let me first clarify that lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene.

Here is a photograph shot with lenses of drastically different lengths, it won't change anything (17mm vs. 180mm):

Therefore, there is no massive compression, as per RE's description: the videos and the photos are very real, NO 149,000,000 KM between the Earth and the Sun, no 1,4 million km for the diameter of the Sun.

The ISS/Atlantis orbiting RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SUN, BOTH VIDEOS AND PHOTOS, the official claims of 149,000,000 km is debunked immediately.

Please compare the above photographs/videos with the Antarctica photos: the videos and photos debunk immediately the sheer falsity of the 149,000,000 official estimate.

What the RE should worry about most are the implications of the full set of Maxwell's equations: they prove that the earth is flat beyond a doubt.

They show that the speed of light is variable, that terrestrial gravity is caused by ether waves, and as we know, pressure gravity is a hallmark of a flat earth and not a spherical earth.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: spaceman spiff on May 10, 2013, 07:13:25 AM
I bet if we asked sandokhan his/her age or where he lives, he would answer with the exact same post, figures, videos and links. S/He doesn't appear to read what we are asking, but is in an endless loop of posting the same stuff.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 10, 2013, 07:21:22 AM
On the contrary, the message contains the best description of Dr. DePalma's fantastic experiment, which debunks attractive gravitation, a response which takes into account S. Bideau self-explanantory statement, and an analysis of the difference between hertzian waves and radio waves.

Do your homework, spaceman, and you will discover answers to all of your questions on astrophysics, in the full set of the Maxwell's original equations.

One recent well-known astrophysicist asked himself: ARE WE USING THE EQUATIONS RIGHT? That is, he is expressing his frustration at the complete failure of the STR/GTR to describe ANYTHING pertaining to the real world: of course the equations are NOT used right, that is, Maxwell's truncated equations, since most of the terms were deleted by both Heaviside and Lorentz.

Now, spiff, you will find the dark matter/dark energy TERMS included in the full set of Maxwell's original equations: research this topic.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 10, 2013, 07:31:34 AM
The stuff about a gyroscope weighing less when it is spinning compared to at rest is interesting stuff, I believe NASA were interested at one point.
Doing a bit of a search rather than just following the links took me here

http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v64/i8/p825_1 (http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v64/i8/p825_1)

A more recent experiment into the effect that with more sensitive equipment found no weight loss.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 10, 2013, 07:43:44 AM
Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev was the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union (in comparison to him, Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Born, Bohr, are just footnotes).

(http://blog.hasslberger.com/img/kozyrev-yang.jpg)

Two generations of remarkable research by thousands of Ph.D. level specialists have emerged from Kozyrevs seed findings, which completely change our understanding of the Universe.

Kozyrevs experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr. V.V. Nasonov, who helped to standardize the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials, and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, time and rotation are closely interconnected. In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning. N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories. N.A.Kozyrev explained the observed effect as being the manifestation of some "physical properties of time".

Reported observations of gyroscope weight variations have been made repeatedly by various researchers in many countries. Almost in all cases the observed effects were interpreted as the manifestation of antigravitation. In 1989, H.Hayasaka and S.Takeuchi conducted a series of experiments in which the fall-time of a freely-falling spinning gyroscope was measured. They found that the fall-time varied depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. H.Hayasaka and S.Takeuchi have attempted to explain the effect of antigravitation as the manifestation of torsion fields generated by the spinning gyroscope.

It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect.

Maxwell's full set of equations, the original equations, provide the solid basis for the existence scalar/ether waves: the laevorotatory waves can be activated (electricity, sound, double torsion) to provide antigravitational effects (DePalma, T. T. Brown, Kozyrev, Moray, Tesla) - the dextrorotatory waves constitute terrestrial gravity.

The laevorotatory ether waves are the Holy Grail of physics: the missing essential part of mechanics, electromagnetism, astrophysics.

Maxwell's original equations = electrogravity = unified field theory = existence of double torsion scalar/ether waves
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 10, 2013, 07:48:22 AM
You should really publish your work so the world can see that they have been duped for so long.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 10, 2013, 08:01:41 AM
Here is how the world was duped:

Pari Spolter writes: Many physicists who believe Einsteins theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einsteins relativity. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma. Thomas Phipps writes: The (politically obligatory) claim that Einsteins theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.

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

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 10, 2013, 08:09:21 AM
"It should be noted that reports stating that the weight of a spinning gyroscope does not change are also known. Analysis of these reports shows that experimenters have simply not fulfilled the conditions required to achieve the expected effect. "

Analysis by who? What condition?

These are serious questions because the statement above is basically "you only get these results if you do exactly as I say" and the point of replicating and modifying experiments is to try to isolate what is causing the effect and to see if the original assumption is correct. In this case the assumption is that rotation is causing the effect but when other experimentors tried minimizing vibrations and removed the electric motor and just had the spinning object the effect wasn't observed.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 10, 2013, 10:48:42 AM
Sandokhan, if you ever happen to publish work for peer review, and it's rejected by the scientific community, I would assume that's definitely not because you're wrong but rather that the entire community is wrong, yes?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 11:30:58 AM
You should really publish your work so the world can see that they have been duped for so long.

For a start, I would suggest that Sandokhan also write to the American Radio Relay League in Newington, Connecticut and to the Mc Donald Observatory in Fort Davis, Texas to inform them as to how they have been duped for so long.

Both the ARRL and Mc Donald Observatory have websites on the Internet with a "Contact Us"
for information or comments such as yours . I have written to both of them and they have answered my e-mails on  other questions . I would suggest that Sandokhan do likewise so that they will also be enlightened by his findings.

Sandokhan A copy of all your posts should be included to illustrate all of the errors you have found, especially those concerning the measurements on Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce".

I am certain they would be interested in your evaluation so that they may inform the hundreds of amateur radio operators who have performed these operations of the obvious errors they obtained-"Moon Bounce" has been going on for quite some time - ....And I am almost certain the people at Mc Donald Observatory should be interested too.

I am sure readers of this forum are also interested in how you obtained your figures for the distance from the earth to the moon , which I thought  ??? was the "OP" of this topic.

Agreed, Sandokhan should definitely contact the ARRL, if only for his own education. I looked up the EME (moonbounce), and there are a set of equations that specify how much power is needed among other things, to make it work. Not sure if they derive from Maxwell's equations or not, but it seems solid enough otherwise HAM operators would not be able to do it.

So, what do you say Sandokhan, is the ARRL part of the conspiracy or what? Seems unlikely as any HAM operator with the right equipment (100 watts doesn't seem like an excessive amount of power) can replicate the results.

Still waiting to see your calculation on the Earth Moon distance too Sandokhan, and the explanation of why the sun is only 1/4 of the size it should appear according to your numbers. Your previous comment regarding aether waves having to be taken into account does nothing unless you can show some numbers.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 10, 2013, 02:04:06 PM
Here is a very good explanation of the solar eclipse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse)

But again, FE will probably say that wikiepedia is just another part of the Conspiracy.

Sandokhan's photos were simply telephotos or enlargements of a perfectly normal eclipse which prove absolutely nothing, in particular the distances involved, to say nothing of that mysterious "dark object" which of course is nothing but the moon itself ;D

Just waiting on how the distance was measured by FE methods.  :P ???

Yeah, it's kind of disturbing how he just posts the same photos, over, and over, and over... and claiming that they prove the Sun and Moon are close. It makes me think of some guy with a sandwich board sign over him, on the street ranting "Read this Bible passage, it PROVES spiders are really aliens!", or something like that.

And yeah, Sandokhan gives Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) as much credit as Wookieepedia (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: maserati on May 10, 2013, 11:32:21 PM
Here is how the world was duped:

Pari Spolter writes: Many physicists who believe Einsteins theory of relativity to be flawed have not been able to get their papers accepted for publication in most scientific journals. Eminent scientists are intimidated and warned that they may spoil their career prospects, if they openly opposed Einsteins relativity. Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, stated that physicists seem to abandon their critical faculties when considering relativity. He also remarked: Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma. Thomas Phipps writes: The (politically obligatory) claim that Einsteins theories are the only ones capable of covering the known range of empirical physical knowledge is laughable.

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

Agreed, Hi man are you Leeve also?
i like your theory, and opinion.
because you are different, and also having alternative theory that i think that's correct.

In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 11, 2013, 01:25:41 AM
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: maserati on May 11, 2013, 05:50:27 AM
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Lolflatdisc on May 11, 2013, 05:52:00 AM
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: maserati on May 11, 2013, 06:03:09 AM
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?

- what i see is our flat is never go round at all, i see flat
- i feel our earth is never spinning at all, out flat is statis no moving (rotation or revolution)
if earth spinning we can fly, building is fly too.
- i see the sun is orbiting the earth 24 hours a day
- our earth is like disc shape, it proven when we go to high feet in the sky by baloon and record by camera (INDEPENDENT SIDE NO NASA) we see our earth is curve, it proof that our flat is indeed curvy like disc shape and having edge also

all above fact, reinforced by Al-Quran and Bibble
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 11, 2013, 06:21:41 AM
In Al-Quran, and bibble also mentioned that the earth is flat, earth is static, and the sun and moon orbinting the earth.

So both the bible and the Quran are totally wrong. Who would've guessed?

No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

I don't see it, so explain it to me...what do you see?

- what i see is our flat is never go round at all, i see flat
- i feel our earth is never spinning at all, out flat is statis no moving (rotation or revolution)
if earth spinning we can fly, building is fly too.
- i see the sun is orbiting the earth 24 hours a day
- our earth is like disc shape, it proven when we go to high feet in the sky by baloon and record by camera (INDEPENDENT SIDE NO NASA) we see our earth is curve, it proof that our flat is indeed curvy like disc shape and having edge also

all above fact, reinforced by Al-Quran and Bibble

What I see is the sun going below the horizon, which means the sun must at least revolve AROUND the Earth if nothing else.
Lower altitude objects disappear before higher altitude objects, which means something must be getting in the way, such as curvature.
High altitude pictures pointed horizontally show curvature, which shows a round Earth.
I never feel a pressure keeping me down, so that must not be the case.
This may shock you, but the Bible or Quran you read today may not be the same as was originally written.  Religion has a fantastic way of getting in the way of scientific advancement, especially when applied literally.  I'm not going to get into that argument though, start up a new thread if you want to discuss that.  But my Bible states the Earth was "formless" on day one, neither round nor flat.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 11, 2013, 06:44:15 AM
No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

Millions of Christians and Muslims don't believe the Earth is flat. They have either ignored those parts of the holy texts or took them as not being literal.

You clearly don't understand Science.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 07:19:03 AM
The Hebrew word used in the Torah, which is what the Qu'ran comes from, to describe the shape of the Earth is ambiguous regarding sphericity or flat roundness.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2013, 11:14:59 AM
No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

Millions of Christians and Muslims don't believe the Earth is flat. They have either ignored those parts of the holy texts or took them as not being literal.

You clearly don't understand Science.

In any sample group, there will be a certain percentage that just follow mainstream science.  This does not prove that the others are wrong.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 11, 2013, 04:51:59 PM
I'm done asking the same questions and getting the same response in the form of videos and pictures that cannot tell the distance to the sun or moon.  As was pointed out before, in order to make an accurate estimate of the distance, you must know the size of the ISS, distance to the ISS and the size of the sun.  To know the size of the sun, you would instead need the distance to it.  You can't assume one and use it to find the other then use that value to prove the original assumption.  I highly recommend you publish your work for the world to see that we have in fact been duped all along and that we are a mere 15 km away from a small flat disk that lightshalf of our flat disk planet at a time.  You haven't convinced me, just frustated me to no end with avoiding the HOW of the pictures.

Well.....DuckDodgers I'm done asking the same question and getting no answers.  ??? I won't go any further in my comments since they would just be copying yours. ;D

Yeah, I gave up on this quite some time ago.  The thing that made me give up was the ISS video of it "RIGHT IN FRONT" and yet no explanation of why it must necessarily be right in front.  I say just let this thread go to the graveyard unanswered, take it as a personal victory.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 11, 2013, 06:19:50 PM
No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

Millions of Christians and Muslims don't believe the Earth is flat. They have either ignored those parts of the holy texts or took them as not being literal.

You clearly don't understand Science.

In any sample group, there will be a certain percentage that just follow mainstream science.  This does not prove that the others are wrong.

And I never said it did, but mainstream science is followed because it's been shown to work in all of our fancy gadgets, and they're the experts, so they're more trustworthy than a bunch of loonies on a loony site  ;)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 11, 2013, 06:49:16 PM
No Wrong Yoll, The Holly Book (Quran and Al-Kitab) is made by Creator of human being, and universe....
So Allah is never made mistakes. If talk theory in People made there will be right and wrong theory, but The Holly Book is always Right.

even a lot of Atheist People support Flat Earth Theory.
That's the fact that our earth is flat, round earth is a very fancy delusion that makes me laugh. are you kidding me...open your minds and heart see the fact that our earth is flat.

Millions of Christians and Muslims don't believe the Earth is flat. They have either ignored those parts of the holy texts or took them as not being literal.

You clearly don't understand Science.

In any sample group, there will be a certain percentage that just follow mainstream science.  This does not prove that the others are wrong.

And I never said it did, but mainstream science is followed because it's been shown to work in all of our fancy gadgets, and they're the experts, so they're more trustworthy than a bunch of loonies on a loony site  ;)

And suibstanitated evidence... mainstream science has that... a lot of it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 13, 2013, 06:04:20 AM
This is actually the fourth time I am trying to explain to you that hertzian waves are not radio waves.

Let us go back to the very first experiment on which you (and the scientists you quoted) rely for a theoretical basis.

Tesla upholds the startling theory formulated by him long ago, that the radio transmitters as now used, do not emit Hertz waves, as commonly believed, but waves of sound. He says that a Hertz wave would only be possible in a solid ether, but he has demonstrated already in 1897 that the ether is a gas, which can only transmit waves of sound; that is such as are propagated by alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium in which transverse waves are absolutely impossible. Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art. As soon as the expert become convinced of this fact they will find a natural and simple explanation of all the puzzling phenomena of the so-called radio.

Your understanding of radio waves is essentially flawed: no matter how many equations you post here, they are worthless. Radio waves are ether waves, and the speed of light is variable.

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.

Therefore, Hertz did realize that his theory of radio waves is very wrong and acknowledged that Tesla's theory was correct.

Use these bibliographical references to increase your knowledge of the true history of radio waves, and stop posting nonsense.

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

Do you now understand the difference between herztian waves and ether waves (true radio waves)?

Nikola Tesla advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance. Tesla foretold of a brilliant new future for humankind, using his non-Hertzian "wireless system," including the ability to generate power and transmit it anywhere.

In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.

When Nikola Tesla invented the AC (alternating current) induction motor, he had great difficulty convincing men of his time to believe in it. Thomas Edison was in favor of direct current (DC) electricity and opposed AC electricity strenuously. Tesla eventually sold his rights to his alternating current patents to George Westinghouse for \$1,000,000. After paying off his investors, Tesla spent his remaining funds on his other inventions and culminated his efforts in a major breakthrough in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.

When Einstein asserted that nothing was faster than the speed of light - he was comparing light to electromagnetic emissions, that is, Hertzian waves based on the conventional Maxwell equations.

However, our present-day Maxwell equations are not the original Maxwell equations:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf (http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf)

Therefore, your assumption that light travels at a constant speed is completely wrong.

A true electromagnetic wave does not fall off as the distance from the source increases, that is, it is immune to the inverse square law of the usual Hertz waves.

Einstein based his entire understanding about the speed of light on Maxwell's TRUNCATED equations.

Do you have the intelligence to understand this much?

The original set of equations prove the existence of ether waves: Maxwell's entire theory of electromagnetism is unthinkable without ether waves.

Your bumbling assessment of the 2003 F. Bruenjes Antarctica expedition. speaks for itself.

There is nothing normal about these photographs: no 384,000 km between the "Moon" and the Earth, no 3,400 km diameter for this Moon.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)

Perhaps you need an urgent visit to your local eye doctor...

Read this message carefully: Tesla discovered a fatal flaw in Hertz's experiment, and explained to Hertz that radio waves are actually ether waves.

Using the correct theory, Tesla transmitted100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 13, 2013, 07:35:33 AM
Sandokhan can you please explain, as simply as possible and without going off on tangents, why the solar eclipse of November 23rd 2003 proves that the sun and moon are only a few km away?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 13, 2013, 07:37:21 AM
Oh what a relief, I was worried we wouldn't see those pictures for a while.

But since you've decided to post them again. Can you please tell us why they prove a 15km distance? I understand that you think they disprove the RE distance; that's not what I'm asking.

How does that picture show 15km??
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 13, 2013, 08:45:09 AM

Like you I'm not holding out much hope for a coherent reply. I did dip into the thread a while ago when it strayed onto gyroscopes and anti-gravity (goes to show how much it wandered).

Really at the moment I just want to know why Sandokhan keeps posting a picture of a solar eclipse as some sort of proof of the distance to the sun as at the moment he's reminding me of the following Father Ted sketch.

Father Ted: 'Small' vs 'Far Away' (http://#)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 13, 2013, 09:59:16 AM
At this point I have to wonder what it would be like to have a live chat with Sandokhan to discuss this. Would he be forced to come up with actual comments and answers since he couldn't rely on a constant stream of copypasta? Or would he just emit an endless stream of babble as he read out his prepackaged "arguments"? Either way it would certainly be a riot.

Now, Sandokhan, what is your deal with Tesla anyway? Is everything he did necessarily right? We understand his wireless power transmission today without resorting to the ether concept, so who cares if he managed to transmit power over that distance? It's certainly a great achievement and Tesla was no doubt a genius, but it proves nothing.

Still waiting for your calculations by the way.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 13, 2013, 12:13:27 PM
I was just thinking, and a question regarding vacuums popped in my head.  If aether is gaseous and mixed into the atmosphere in varying degrees, then wouldn't a manmade vacuum remove it along with the air it removes?  Where I'm going with this is that manmade vacuums are nearly devoid of all the atmosphere inside, leading me to believe the aether would also exit.  This would cause manmade vacuums to appear very dark,  nearly black, as light would not be able to pass through it without its medium, yes?  Or is this aether able to pass through all matter?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 13, 2013, 01:00:39 PM
I was just thinking, and a question regarding vacuums popped in my head.  If aether is gaseous and mixed into the atmosphere in varying degrees, then wouldn't a manmade vacuum remove it along with the air it removes?  Where I'm going with this is that manmade vacuums are nearly devoid of all the atmosphere inside, leading me to believe the aether would also exit.  This would cause manmade vacuums to appear very dark,  nearly black, as light would not be able to pass through it without its medium, yes?  Or is this aether able to pass through all matter?

That's really interesting, I guess since vacuums don't appear black then aether can't be sucked out like that?

Apparently aether can't interact much with matter since the Earth sails through it effortlessly. Of course in FE this may not be true since either the Earth is stationary, or the aether pushes it along. It seems that FE'rs need to decide what the properties of the aether actually are. It's interesting to note that Michelson, Morley and Miller were working under the assumption that the was moving, and they were actually trying to measure its velocity with their light speed experiments.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 14, 2013, 01:41:58 PM
Interesting how the poll results are breaking down. I had no idea that the 15km distance Sun was so widely accepted in the FES forums. However, where are all the comments from these people? Won't someone else step forward to explain Sandokhan's theory?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 14, 2013, 01:52:13 PM
Interesting how the poll results are breaking down. I had no idea that the 15km distance Sun was so widely accepted in the FES forums. However, where are all the comments from these people? Won't someone else step forward to explain Sandokhan's theory?

I think some of this is due to not having the 3rd generally accepted FE measure.  Since they only have the one FE measure, they feel like they have to pick that since RE is incorrect.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 14, 2013, 02:15:39 PM
Interesting how the poll results are breaking down. I had no idea that the 15km distance Sun was so widely accepted in the FES forums. However, where are all the comments from these people? Won't someone else step forward to explain Sandokhan's theory?

There are 13 freaking pages of comments.  Do you even read them, or do you just selectively read?  Serious question here.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 14, 2013, 02:41:51 PM
Interesting how the poll results are breaking down. I had no idea that the 15km distance Sun was so widely accepted in the FES forums. However, where are all the comments from these people? Won't someone else step forward to explain Sandokhan's theory?

There are 13 freaking pages of comments.  Do you even read them, or do you just selectively read?  Serious question here.

I've been following this thread since the beginning. The 15km distance only got into it after Sandokhan joined in. The poll came in only within the last week. In that time I have not seen any other FE'rs give any explanation of the 15km distance (and 600m diameter!) to the Sun. However 8 people as of today have voted that they agree with the 15km.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 14, 2013, 04:15:28 PM
I believe the actual speed of the transmissions is substantially slower than reported.  Almost every single aspect of modern day scientific approach is intrinsically flawed.  There is no way that they are correct about the speed of radio frequency.  The Suez Canal as well as the Nile River show no substantial curvature when analyzed.  Heretofore, all science does seriously not qualify...
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 14, 2013, 04:34:59 PM
I believe the actual speed of the transmissions is substantially slower than reported.  Almost every single aspect of modern day scientific approach is intrinsically flawed.  There is no way that they are correct about the speed of radio frequency.  The Suez Canal as well as the Nile River show no substantial curvature when analyzed.  Heretofore, all science does seriously not qualify...

RADAR produces extremely accurate distance measurements on Earth, good enough for the high precision needed in the military. This could not happen if our value for light speed was wrong. What is your reason to think the speed is wrong?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 14, 2013, 05:41:46 PM
Not a problem Googleotomy, great minds think alike. :) And your answer was certainly more complete than mine. Still wondering though, why JJ thinks radio wave speed MUST be wrong.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Junker on May 14, 2013, 07:43:47 PM
Here is something else for FE to consider.:

Quote
I was driving west, observing the setting sun. The sun appeared to me, at least from my vantage point , as being larger than the moon. Wouldn't that prove the sun is actually closer to the earth than the moon ?

No

Quote
The weather page on the local paper also listed sunset at 8:18 PM local time. But that was from some weather scientists and you know FE doesn't acknowledge them either.

To my knowledge FET acknowledges meteorologists.

Quote
I set my watch, which depends on a quartz crystal for its accuracy and that depends on some law of Physics. I set my watch by the time broadcasts from National Bureau of Standards radio station WWV in Fort Collins, Colorado.

How is this relevant to anything?  A lot of things depend on "some law of physics."

Quote
They depend on an atomic clock which works on some of the laws of Physics. They broadcast on radio waves. So that means there must be a compound of a whole lot of errors because we can't trust modern science.

Again, how is this relevant?

Quote
Would some FE please tell me what the correct time is since I have obviously set my watch to the wrong time because of all those errors ? I could be off several hours !

I understand you are trying to be clever and witty, but you are just coming off as a douche.  I understand you don't agree with the FET folks, so your best bet would be just to avoid posting here if you aren't going to attempt meaningful conversation.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 15, 2013, 07:46:54 AM
Either the speed is off or the ionosphere is behaving not exactly as anticipated.  I think it is just a fabricated number.  Once again the Suez Canal and the Nile River just prove that the earth is flat.  Also, in a picture taken from Rochester, NY, there is proof that over 85 miles on the Ontario there lies no curvature.   Iwitness showed the picture in the forum document, "the pseudoline in Antarctica" or is it "the pseudolight in antarctica."
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2013, 08:11:40 AM
Either the speed is off or the ionosphere is behaving not exactly as anticipated.  I think it is just a fabricated number.  Once again the Suez Canal and the Nile River just prove that the earth is flat.  Also, in a picture taken from Rochester, NY, there is proof that over 85 miles on the Ontario there lies no curvature.   Iwitness showed the picture in the forum document, "the pseudoline in Antarctica" or is it "the pseudolight in antarctica."

Care to show your photo of Toronto from Rochester?  I live in Toronto, and would have a very good sense of what can distinguish the cityscape.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 16, 2013, 02:15:08 AM
Indeed you did well to get to 13 pages, though it did come perilously close to going down the rabbit hole with Sandokhan.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 06:56:26 AM
Either the speed is off or the ionosphere is behaving not exactly as anticipated.  I think it is just a fabricated number.  Once again the Suez Canal and the Nile River just prove that the earth is flat.  Also, in a picture taken from Rochester, NY, there is proof that over 85 miles on the Ontario there lies no curvature.   Iwitness showed the picture in the forum document, "the pseudoline in Antarctica" or is it "the pseudolight in antarctica."

Care to show your photo of Toronto from Rochester?  I live in Toronto, and would have a very good sense of what can distinguish the cityscape.

Here is the photo shown with a telescope.  (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 07:29:53 AM
Either the speed is off or the ionosphere is behaving not exactly as anticipated.  I think it is just a fabricated number.  Once again the Suez Canal and the Nile River just prove that the earth is flat.  Also, in a picture taken from Rochester, NY, there is proof that over 85 miles on the Ontario there lies no curvature.   Iwitness showed the picture in the forum document, "the pseudoline in Antarctica" or is it "the pseudolight in antarctica."

Care to show your photo of Toronto from Rochester?  I live in Toronto, and would have a very good sense of what can distinguish the cityscape.

Here is the photo shown with a telescope.  (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

This is not from Rochester.  It is taken from 53kms away (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html), and Rochester is 146kms away (http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/world-distances-rochester-to-toronto.htm). I do not think this is from the direction of Rochester anyway, since Rochester is ESE and this looks to be SSE.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 10:11:42 AM
The person who took the picture said it was from 53kms away.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 10:40:38 AM
Quite contrary... It is not from Niagara neither is it from a full 53kms away.  It is actually from Rochester with a telescope mount.  There is no way I could be wrong on this.  You need to quote who you talked to.  I am so sure that this picture is genuine and the real deal.  Niagara would look different.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 10:42:24 AM
Iwitness at this web address addressed the location of this same picture.  So, everything is on the up and up...
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 16, 2013, 10:49:33 AM
Quote
This is not from Rochester.  It is taken from 53kms away (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html), and Rochester is 146kms away (http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/world-distances-rochester-to-toronto.htm). I do not think this is from the direction of Rochester anyway, since Rochester is ESE and this looks to be SSE.

I checked this out on googlemaps and Microsoft Streets And Trips and the view looks more like it would be from Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario  which is about 25 Miles or 40 KM  SSE of Toronto.

Actually, the photo was taken from Grimsby, Ontario.  Here is the page (specifically dedicated to mirages) where that photo came from.
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 12:43:46 PM
Quote
This is not from Rochester.  It is taken from 53kms away (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html), and Rochester is 146kms away (http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/world-distances-rochester-to-toronto.htm). I do not think this is from the direction of Rochester anyway, since Rochester is ESE and this looks to be SSE.

I checked this out on googlemaps and Microsoft Streets And Trips and the view looks more like it would be from Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario  which is about 25 Miles or 40 KM  SSE of Toronto.

Actually, the photo was taken from Grimsby, Ontario.  Here is the page (specifically dedicated to mirages) where that photo came from.
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html)

53 kilometers is about 33 miles altogether 32.9 for nitpickers.  It still proves at that distance that there is no curvature present.  There is absolutely no curvature in that photo.... So Boom Shaka Laka Pusha Ungawa Buyahhhhhh.....  The earth is flat.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Jingle Jangle on May 16, 2013, 12:49:06 PM
Also from Hamilton, Ontario.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16904093 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16904093)

That one has a slight sinking mirage effect.  The other one did not have any mirage effect.  There would be 600 feet of curvature blockage if there was curvature in the earth.  Look at the one on the clear day.  Still, even if it was from another location, it still proves curvature does not exist. 600 feet divided by 12 feet is 50 stories.  50 stories or floors on those buildings would have been blocked if curvature were real... its all mirages...
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 01:08:02 PM
Quote
This is not from Rochester.  It is taken from 53kms away (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html), and Rochester is 146kms away (http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/world-distances-rochester-to-toronto.htm). I do not think this is from the direction of Rochester anyway, since Rochester is ESE and this looks to be SSE.

I checked this out on googlemaps and Microsoft Streets And Trips and the view looks more like it would be from Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario  which is about 25 Miles or 40 KM  SSE of Toronto.

Actually, the photo was taken from Grimsby, Ontario.  Here is the page (specifically dedicated to mirages) where that photo came from.
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html)

53 kilometers is about 33 miles altogether 32.9 for nitpickers.  It still proves at that distance that there is no curvature present.  There is absolutely no curvature in that photo.... So Boom Shaka Laka Pusha Ungawa Buyahhhhhh.....  The earth is flat.

And Grimsby is on the Niagra escarpment, so what altiude what the photo taken from?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 16, 2013, 01:16:07 PM
Also from Hamilton, Ontario.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16904093 (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16904093)

That one has a slight sinking mirage effect.  The other one did not have any mirage effect.  There would be 600 feet of curvature blockage if there was curvature in the earth.  Look at the one on the clear day.  Still, even if it was from another location, it still proves curvature does not exist. 600 feet divided by 12 feet is 50 stories.  50 stories or floors on those buildings would have been blocked if curvature were real... its all mirages...
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html (http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html)

The curvature of the earth has been proven to be only abut 8 inches per mile. Even at 53 KM or 33 Miles, that would only be 8 x 33 = 264 inches or 22 feet.

As I was just schooled on yesterday, the curvature for the first mile is 8 inches, but it is parabolic after that, not linear.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Junker on May 16, 2013, 03:06:30 PM
The photos of Toronto and curvature have been beaten to death.  I even have a thread on them from four years ago.  The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 16, 2013, 03:28:10 PM
The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.

How is that possible? The view is obstructed. Unless you have some special over-the-horizon telescope...  :o
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Antonio on May 17, 2013, 11:12:00 PM
Quote
The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.
Glad to hear that, but Sandokhan the Great himself enligthtened us a few pages before, using wisely a link my miserable person provided :

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546)

Quote
Let me first clarify that lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene. The compression is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject. You can take advantage of perspective compression using any lens. Dont believe me? Take a look at the image comparison below.

Can you guess which image of the Maroon Bells was taken with a wide angle lens and which was taken with a telephoto? These two images look nearly identical even though I used two different lenses at drastically different focal lengths (17mm versus 180mm) and simply cropped the wide angle version to match that of the telephoto version.

He didn't understand the notion of working distance which is the key of the "lens compression effect" nor the use of telephoto lenses, but he was very happy to note that  for a given distance, the variation of the focal lenght of a lens ( including "telescopes") does not alter an image (and by the way cannot restore anything). At least a very valid fact.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 18, 2013, 05:26:58 AM
Quote
The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.
Glad to hear that, but Sandokhan the Great himself enligthtened us a few pages before, using wisely a link my miserable person provided :

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546)

Quote
Let me first clarify that lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene. The compression is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject. You can take advantage of perspective compression using any lens. Dont believe me? Take a look at the image comparison below.

Can you guess which image of the Maroon Bells was taken with a wide angle lens and which was taken with a telephoto? These two images look nearly identical even though I used two different lenses at drastically different focal lengths (17mm versus 180mm) and simply cropped the wide angle version to match that of the telephoto version.

He didn't understand the notion of working distance which is the key of the "lens compression effect" nor the use of telephoto lenses, but he was very happy to note that  for a given distance, the variation of the focal lenght of a lens ( including "telescopes") does not alter an image (and by the way cannot restore anything). At least a very valid fact.

I am not sure what you are alluding to.  Can you be more specific
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Antonio on May 18, 2013, 09:01:49 AM
I sincerly do not know how to be more specific :

Quote
The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.

The variation of the focal lenght of a lens does not alter an image and by the way cannot restore anything.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 18, 2013, 09:52:31 AM
Quote
The FET consensus is that the obstructed view can be restored with a telescope.
Glad to hear that, but Sandokhan the Great himself enligthtened us a few pages before, using wisely a link my miserable person provided :

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490546.html#msg1490546)

Quote
Let me first clarify that lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene. The compression is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject. You can take advantage of perspective compression using any lens. Dont believe me? Take a look at the image comparison below.

Can you guess which image of the Maroon Bells was taken with a wide angle lens and which was taken with a telephoto? These two images look nearly identical even though I used two different lenses at drastically different focal lengths (17mm versus 180mm) and simply cropped the wide angle version to match that of the telephoto version.

He didn't understand the notion of working distance which is the key of the "lens compression effect" nor the use of telephoto lenses, but he was very happy to note that  for a given distance, the variation of the focal lenght of a lens ( including "telescopes") does not alter an image (and by the way cannot restore anything). At least a very valid fact.

Once again, when you get  something out of the FE category , it has been noted that some of the FE just aren't acquainted with RE terms such as those in radio and/or photography and don't understand or can't comprehend what you are trying to explain or they just go into the denial mode.

It also explains why the previously posted photo of an eclipse proves absolutely nothing about the distance from the earth to the moon.

You would really need to go to a much larger focal length number of a telephoto lens for a  better illustration....at least 400 mm IMHO.

However, getting back to the OP.:
The Ham Radio Operator measured time for a signal to be transmitted to the moon and return was measured at 2.55 seconds. (Total time to and from the target, which was the moon)
2.55 seconds is equal to 2,550,000 microseconds
A Radar Kilometer is equal to 6.66 microseconds (total time to and from the target)
2,550,000 divided by 6.66 equals about 383,000 KM which is close to accepted distance from the earth to the moon.

Not blaiming you for the de-railment Antonio. It ocurred long ago before your post. ;D

Welcome aboard.  :)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 20, 2013, 12:34:05 PM
I find it very interesting that still no one has come forward with any evidence, math, or experiments that give a definitive distance for the FE model. All I've seen is the proven-flawed 45 degree 3000mile test. Everything else is just random numbers with no backup presented.

Will anyone ever bother to address this?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 21, 2013, 01:36:10 AM
Seeing as Sandokhan didn't return I thought I'd have a look through some of his posts (mainly the Alternate Flat Earth History thread and where it linked), and I have to say his ideas are certainly out there, way way  out there. Anyway I found a couple of references to the size of the sun/moon, the one below is probably the best.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1080555.html#msg1080555 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1080555.html#msg1080555)

As far as I can tell he's simply unable to tell the difference between a small object that is near to you and a large object that is far away.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 21, 2013, 02:00:28 AM
I think that applies to everything.
You can only know how big an object is by either being close to it or knowing it's size before you see it at a distance.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 21, 2013, 02:08:21 AM
Seeing as Sandokhan didn't return I thought I'd have a look through some of his posts (mainly the Alternate Flat Earth History thread and where it linked), and I have to say his ideas are certainly out there, way way  out there. Anyway I found a couple of references to the size of the sun/moon, the one below is probably the best.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1080555.html#msg1080555 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1080555.html#msg1080555)

As far as I can tell he's simply unable to tell the difference between a small object that is near to you and a large object that is far away.
I think that applies to everything.
You can only know how big an object is by either being close to it or knowing it's size before you see it at a distance.
True, I worded my point poorly. Give me a break though I had just been trawling through one of Sandokhans threads.  :)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 21, 2013, 05:21:29 AM
I think that applies to everything.
You can only know how big an object is by either being close to it or knowing it's size before you see it at a distance.
Not really.  There are techniques such a triangulation that can be used to calculate the distance to a distant object.  Once you know the distance, it becomes much easier to determine the size of the object.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 21, 2013, 05:31:29 AM
I think that applies to everything.
You can only know how big an object is by either being close to it or knowing it's size before you see it at a distance.
Not really.  There are techniques such a triangulation that can be used to calculate the distance to a distant object.  Once you know the distance, it becomes much easier to determine the size of the object.

Absolutely! You only need two points far enough apart, and an accurate means to measure angles. However, I think the comment may have been made in relation to using a single reference point, in which case you either need to know the distance, in which case you can determine the size, or the size, in which case you can determine the distance. If you know neither for sure, then you can only make a wild guess.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 21, 2013, 05:42:21 AM
I think that applies to everything.
You can only know how big an object is by either being close to it or knowing it's size before you see it at a distance.
Not really.  There are techniques such a triangulation that can be used to calculate the distance to a distant object.  Once you know the distance, it becomes much easier to determine the size of the object.

Absolutely! You only need two points far enough apart, and an accurate means to measure angles. However, I think the comment may have been made in relation to using a single reference point, in which case you either need to know the distance, in which case you can determine the size, or the size, in which case you can determine the distance. If you know neither for sure, then you can only make a wild guess.
Which is what Sandokhan was doing and portraying as an indisputable fact.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: JP on May 21, 2013, 09:10:07 AM
Yeah, it's very clear that Sandokhan does not understand perspective at all. If his photos (which he's probably due to post again soon) prove a 15km distance to the sun, then I also have proof of a 4 foot tall Eiffel Tower:

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3106/2887513136_536c90c9bf.jpg)

But I'm done responding to Sandokhan's photos. Either he really just doesn't understand how perspective, algebra, or thinking in general work, or he's just a massive troll (for the sake of humanity, I hope it's the latter). I'm hoping that someone other than Sandokhan can actually show us some math to determine the Sun's distance, beyond the awful 45degree test.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 21, 2013, 10:36:49 AM
Yeah, it's very clear that Sandokhan does not understand perspective at all. If his photos (which he's probably due to post again soon) prove a 15km distance to the sun, then I also have proof of a 4 foot tall Eiffel Tower:

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3106/2887513136_536c90c9bf.jpg)

But I'm done responding to Sandokhan's photos. Either he really just doesn't understand how perspective, algebra, or thinking in general work, or he's just a massive troll (for the sake of humanity, I hope it's the latter). I'm hoping that someone other than Sandokhan can actually show us some math to determine the Sun's distance, beyond the awful 45degree test.

Quote (above the picture). That so-called picture of the eclipse amazed me at Sandokhan's lack of knowledge of photography that the picture proved absolutely nothing about sizes and distances....And I'm just an amateur photgorapher. And it simply was quite obvious to me.

First sentence of yours (below the picture)  in the above quote:
I think responding to Sandokhan's photos have hopefully have run its course or at least been put to death.

Second:
IMHO it's a lot of the former and a lot of the latter, too. I would add "an awful lot" to both.

Third: I wouldn't hold your breath too long.....You have to keep in mind that after all this is The Flat EarthSociety Forum.  ;D

P.S. "And how tall would you say that building underneath the arch at the bottom of the Eiffel Tower was ? A few inches ?) *   ;D.

"IMHO your picture just proves that it was taken in some minature village ?"*
(* Quote you might expect from Sandokhan)  ???
I was just trying to second guess and make an attempt to imitate the style of Sandokhan and what kind of a question he might ask.  ;D

P.P.S. I have been going back to review my posts and have been trying to remove all but the most pertinent and even those  relatively connected with a subject.

I found that  I had over 200 posts since joining this website and hopefully I have gotten the number down quite a bit in the process of deleting the most trivial ones. (IMHO the posts that were trivial, that is.)

However,  I think I  have gone through all the posts on this subject and haven't managed to come up with any information as to how the 600 Meter diameter of the moon and the 15 Kilometer distance from the earth to the moon was calculated.

We have seen the computations for the 3000 mile distance, but it has been sufficiently de-bunked.

I hope I have explained my methods and results in enough detail to be understood. I would like to see an explanation of the FES methods and results. Please correct me if I overlooked them somewhere along the way and point me to the source of information.

Just for review, here are mine.:
(Based on 2.55 seconds round trip time to moon and back or 1.275 seconds one way trip.)
1.275 times 186,000 (speed of radio waves) = 237, 150 Miles (approximate but close to the established figure)

(Based a Radar Kilometer equal to 6.66 Microseconds[round trip time])
2.55 divided by 6.66 =  383,000 Kilometers (approximate but close to the established figure)

I am now going into the waiting mode to await reply from FES or from any FE believer, officially or elsewise. ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 21, 2013, 08:58:21 PM
P.P.S. I have been going back to review my posts and have been trying to remove all but the most pertinent and even those  relatively connected with a subject.

I found that  I had over 200 posts since joining this website and hopefully I have gotten the number down quite a bit in the process of deleting the most trivial ones. (IMHO the posts that were trivial, that is.)

Why did you do that? If anyone tries to look back at those threads, there will just be gaping holes in the threads. People will have quoted the inexistent posts and it simply ruins the flow of the arguments when you can only really read one side of the story.

It makes sense why on a more well-known and respected forum that I subscribe to, the delete function is removed if the post is older than 24 hours.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 22, 2013, 10:01:04 AM
P.P.S. I have been going back to review my posts and have been trying to remove all but the most pertinent and even those  relatively connected with a subject.

I found that  I had over 200 posts since joining this website and hopefully I have gotten the number down quite a bit in the process of deleting the most trivial ones. (IMHO the posts that were trivial, that is.)

Why did you do that? If anyone tries to look back at those threads, there will just be gaping holes in the threads. People will have quoted the inexistent posts and it simply ruins the flow of the arguments when you can only really read one side of the story.

It makes sense why on a more well-known and respected forum that I subscribe to, the delete function is removed if the post is older than 24 hours.

To be honest, I just got bored and disgusted with the whole thing and decided to get out of it, but I found I couldn't delete all of my posts. Most of them were rather irrelevent and trivial anyway. My apologies if it messed up the threads but I don't know if deleting them really left any gaping holes.

It would probably be better if I just exited this website and get back on more familiar turf in the future on other websites. No matter what you post you seem to always get the same response from the FE side...a lot of nonsense...or nothing.

This thing about "Moon Bounce" seemed to me to be the simplest thing I could think of at the time.

I was amazed at how mixed up it got in the first replies. That's why I got so bored and disgusted with this thread. I suppose I really should apologize for posting it in the first place.  ;D

Anyway that was my reason for deleting my posts. I assure you a lot of them were pretty stupid. ::)

Finally, if anyone doubts the accuracy of "bouncing radio waves" I would suggest they watch the radar displays on the weather reports on their local television station. They use Doppler Radar,which is a little different and a more complex thing, but it all just goes back to the basics of the use of radio waves to determine distances.

P.S.
Maybe I might just stick around to see the explanation for the method in the 15KM distance. Maybe it's in the FE wiki if someone can give me the refererence.  ???

P.P.S.
This goes back to another website. Three other persons beside myself posted some very critical reviews on a book. In return, the author replied (sort of like Sandokhan, to think of it  ;D ) that such critical reviews should not be permitted and that only good ones should be permitted and only those by professional writers and publishers .("Book sellers and publishers have a hard enough time selling books and these critical reviews certainly don't help." , he said.) The website refused to delete the critical reviews. This went on for quite some time. I did make a critical review of my own, but deleted it out of courtesy to the author, but the other critical reviews have never been deleted. The author has deleted all of his rebuttals to the critical reviews. That probably was another reason I deleted most of my posts since they might have offended someone.

Anyway that's my lame excuse for the deletions. I seem to get in trouble from time to time.
Especially on this website by posting fact and not fiction at least IMHO.  ;D

Oh ! BTW ! Whatever happened to Sandokhan ? We haven't heard from him for quite some time. ??? Alas and Aleck ! Where we would have any fun if it wasn't for Sandokhan,Sceptimatic and Tom Bishop ?

EDITED LATER: I decided to go back and re-publish my book review on another website anyway.
But...........In the future if I make future posts I promise not to go back and delete them......No matter how bad, how trivial or how irrelevent they might be IMHO !  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 05:49:16 AM
Now, there is nowhere to hide for the RE.

For the past two weeks the RE have been posting their final conclusions, therefore now there is no turning back for them.

They have had at their disposal the best proofs available: the original Maxwell equations, the ISS/Atlantis transit videos and photographs (they refer of course to an astronomical scale, as opposed to a local topographical scale of just a few hundred meters, as in the Eiffel tower photo - we have seen that the "massive compression" is due to the simple fact that the official figure of 149,000,000 km is missing from the direct videos and photographs), the Antarctica photographs featuring the Black Sun without any 384,000 km to be found anywhere, the extraordinary fact that there are no astronomical/historical proofs for any terrestrial axial precession having taken place in the past (this alone proves that the Sun orbits the Earth itself).

Here is the final, complete, and total proof that the Earth-Sun distance could not possibly be 149,000,000 km, that the diameter of the Sun is not 1,4 million km, that the surface of the Earth is flat, and at the same time a total confirmation of all the proofs mentioned above.

TUNGUSKA, JUNE 30, 7:15 - 7:20 AM (SIBERIA) - 0:15 - 0:20 AM (LONDON)

The explosion from Tunguska was seen all the from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm.

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, the Earth does not orbit the Sun, nor is the Sun located at some 149,000,000 km from the Earth, nor does it have a 1,4 million km diameter.

A total confirmation that the ISS/Atlantis videos are true and do feature a much smaller Sun, orbiting at a much lower altitude, in perfect agreement with the photographs from Antarctica.

The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. "

All the facts needed to understand that the explosion was not caused by a comet, asteroid, or a meteorite and that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404693.html#msg1404693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404693.html#msg1404693)

http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif (http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

It is the end for the RE delusions: an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere at Tunguska, was seen all the way from London: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, the Earth does not orbit the Sun, nor is the Sun located at some 149,000,000 km from the Earth, nor does it have a 1,4 million km diameter.

The perfect proof which shows that everything I have posted here so far is true: there no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 24, 2013, 05:59:48 AM
While that could be a very good argument for FET, it still does nothing to prove that the Sun and moon are not that far away and it does even less to show that they are 15km away.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
You are dreaming as usual.

It proves clearly that the Earth DOES NOT orbit the Sun: an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere at Tunguska, was seen all the way from London: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, on a FLAT EARTH, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself: even a Sun orbiting at some 3000 miles (4800 km) above the flat earth could not have gone unnoticed, given the FACT that the Tunguska explosion (7 km altitude) itself was seen all the way from London.

It does show that the Sun orbiting the flat earth MUST do so at a low altitude, and we have already discussed how I arrived at the 15 km hypothesis.

A confirmation of everything I have been posting so far: please read my previous messages.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2013, 06:21:00 AM
Sandokhan-Do you have a citation stating that the Tunguska event was seen from London?  I have only seen citations saying it was seismically registered in London.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 06:29:15 AM
rama set, you already know that I always provide the best bibliographical references for my messages.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html (http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html) (letters in the London Times, week of 1-4 July 1908)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct."

Therefore, amazingly, EVEN THE ORIGINAL TRAJECTORY WAS SEEN FROM LONDON ITSELF.

The most startling evidence concerns the path of the object:

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

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

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60ŗ55' N, 101ŗ57' E (LeMaire 1980).

http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif (http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

Therefore, on a FLAT EARTH, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself: even a Sun orbiting at some 3000 miles (4800 km) above the flat earth could not have gone unnoticed, given the FACT that the Tunguska explosion (7 km altitude) itself was seen all the way from London.

It does show that the Sun orbiting the flat earth MUST do so at a low altitude, and we have already discussed how I arrived at the 15 km hypothesis.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2013, 06:34:54 AM
Sandokhan-Seeing the sky glowing is not the same as seeing the explosion itself and none of the quotations say they saw the explosion.  To infer guidance of the meteor is... ridiculous? Insane?  To say that this explosion is incontrovertible proof of the sun being 15kms away makes even less sense.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2013, 06:43:00 AM
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Description)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 06:51:16 AM
Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

Instantaneously, the flash of the explosion was seen in London, Stockholm, Antwerp and other european cities:

... we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.

And this refers to the initial trajectory path as well, which took place between 7:00 - 7:15 am (local time).

Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

NO OTHER ASTRONOMICAL EVENT OCCURRED AT THAT TIME (7:00 - 7:20 AM or 0:00 - 0:20 AM LONDON TIME): therefore, the fact that newspapers could be read at midnight in London and photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus instantaneously means only one thing: the flash of the explosion, described to be AS BRIGHT AS THE SUN, caused these eyewitness accounts.

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.

"It is clear that the Tungus cosmic body ... could not have been a comet," wrote the geophysicist A.V.
Zolotov, speaking for many of his fellow Soviet scientists. "Neither could it have been a normal ice,
stone, or iron meteorite. The Tungus body obviously represents a new yet unknown, much more
complicated phenomenon of nature than has been encountered up to this time."

The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

As I have said, it is the absolute end for the RE delusions:

It proves clearly that the Earth DOES NOT orbit the Sun: an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere at Tunguska, was seen all the way from London: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, on a FLAT EARTH, the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself: even a Sun orbiting at some 3000 miles (4800 km) above the flat earth could not have gone unnoticed, given the FACT that the Tunguska explosion (7 km altitude) itself was seen all the way from London.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2013, 06:59:56 AM
Sorry Levee, I've run marathons but I just don't have the stamina to get through some of your messages.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2013, 07:06:58 AM
Sandokhan-You did not show that the explosion seen in London, only light from it.  Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 07:45:45 AM
If you are going to resort to light travel arguments, then the situation is even more hopeless for the RE: light travels through ether waves/strings, therefore terrestrial gravity is a force due to the pressure exerted by these ether waves and we are back to a flat surface of the Earth.

Remember that the original Maxwell equations prove that light travels through ether waves.

Now, we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

This is the simplest way to understand that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at all, and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun: if the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time.

Let us remember that even the initial trajectory itself (7:00 to 7:20 am) was seen, when NO EXPLOSION TOOK PLACE AS YET:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset."

How could the trajectory of Tesla's ball lightning orbiting at some 7 km above Siberia be seen from London, given the curvature of the assumed shape of the Earth? The ONLY way it could happen if there is NO curvature between Tunguska and London.

NOTHING could have been seen even from some 400 km distance, but the trajectory AND the explosion were seen from as far as Lake Baikal.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2013, 07:57:06 AM
Again, no one says they say the 5-10 Megaton explosion thought to have taken place there.  However they do say they saw a glow in the sky.  Light can reflect off the atmosphere, or be seen glowing from beneath the horizon like when you see the sun's light before it rises.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 24, 2013, 08:05:36 AM

Now, we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

This is the simplest way to understand that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at all, and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun: if the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time.

Let us remember that even the initial trajectory itself (7:00 to 7:20 am) was seen, when NO EXPLOSION TOOK PLACE AS YET:

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset."

How could the trajectory of Tesla's ball lightning orbiting at some 7 km above Siberia be seen from London, given the curvature of the assumed shape of the Earth? The ONLY way it could happen if there is NO curvature between Tunguska and London.

NOTHING could have been seen even from some 400 km distance, but the trajectory AND the explosion were seen from as far as Lake Baikal.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2013, 08:18:13 AM
If you are not going to address my point that people only say they saw light in the sky and not the explosion in London, and that that could easily be light reflected off the atmosphere, then I am done with this.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 24, 2013, 10:21:37 AM
Groan !  :'(  Once again, we have been de-railed. :P
(See the title of this subject for the original question.)

The question of how the distance from the earth to the moon was measured and established at 15KM has not been answered or addressed.  ???

How the 237,150 miles distance was computed has been explained at great detail .
And it was just one example out of many which have all arrived at the same result as far as the distance from the earth to the moon is concerned.

All I wanted to see  was how the distance from the earth to the moon was computed......Whether it be 3,000 miles or 15 KM . I'm probably pretty dense but I haven't seen the figures as yet and even a bit of credible evidence as to even where the numbers came from. I know FE is not going to accept the RE figures which have been repeated so far ad infinitum ad nauseum.

So, in the words of ole' Sergeant Joe Friday, late of "Dragnet"......"The facts ma'am  ! Just the facts !"

Just show us how the distance was calculated. Again, that was all I really wanted .

I suppose we really have to go back in history and blame the Greeks....Among others, of course... for starting this Round Earth Conspiracy in the first place.

They were among the first to propose that the earth is round, they were among the first to measure the earth's circumference and  and most of all among the first to measure the distance to to the moon and come up close to the figures RE's have been brainwashed with ever since.

P.S. The poll seems to be running about 2 to 1 in favor of the ham radio measurements vs. the others so far .  ;D

Just show us why you believe all of the other measurements that agree on the same distance as the ham radio measurements are in error.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 01:41:16 AM
But I did address the specific points you raised.

Instantaneously, the flash/light of the explosion was seen all the way from London, Antwerp, Stockholm.

Moreover, the light from the path of the trajectory itself, 10-15 minutes prior to the explosion, was also seen clearly from London.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset."

Light which can be easily reflected off the atmosphere is not an option you can use: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time.

gg, it is time for you to understand the difference between an electromagnetic wave and an ether wave.

Please pay careful attention, so that you will not come back here for the upteenth time, with the same type of delusions.

An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Here is N. Tesla describing the difference between an e/m wave and a scalar wave:

You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect.  That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance.  A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect.  That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae.

To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out.  I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction.  I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy.

You see, the apparatus which I have devised was an apparatus enabling one to produce tremendous differences of potential and currents in an antenna circuit.  These requirements must be fulfilled, whether you transmit by currents of conduction, or whether you transmit by electromagnetic waves.  You want high potential currents, you want a great amount of vibratory energy; but you can graduate this vibratory energy.  By proper design and choice of wave lengths, you can arrange it so that you get, for instance, 5 percent in these electromagnetic waves and 95 percent in the current that goes through the earth.  That is what I am doing.  Or you can get, as these radio men, 95 percent in the energy of electromagnetic waves and only 5 percent in the energy of the current. . . . The apparatus is suitable for one or the other method.  I am not producing radiation with my system; I am suppressing electromagnetic waves. . . . In my system, you should free yourself of the idea that there is radiation, that the energy is radiated.  It is not radiated; it is conserved. . . .

Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.

Therefore, your pseudo-explanation AMOUNTS TO NOTHING AT ALL.

The speed of light is a VARIABLE.

Let us go back to the very first experiment on which you (and the scientists you quoted) rely for a theoretical basis.

Tesla upholds the startling theory formulated by him long ago, that the radio transmitters as now used, do not emit Hertz waves, as commonly believed, but waves of sound. He says that a Hertz wave would only be possible in a solid ether, but he has demonstrated already in 1897 that the ether is a gas, which can only transmit waves of sound; that is such as are propagated by alternate compressions and rarefactions of the medium in which transverse waves are absolutely impossible. Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art. As soon as the expert become convinced of this fact they will find a natural and simple explanation of all the puzzling phenomena of the so-called radio.

Your understanding of radio waves is essentially flawed: no matter how many equations you post here, they are worthless. Radio waves are ether waves, and the speed of light is variable.

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.

Therefore, Hertz did realize that his theory of radio waves is very wrong and acknowledged that Tesla's theory was correct.

Use these bibliographical references to increase your knowledge of the true history of radio waves, and stop posting nonsense.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2013, 04:58:37 AM
Why is reflected light not an option?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 05:22:06 AM
Because you are a RE hypothesis believer.

Earlier you wrote, without having a second thought about the issues involved:

Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.

You seem not to understand what is going on.

There is a difference of SEVEN time zones between the river Tunguska (epicenter of the explosion) and London.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2013, 06:11:47 AM
My conclusion
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on May 25, 2013, 08:30:34 AM
Because you are a RE hypothesis believer.

Earlier you wrote, without having a second thought about the issues involved:

Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.

You seem not to understand what is going on.

There is a difference of SEVEN time zones between the river Tunguska (epicenter of the explosion) and London.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Thanks for totally not addressing my question, and continuing to press that the actual explosion was seen instead of light produced by it, despite no claims that the explosion itself was seen. Real awesome.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 08:51:04 AM
This is the theme of your previous messages:

Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.

You have tried to reformulate this statement but you will get the same answer.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The "light of the explosion" could not have been seen on a spherical earth:

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

If the light coming from the heliocentrical sun could not reach London at 0:00 - 0:20 am, June 30, 1908, due to the supposed curvature of the Earth, then NO LIGHT coming from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in altitude could have reached Europe either.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 25, 2013, 10:32:24 AM
This is the theme of your previous messages:

Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.

You have tried to reformulate this statement but you will get the same answer.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The "light of the explosion" could not have been seen on a spherical earth:

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

If the light coming from the heliocentrical sun could not reach London at 0:00 - 0:20 am, June 30, 1908, due to the supposed curvature of the Earth, then NO LIGHT coming from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in altitude could have reached Europe either.

Except light coming from the Sun would penetrate the atmosphere and strike the Earth at Siberia, while the explosion happened in atmosphere and could be reflected off of the ionosphere due to the effects of the asteroid's atmosphere entry.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 10:45:24 AM
Because you are a RE hypothesis believer.

Earlier you wrote, without having a second thought about the issues involved:

Light which would travel to London from Siberia in less than a second, which is instantaneous enough.

You seem not to understand what is going on.

There is a difference of SEVEN time zones between the river Tunguska (epicenter of the explosion) and London.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Thanks for totally not addressing my question, and continuing to press that the actual explosion was seen instead of light produced by it, despite no claims that the explosion itself was seen. Real awesome.

Rama Set

You are not alone in Sandokhan totally not addressing your question. ??? I might add totally ignoring, and continually de-railing this subject.

But I am resigned to never receving the information for my question as to how the distance of 15 KM and size of the moon were computed. Rama Set, I think we're in the same boat !  ;D

I am also wondering why all the members of the so-called "Conspiracy" agreed to those same distances such as 250,000 miles to the moon and 93,000,000 miles to the sun ?

Why did they all agree on those figures ? ???

I suppose you must count all the amateur radio operators in the so-called "Conspiracy" too ?
They got the same results as far as the distance from the earth to the moon as all the others.

Also for the explanations of the eclipses of the sun and the moon. Et cetera, et cetera and so forth.

I have been checking with the local Public Library and was disappointed to find that they do not have any books by Sandokhan on Science, Astronomy and Philosophy.  :(

I am also beginning to wonder if Sandokhan is a resident of a well known State Institution in Terrell, Texas. ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 10:54:19 AM
Sandokhan-Seeing the sky glowing is not the same as seeing the explosion itself and none of the quotations say they saw the explosion.  To infer guidance of the meteor is... ridiculous?Insane?   To say that this explosion is incontrovertible proof of the sun being 15kms away makes even less sense.

Rama Set

Your post caused me to think of the reference to Sandokhan's place of residence in my previous post.  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 10:59:39 AM
Invariably, there comes a time in each and every RE's life when he/she realizes that the curvature of the earth is a serious impediment to the spherical/round earth theory.

Unfortunately, dust in the upper atmosphere would reflect the rays of the sun below the horizon.

This phenomenon could not reach across seven time zones due to the curvature of the earth.

The event at Tunguska was not caused by a meteorite, asteroid or comet (please read my previous messages for the perfect proof, the actual path of the object).

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

This could only happen ON A FLAT EARTH, with ether waves being activated (receiving an extraordinary amount of energy in excess) by the ball lightning created by N. Tesla.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 11:10:22 AM
Invariably, there comes a time in each and every RE's life when he/she realizes that the curvature of the earth is a serious impediment to the spherical/round earth theory.

Unfortunately, dust in the upper atmosphere would reflect the rays of the sun below the horizon.

This phenomenon could not reach across seven time zones due to the curvature of the earth.

The event at Tunguska was not caused by a meteorite, asteroid or comet (please read my previous messages for the perfect proof, the actual path of the object).

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

This could only happen ON A FLAT EARTH, with ether waves being activated (receiving an extraordinary amount of energy in excess) by the ball lightning created by N. Tesla.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 caused similar conditions to appear all over the earth for some time after the eruption. (My apology for joining in on the de-railing.)  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 11:25:03 AM
gg, you have not done your homework again.

The effects of the Krakatoa volcano eruption of 1883 were seen HOURS AND DAYS LATER (we are talking here about the optical effects, of course) and were on a much lower scale than what occurred on June 30, 1908.

Thus, they are not similar at all to what happened at Tunguska in 1908.

At Tunguska the effect was INSTANTANEOUS ACROSS SEVEN TIME ZONES.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

Moreover the climactic effects of the Krakatoa eruption can be explained ONLY within the context of a stationary earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1336380.html#msg1336380 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1336380.html#msg1336380)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 12:31:01 PM
All right. Let's get off that debate.

Just give us the methods and results of the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. (15 KM)

Just in case you may have forgotten  that was the original intent of this subject. (The "OP")

(The 3000 Mile measurement has already been sufficiently de-bunked previously.)

And explain why all the measurements and all of the methods for the 250,000 Mile distance are in error.

(Leading 13-3-3 vote so far in the Poll)

I am proposing a deal.:

Maybe we can put this subject to rest.

I have published the method, the measurements and the 250,000 Miles  results of the amateur radio operations.

If you publish the methods, measurements and results of your 15KM measurement, let's just leave that to readers to make up their minds as to which they think are correct and cast their votes either way in the Poll.

I won't debate yours if you won't debate mine.

Fair enough ?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 12:53:39 PM
You still do not understand where you are, and what is being debated here.

Your measurements of the Earth-Moon distance based on a constant speed of light are WORTHLESS.

Here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174)

We cannot get off "that" debate, it is crucial to the Sun-Earth (or the Moon-Earth) distance.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

The perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 01:01:16 PM
You still do not understand where you are, and what is being debated here.

Your measurements of the Earth-Moon distance based on a constant speed of light are WORTHLESS.

Here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174)

We cannot get off "that" debate, it is crucial to the Sun-Earth (or the Moon-Earth) distance.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

The perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

I'm outa here !

Have you contacted all the amateur radio organizations and astronomies to notify them that their distances are incorrect ? Lotsa luck.

We (there are probably more readers than me ;D) are still waiting to see how you computed the 15KM distance. ???
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2013, 01:09:56 PM
You still do not understand where you are, and what is being debated here.

Your measurements of the Earth-Moon distance based on a constant speed of light are WORTHLESS.

Here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174)

We cannot get off "that" debate, it is crucial to the Sun-Earth (or the Moon-Earth) distance.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

The perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.
One article on an event that happened in 1908 does not disprove all of modern science. You are delusional.  You cannot answer any of his questions and you have no rebuttal for any of his evidence. All you have is the same recycled arguments which you have demonstrated that you don't even understand. No amount to copy paste can help you.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 01:55:07 PM
An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.

Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.

Amateur/professional radio measurements which are based on a constant speed of light cannot be used to measure distances on an astronomical scale; as the density of the aether medium and ether waves increases, the speed of light becomes a variable, hence the catastrophic 384,000 km figure you obtained in your calculations.

I have already explained how we can reach the 15 km computation:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565)

sokarul, your every appearance on the upper forums is a practical joke and an evident proof of your lack of understanding of even the most basic facts of physics.

For a person who stated that spark plugs operate from a car battery you should be much more considerate using the word delusional, a word which best decribes the situation all the RE find themselves in.

However, not even one of you has been able to address the fact that there are no historical/astronomical records/proofs of any axial precessional movement of the Earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547)

The Tunguska event defies most of the assumed dogmas of modern science:

Since the object which caused the explosion was not a meteorite, an asteroid, or a comet, modern science is at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

There were hundreds of eyewitness accounts all over Europe: they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no curvature between Tunguska and London.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2013, 02:22:29 PM
An electromagnetic wave is simply a ripple in the sea of ether waves: it consists of two scalar waves, which propagate in a double torsion motion.
No, it's not.

Quote
Tesla kept the ripples in the ether sea (electromagnetic waves) to a minimum, while sending the entire signal/impulse ONLY through the laevorotatory ether scalar wave (sometimes going beyond the speed of light): it is exactly how he achieved his legendary and fantastic results, by NOT using the hertzian ripples in the ether waves.
He used longitudinal waves. We know what they are.

Quote
A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.
Explain ripple is the ether sea if you even can.

Quote
Amateur/professional radio measurements which are based on a constant speed of light cannot be used to measure distances on an astronomical scale; as the density of the aether medium and ether waves increases, the speed of light becomes a variable, hence the catastrophic 384,000 km figure you obtained in your calculations.
We know the speed of light changes in different mediums. Nothing new. People over 100 years ago calculated the speed of light to a value close to what we say it is today.
Quote
I have already explained how we can reach the 15 km computation:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565)
Those are two links to your one argument. Why is it so hard to actually prove your claim?
Quote
sokarul, your every appearance on the upper forums is a practical joke and an evident proof of your lack of understanding of even the most basic facts of physics.
You realize not one single person in this thread believes in what you say? My degree is in chemistry, my minor is physics. What is yours?
Quote
For a person who stated that spark plugs operate from a car battery you should be much more considerate using the word delusional, a word which best decribes the situation all the RE find themselves in.
I said spark plugs are like telsa coils. I said sparks plugs work at around 100,000 volts and batteries in a car is only 12 volts.
Quote from: me
Spark plugs are like tesla coils. They use up to 100,000 volts. High voltage, low current.  Cars have 12 volt batteries if you didnt know.
Where did I say spark plugs operate from a batty? You only thought I did because you don't even know how Tesla coils work or the actual coil that was used in Colorado springs works. Do you really think a power plant sent him 100 million volts? I think you do.
Quote
That is laughable. Myself and others go through your whole post and pic it apart. You haven't even attempt it. You just skip right over the stuff you cannot explain.
Quote
However, not even one of you has been able to address the fact that there are no historical/astronomical records/proofs of any axial precessional movement of the Earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1490547.html#msg1490547)
What do you thin Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton actually did? A council and Easter dates has nothing to do with the earth revolving around the sun. Science was the answer.

Quote
The Tunguska event defies most of the assumed dogmas of modern science:

Since the object which caused the explosion was not a meteorite, an asteoroid, or a comet, modern science is at a loss to explain the phenomenon.

There were hundreds of eyewitness accounts all over Europe: they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no curvature between Tunguska and London.
What are you even talking about?
Quote from: Wiki
The explosion, having the epicentre (60.886°N, 101.894°E), is believed to have been caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 510 kilometres (36 mi) above the Earth's surface.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 06:15:25 PM
You still do not understand where you are, and what is being debated here.

Your measurements of the Earth-Moon distance based on a constant speed of light are WORTHLESS.

Here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498174.html#msg1498174)

We cannot get off "that" debate, it is crucial to the Sun-Earth (or the Moon-Earth) distance.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

An explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

The object, nearly "as bright as the Sun", caused the following reports from Europe:

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

The perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat and that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

If you are assuming the amateur radio operator measurements are worthless, you would have to also have to assume that measurements by radar are worthless. They are both based on the same principle. I don't think I need explain that unless you don't understand the principle.

If you are impuning on the honesty and veracity of amateur radio operators Sandokhan...Sirrah !!!!!  Do have a care !!!! You are treading on most dangerous ground. You are in danger of arousing the wrath and ire of all the amateur radio operators in the world.  >:(

Sokarul :
Thanks for your post. You saved me from a lot of time and typing. I agree with you on all your points. Just in case you haven't noticed,  I should warn you that Sandokhan does seem to babble ond an on about something that has nothing to do with the subject matter. I think it's called "de-railing." ???

I may be in the minority but I believe very little if anything posted by any member of The Flat Earth Society, especially from Sandokhan....maybe Sceptimatic, too..... ???

I'll just leave it - gladly ! - with you and Sandokhan if you wish. ;D I'll be here in the lurking mode.  ;D

The true facts are available readily on the Internet. You won't find 15KM anywhere except on this website. We all know what they are. (Except for FE's).

BTW, Sokarul, my degree was just an Associate degree in Industrial Electrical Engineering with some further studies in a minor in Journalism. I hold an Amateur Radio General Class License and held a Commercial Radio First Class License with Radar Endorsement when I was employed by a civilian company. I have worked as an Electronics Technician on radio , radar and computers in the U.S. Navy (First Class Petty Officer), civilian employment with Collins Radio Company  and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Service in the Navy was the best proof I ever had that the earth was round, or if you get technical about it, was an "Oblate Spheroid." I never could "restore" a ship that disappeared over the horizon with my binoculars. The other Officers and Petty Officers couldn't do it with their telescopes either. Couldn't bring Diamond Head in view from far at sea either with a telescope. Sigh ! As much as I was looking forward to Liberty in Honolulu !  ;D

I'm not a professional in the field of photography, but I do know what to expect from telephoto lenses and that Sandokhan's don't prove a thing about sizes and distances unless you know the sizes and distances and the power and focal length of the telephoto lens. This has all been hashed over on this subject, too.

These are my credentials. I , too, would also be interested in Sandokhan's.  ???

BTW I never did get a  simple print out on the computations for the 15KM distance. I think I listed mine, as simple as they were. Hope you have better luck than I, Sokarul !  ;D But I wouldn't bet on it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 25, 2013, 09:17:41 PM
My conclusion

Once again I am returning to the scene of the crime. ;D

Most of the Amateur Radio "Moon Bounce" were conducted on about 432 MHZ. See where that falls on the chart.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
The upper forums are a place where meaningful discussions should take place, free of complete nonsense type of responses.

Through his manner of response, sokarul is schooling himself in senselessness, and is making the negation of logic into a mental habit, which frightenly has even become second nature to him.

The moderators and the administrators should not allow such a low level of response to be posted here, and this of course for sokarul's own sake.

Here are two obvious examples.

The fundamental experiment on which current electromagnetic theory is based, is the experiment conducted by Heinrich Hertz.

However, Nikola Tesla travelled all the way to Germany to demonstrate to Hertz personally the catastrophic flaws inherent in Hertz's experiment.

Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art.

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 demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.

The major breakthrough occurred in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.

Therefore a normal electromagnetic wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether waves (demonstrated rigorously by the experiments conducted by Miller, Moray, DePalma, Kozyrev, Nipher and many others).

HOW did sokarul respond?

No, it's not.

He never took the time to read my explanations which do show the faults and flaws of Hertz's original experiment and responded by simply denying reality: this manner of response should be done in the complete nonsense section, not here.

Here is another more striking example.

Gauss' Easter Formula is one of the most exact formulas to be used in astronomical dating.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Dr. Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784.

Therefore, the Council that introduced the Paschalia  according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if were to follow the consensual chronological version, well have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

However, the Council itself could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

876 or 877 AD was the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with Nosovsky's full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

HOW does sokarul respond?

In a totally desultory manner, ignoring the very obvious passages I just quoted:

What do you thin Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton actually did? A council and Easter dates has nothing to do with the earth revolving around the sun. Science was the answer.

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe.

Therefore the council date and Easter dates have EVERYTHING to do with the false notion of heliocentrism.

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.

You will get NORMAL SIGNALS as long as the density of the aether medium and ether waves does not interfere with the temporary electromagnetic hertzian ripple.

Amateur/professional radio measurements which are based on a constant speed of light cannot be used to measure distances on an astronomical scale; as the density of the aether medium and ether waves increases, the speed of light becomes a variable, hence the catastrophic 384,000 km figure you obtained in your calculations.

Nobody is imputing the honesty of amateur/professional radio operators: what is being imputed is the fact that their understanding of radio wave theory is extremally flawed and is based on Hertz's catastrophic experiment.

I have already explained how we can reach the 15 km computation (and this is not just a simple computation, for that we would have to know the exact refractive index of the aether layers and ether wave layers):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 25, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
I have already explained how we can reach the 15 km computation (and this is not just a simple computation, for that we would have to know the exact refractive index of the aether layers and ether wave layers):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565)

I'm sorry brother Sandokahn, but neither of those messages mention how you calculated 15km.  They only go on and on about how it can't be 93 million miles.  If you could show us the 15km calculation in 500 words or less, that would be wonderful.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 11:08:44 PM
The Tunguska explosion proves immediately that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

Furthermore, it proves that the surface of the Earth is completely flat.

Therefore, on a flat geocentric earth, the Sun orbits above the earth, and its size (diameter) and the distance from Earth (orbiting altitude) is much smaller than in the heliocentric case.

Can you understand these things so far?

We do not have at our disposal the perfect refractive index for each and every layer of aether and ether waves: the official scientific establishment has eliminated the study of ether waves ever since the start of the 20th century.

Since we know that the diameter of the Sun IS MUCH SMALLER in a geocentric/flat earth context (as is the altitude at which it orbits above the Earth), the ONLY way to make a meaningful estimate is for some kind of direct estimate.

And we have at our disposal two direct estimates of this much smaller sun: the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit videos/photos and the Antarctica photographs of Fred Bruenjes.

Remember, we already know that the diameter of the Sun is very small, as is the distance at which it orbits above the Earth.

The solar transit videos and photos show very clearly how small this diameter is: some 600 meters; we can also compare this figure with what can be seen in the Antarctica photographs which do confirm this figure.

We know that the initial Explorer missions could not go beyond some 13 km because of the radiation/density of the aether/ether waves encountered, therefore an estimate of 15 km is very reasonable, and we can check this estimate with the photographs taken on top of the Everest peak, which were already posted here.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2013, 11:37:11 PM
This is going to be a multi part post. Also note guote tags exist. Its as simple as hitting a button.
Quote
The upper forums are a place where meaningful discussions should take place, free of complete nonsense type of responses.
The only nonsense is your reasoning.

Quote
Through his manner of response, sokarul is schooling himself in senselessness, and is making the negation of logic into a mental habit, which frightenly has even become second nature to him.
You are afraid.

Quote
The moderators and the administrators should not allow such a low level of response to be posted here, and this of course for sokarul's own sake.
My posts only seems low level because they are over your head.

Quote
Here are two obvious examples.

The fundamental experiment on which current electromagnetic theory is based, is the experiment conducted by Heinrich Hertz.

However, Nikola Tesla travelled all the way to Germany to demonstrate to Hertz personally the catastrophic flaws inherent in Hertz's experiment.
Why is it so hard for you to realize Tesla used a different type of wave the Hertz used? Nothing disproving Hertz, just a different wave type.

Quote
Dr. Hertz, in his celebrated experiments, mistook sound waves for transverse waves and this illusion has been continually kept up by his followers, and has greatly retarded the development of the wireless art.
Sound waves are compression waves, which is a longitudinal wave. We know this. I have already said Tesla used longitudinal waves. Seismic waves are longitudinal waves. This would explain how he transmitted energy through the ground.

Quote
Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertzs experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.
No, he performed a different experiment.

Quote
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.
I dont know where you get these weird conclusions from.  Where?

Quote
Tesla demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.
No, he used longitudinal waves to transits energy.  They are type types of waves. I want you to say you understand that they are two different types of waves.

Quote
The major breakthrough occurred in 1899 at Colorado Springs by transmitting 100 million volts of high-frequency electric power wirelessly over a distance of 26 miles at which he lit up a bank of 200 light bulbs and ran one electric motor! With this souped up version of his Tesla coil, Tesla claimed that only 5% of the transmitted energy was lost in the process.
What about it? Using a different type of something does not automatically mean the other types are wrong.  I want  you to say you understand this.

Quote
Therefore a normal electromagnetic wave is just a ripple in the sea of ether waves (demonstrated rigorously by the experiments conducted by Miller, Moray, DePalma, Kozyrev, Nipher and many others).

HOW did sokarul respond?

No, it's not.
And Im going to do it again. No, its not. Telsa showed that longitudinal waves can transfer energy wirelessly.

Quote
He never took the time to read my explanations which do show the faults and flaws of Hertz's original experiment and responded by simply denying reality: this manner of response should be done in the complete nonsense section, not here.
I have read it many times. You simply make claims that Telsa himself did not make.
End part one.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2013, 11:53:35 PM
Quote
Here is another more striking example.

Gauss' Easter Formula is one of the most exact formulas to be used in astronomical dating.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Dr. Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784.

Therefore, the Council that introduced the Paschalia  according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if were to follow the consensual chronological version, well have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

However, the Council itself could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

876 or 877 AD was the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with Nosovsky's full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

HOW does sokarul respond?

In a totally desultory manner, ignoring the very obvious passages I just quoted:

What do you thin Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton actually did? A council and Easter dates has nothing to do with the earth revolving around the sun. Science was the answer.
This has nothing to do with anything. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo showed that the heliocentric model  had to be correct. Copernicus was an astronomer. He didnt care about dates. It was about trying to match what was observed in the sky with a geocentric model. He couldnt. Kepler furthered the idea and Galileo, using the telescope he invented, verified it.
Quote
No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe.
Ok, but they did show the geocentric model to be wrong.

Quote
Therefore the council date and Easter dates have EVERYTHING to do with the false notion of heliocentrism.
A completely made up conclusion.  Why dont you explain how dates disprove Galileo observing Venus going through phases like the moon, which the heliocentric model predicted, is disproved by dates being wrong.

End of part 2.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 25, 2013, 11:58:23 PM
sokarul's incoherent and desultory manner of posting belongs in the complete nonsense section, certainly not here.

Obviously, he has no understanding of the subject discussed here (or any of the subjects posted in the upper forums, for that matter): why do the moderators and administrators allow for this kind of nonsense to go on here?

The constant theme of his messages is the negation of logic and the denial of reality.

Venus phases in the geocentric context:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Schroter.htm (http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Schroter.htm)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2013, 12:15:25 AM
Quote

A normal electromagnetic wave will produce a temporary ripple in the ether sea, the signal transmitted will travel at the speed of light, in the absence of a higher density of aether (medium) and ether waves.
Explain what makes a microwave ripple different than a radio wave ripple.
Explain why a prism will split white light into colors.
Explain how a radio will take in temporary ripples and play out music.
Explain why a compass will change when wraped in copper wire and a charge is applied to the wire.
Explain why x ray ripples are created from an atoms electrons and a gamma ripple is created from inside the atom.
Explain why some ripples are contain more energy than others.

Quote
You will get NORMAL SIGNALS as long as the density of the aether medium and ether waves does not interfere with the temporary electromagnetic hertzian ripple.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Quote
Amateur/professional radio measurements which are based on a constant speed of light cannot be used to measure distances on an astronomical scale; as the density of the aether medium and ether waves increases, the speed of light becomes a variable, hence the catastrophic 384,000 km figure you obtained in your calculations.
Math time. If the moon is 15km away and the radio signal takes 2.54 second to make the trip, light speed would have to be 30km in 2.54 seconds so 11.8 km a second or 42,516 km/h.  This of course would be the average velocity. Speed of light in a vacuum is 1.07925x10¬9 km/h. They are not even close. Do you realize how much light would have to slow down for what you claim? I dont even want to do the calculation but when light would hit the moon,which you say is at 15 km, it would be moving at a velocity far under the average of 42,516 km/h that you say it takes for the average speed of light starting off and ending at 1.07925x10¬9 km/h. Its impossible for light to slow down that much, especial in a vacuum or even in your aether which tends to be really hard to detect as you even claim.

Quote
Nobody is imputing the honesty of amateur/professional radio operators: what is being imputed is the fact that their understanding of radio wave theory is extremally flawed and is based on Hertz's catastrophic experiment.
Just another outlandish conclusion.

Quote
I have already explained how we can reach the 15 km computation (and this is not just a simple computation, for that we would have to know the exact refractive index of the aether layers and ether wave layers):

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497546.html#msg1497546)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1497565.html#msg1497565)
Just another dodge of his question.

End.

Quote from: sandokhan
You have alot of typing to do.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 12:40:48 AM
You have a lot of homework to do.

Please read my alternative flat earth theory section to obtain the answers you seek (microwaves, the fact that light DOES NOT split into colors, and much more).

You can start here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693)

You will learn, perhaps for the first time, the true facts about the magnetism.

Ether waves are transversal waves which flow in a double torsion motion (that is, there are two scalar waves: dextrorotatory and laevorotatory, right-handed spin and left-handed spin).

It is through these waves that longitudinal waves travel (what we call light, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma, and waves of even higher frequencies): these waves consist of bosons (photons, neutrinos).

A normal electromagnetic wave is JUST A RIPPLE in the sea of ether waves, NOT a true ether wave.

Hertz discovered just these types of temporary ripples: it is exactly what Tesla told him and brought to his attention in Germany.

Your math amounts to nothing, as you do not understand the results of the experiments carried out by Airy and Miller: the density of aether increases greatly as we approach the boundary between terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity.

Not only is it possible for light to slow down that much, but also it is possible to travel much faster than the accepted limit imposed by Einstein.

How did Tesla achieve this?

By sending the signal through extremely low frequency ether waves, thus keeping the ripples at a minimum, please read my previous messages.

More energy means that the ether waves have been activated by some means: sound, double torsion, electrical tension, just as DePalma and Nipher showed in their experiments.

THE ORIGINAL MAXWELL equations confirm everything posted here: scalar waves are ether waves - electromagnetic waves are just temporary hertzian ripples in the sea of ether waves.

No dodging at all, not ever:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652)

This alone shows that you have not read my previous messages, and this shows the incredible superficiality of your approach to science.

.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 01:13:46 AM
CMBR in the aether/ether waves context.

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php (http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php)

The authors examine the microwave cosmic background radiation (CBR) - composed exclusively of LFOT photons - with aetherometric tools developed in the preceding reports, and the results demonstrate that, unlike what is held by the accepted neo-relativist interpretations of the CBR, its true mode lies - not at 7.35 cm and a frequency of 4.08GHz, but at 7.76 cm and a frequency of 3.861GHz. Still more disturbing is the fact that the conventionally accepted temperature distribution of the CBR blackbody is off by more than an order of magnitude with respect to the real and aetherometric temperature scale that is demanded by a Planckian quantization of the spectrum. The CBR temperature mode is found to lie between 0.1863 and 0.1853 degrees Kelvin. This fact alone is sufficient to dismantle any pretensions of (neo-)Relativity to actually and adequately understand the physical significance of the CBR and grasp the physical processes of its production - thus putting into serious doubt the validity of the so-called Big-Bang hypothesis.

But the results of the aetherometric analysis of the CBR blackbody cut still deeper into the Princeton Gnosis and its interpretation of the microwave CBR: a discrete set of LFOT photon bands is found to co-inhabit the near-smooth CBR distribution, and a microfunctional model is proposed for their manifestation as being indicative of the successive phase states of aether energy, as if these bands underlay the very changes in, and characteristics of, the known chemical phases of Matter. In accordance to this aetherometric model, the CBR photon mode is an indicator that most of the aether energy of the universe has a fluid lattice structure.

CMBR, a clear indication of the static nature of the universe:

A ray of light DOES NOT split into any component colours.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 03:18:33 AM
Now, more details about Tesla's use of wireless ether waves to  light 200 lamps at a distance of 26 miles from his station.

Once aetheric energy had been obtained from space, it had to be conveyed to consumers.

Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.

Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

An extraordinary article by W. Roentgen in which he ponders on the nature of x-rays:

A kind of relationship between the new rays and light rays appears to exist; at least the formation of shadows, fluorescence, and the production of chemical action point in this direction. Now it has been known for a long time, that besides the transverse vibrations which account for the phenomena of light, it is possible that longitudinal vibrations should exist in the ether, and, according to the view of some physicists, must exist. It is granted that their existence has not yet been made clear, and their properties are not experimentally demonstrated. Should not the new rays be ascribed to longitudinal waves in the ether?

http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/roentgen/index.html (http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/roentgen/index.html)

N. Tesla begins experimenting with longitudinal x-rays:

http://worldhistoryproject.org/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays (http://worldhistoryproject.org/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2013, 05:19:15 AM
...nothing important was here....

Venus phases in the geocentric context:

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Schroter.htm (http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Schroter.htm)
He used a computer program he coded to say that the heliocentric model doesn't match what is observed. Then uses the same program to say that the geocentric model does match what is seen. Majorly flawed. He does not even attempt to verify the data his program spits out. Nor does he ever mention what the orbit of Venus would look like in his geocentric model. Since you like links you can check out what other people say about this topic and others. http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?13280-Schroter-Effect-another-attempt-at-proving-Geocentricity. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?13280-Schroter-Effect-another-attempt-at-proving-Geocentricity.) He has no validity and he makes sure to match his preconceived notions.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 05:24:23 AM
Tesla: true wireless vs. e/m waves

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

Some researchers have called the ether waves, Teslian waves - and the Higgs boson, the Teslion:

(http://users.beotel.net/~gmarjanovic/sliktritesl.gif)

Extremely low frequency ether waves (ELF), that is, subquark strings, which transmit the signal through bosons (the author of the diagram does not understand that a boson = a photon = a neutrino).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2013, 05:26:16 AM
You have a lot of homework to do.

Please read my alternative flat earth theory section to obtain the answers you seek (microwaves, the fact that light DOES NOT split into colors, and much more).

Quote

You can start here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489714.html#msg1489714)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489693.html#msg1489693)

Quote
You will learn, perhaps for the first time, the true facts about the magnetism.
The problem is your links do not contain what is actually seen. Simple as that. There is nothing in your links that can disprove current theory.

Quote
Ether waves are transversal waves which flow in a double torsion motion (that is, there are two scalar waves: dextrorotatory and laevorotatory, right-handed spin and left-handed spin).

It is through these waves that longitudinal waves travel (what we call light, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma, and waves of even higher frequencies): these waves consist of bosons (photons, neutrinos).
You call light, x rays, etc longitudinal waves. They are not. It is well known that they are transverse waves. You even say Telsa did not use hertizan waves and they he used longitudinal waves.

Quote
A normal electromagnetic wave is JUST A RIPPLE in the sea of ether waves, NOT a true ether wave.
Are you going to explain how a radio can read the ripples?
Are you going to explain what the difference between a x ray ripple and a gamma ray ripple?
Or are you just going to ignore my questions?

Quote
Hertz discovered just these types of temporary ripples: it is exactly what Tesla told him and brought to his attention in Germany.
We know what Hertz did.

Quote
Your math amounts to nothing, as you do not understand the results of the experiments carried out by Airy and Miller: the density of aether increases greatly as we approach the boundary between terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity.

Not only is it possible for light to slow down that much, but also it is possible to travel much faster than the accepted limit imposed by Einstein.
Are you going to do the math? What is the speed of light when it hits the moon?

Quote
How did Tesla achieve this?
By sending the signal through extremely low frequency ether waves, thus keeping the ripples at a minimum, please read my previous messages.
More energy means that the ether waves have been activated by some means: sound, double torsion, electrical tension, just as DePalma and Nipher showed in their experiments.
We have already covered his experiment, he used a different type of wave than Hertz.

Quote
THE ORIGINAL MAXWELL equations confirm everything posted here: scalar waves are ether waves - electromagnetic waves are just temporary hertzian ripples in the sea of ether waves.
A random conclusion popped of nowhere.

Quote
No dodging at all, not ever:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652)

This alone shows that you have not read my previous messages, and this shows the incredible superficiality of your approach to science.
So its your estimate presented with no calculations. Also using a 2d picture to try and judge distance. You read earlier in this thread and look at the Eiffel tower picture. How far is the Eiffel tower in the picture?
End part 2
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 05:46:55 AM
sokarul, you are showing the same gross misunderstanding of anything which contradicts your dogmatic beliefs, and the same superficiality in your approach.

Dr. Neville Jones has done some brilliant work in explaining some of the most difficult aspects of the geocentric vs. heliocentric controversy.

His detractors complain:

His argument depends wholly upon the star Polaris being much much closer than it is according to mainstream science measurement.

N. Jones proposes and argues for the same type of ether waves in order to explain not only gravity, but also the stellar parallax phenomenon.

You do not even understand what the Schroter effect is, yet you have the nerve to comment as if you do.

Here are the anomalies from Dr. N. Jones' paper, which you obviously did not read:

Now the phases of Venus are very interesting, because of "a well observed and measurable effect known as Schroter's Effect." Geoff Kirby, as contained in Chapter 6 of his online biography) "In fact the observed phase [of Venus] is usually slightly less than the predicted phase. The size of this anomaly varies. So for example the time when the Venus disk is seen to be 50% illuminated is sometimes several earth-days different from the predicted time. Explanations of this anomaly generally propose that [it] is caused by the atmosphere of Venus." (Simon Edgeworth.)

The following quotations should provide the reader with the essence of the puzzlement of this phenomenon: "The curiosity is that the apparent phase is always less than the theoretical phase. If we define the phase as the fraction of the apparent planetary diameter illuminated, then the observed fraction (or phase) is about 0.03 to 0.05 less. This is quite dramatic around the time of dichotomy which is the time when the planet should be exactly half phase, i.e. the phase is 0.5 and the angle Sun-Venus-Earth is 900. The apparent phase appears to be about 0.45 so that Venus is very slightly a crescent." (Geoff Kirby.)

"The so-called phase anomaly is another interesting topic for the observer of Venus. It has long been known that the time when Venus shows a half phase in the telescope frequently occurs later than the predicted time when Venus is west of the sun; and half phase is earlier than expected when Venus is east of the Sun. The half phase is called dichotomy. The results of two observers are shown [in a graph on the website] for autumn 1999. Both observers agree in timing dichotomy at 2nd November 1999, approximately three days 'late'." (The British Astronomical Association.)

"The observed phase may differ slightly from the predicted value, the phenomenon being known as the Schroter effect. Dichotomy is seen to occur a few days early at eastern elongation and likewise late at western elongation." (David Graham, et al.)

"Another old mystery regarding Venus is the Phase Anomaly. This is most noticeable at dichotomy when the planet's terminator (the line dividing day and night) should be a straight line. At that time the planet is so placed with respect to the Earth that it should look exactly like a half-moon with the terminator running straight down the middle of the planet. Astronomers have long been aware that for some unknown reason this never happens at the predicted time. Theoretically we know Venus' orbit with such accuracy that the exact time of dichotomy can be predicted to within hours. But in practise it can be out by a week or more. The problem is that there is nothing wrong with Venus' position in its orbit - so what can be causing this problem?"

"A further aspect of the Phase Anomaly problem is that astronomers have commented at various times on the difficulty of determining Venus' exact phase. Sometimes it seems to be ahead of its predicted phase and at other times behind. The British Astronomical Association has looked into this for the better part of [the 20th] century." (Unknown author.)

In his website, Geoff Kirby makes a good case for daylight masking being the cause of about 40% of Schroter's effect. Certainly, I consider that his experimental method and associated reasoning are sound. This, however, still leaves the remaining 60% unaccounted for, with perhaps the most viable explanation so far offered being the possible scattering characteristics of the Venusian atmosphere (Giuseppe Marino and Fabio Salvaggio, for instance). There is, though, another possibility - one that correlates with previous, experimental results.

The geocentric model correctly agrees with all the above observed anomalies, while the heliocentric does not.

This is the crux of graphics and computer programs he used.

No preconceived ideas, or notions, and a total verification of the Schroter effect.

Hertz used ripples in the sea of ether waves.

Tesla used the ether waves themselves to transmit his signal.

Tesla went to Germany to explain to Hertz the colossal mistakes committed by Heinrich during his experiment.

No random conclusions whatsoever.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

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

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

They also prove that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant: to fully calculate the speed of light as it approaches the moon, BEYOND the barrier which separates terrestrial gravity from planetary gravity, we must know the exact refractive index, as I have mentioned already.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 06:16:19 AM
No, DePalma used the same type of ether waves which were discovered by Tesla himself.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

However, Dr. Purcell did not understand that there are plenty of sokaruls in the official scientific establishment, who will stop any and all references to the astounding experiment performed by Dr. DePalma.

Dr. Bruce DePalma:

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

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation. He commenced his work in Free Energy through his studies on the gyroscope and the nature of motion.

http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm)

Throwing Experiments

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

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

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

Is this a harnessing of torsional ether waves by rotation? Both balls draw energy into themselves from an unseen source, but the rotating ball absorbs more of this ethereal energy than its counterpart - energy that would be manifest as gravity, moving down into the Earth. With a decrease in torsional ether above the ball, there is a slight decrease in gravity, the ball gets slightly lighter. Needless to say, this effect defies standard theories.

A total confirmation of the existence of ether waves, of the great work done by Dr. Neville Jones: the existence of ether waves.

It is the end of the RE delusions: ether waves = terrestrial gravity caused by the pressure of these ether waves.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 06:32:29 AM
You still have to deal with the Tunguska event and the nonexistence of any axial precesional movement of the Earth.

TUNGUSKA, JUNE 30, 7:15 - 7:20 AM (SIBERIA) - 0:15 - 0:20 AM (LONDON)

The explosion from Tunguska was seen all the from London, Antwerp, Berlin, Stockholm.

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, the Earth does not orbit the Sun, nor is the Sun located at some 149,000,000 km from the Earth, nor does it have a 1,4 million km diameter.

A total confirmation that the ISS/Atlantis videos are true and do feature a much smaller Sun, orbiting at a much lower altitude, in perfect agreement with the photographs from Antarctica.

The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. "

All the facts needed to understand that the explosion was not caused by a comet, asteroid, or a meteorite and that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404693.html#msg1404693 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,3152.msg1404693.html#msg1404693)

http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif (http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska_trajectory.gif)

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

It is the end for the RE delusions: an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere at Tunguska, was seen all the way from London: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, the Earth does not orbit the Sun, nor is the Sun located at some 149,000,000 km from the Earth, nor does it have a 1,4 million km diameter.

The perfect proof which shows that everything I have posted here so far is true: there no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

Gauss' Easter Formula is one of the most exact formulas to be used in astronomical dating.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Dr. Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784.

Therefore, the Council that introduced the Paschalia  according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if were to follow the consensual chronological version, well have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

However, the Council itself could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

876 or 877 AD was the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with Nosovsky's full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe.

Your ignorance of history is astounding: Copernicus IS JUST A FICTIONAL CHARACTER.

Here is the complete demonstration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1274485.html#msg1274485 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1274485.html#msg1274485)

Copernicus did not have the necessary astronomical instruments to observe anything on the scale ascribed to his official historical observations.

Also, the complete demonstration that his main work, De Revolutionibus, was invented AT LEAST AFTER 1600 AD.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 07:17:32 AM
Roentgen and Tesla agree that x-rays are longitudinal waves.

An extraordinary article by W. Roentgen in which he ponders on the nature of x-rays:

A kind of relationship between the new rays and light rays appears to exist; at least the formation of shadows, fluorescence, and the production of chemical action point in this direction. Now it has been known for a long time, that besides the transverse vibrations which account for the phenomena of light, it is possible that longitudinal vibrations should exist in the ether, and, according to the view of some physicists, must exist. It is granted that their existence has not yet been made clear, and their properties are not experimentally demonstrated. Should not the new rays be ascribed to longitudinal waves in the ether?

http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/roentgen/index.html (http://www.nature.com/physics/looking-back/roentgen/index.html)

N. Tesla begins experimenting with longitudinal x-rays:

http://worldhistoryproject.org/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays (http://worldhistoryproject.org/1887/4/nikola-tesla-begins-experimenting-with-x-rays)

As I have explained, ether waves are subquark strings (three dimensional helices, transverse waves) - the strings THEMSELVES propagate any signal longitudinally - this is how we solve the main mystery of quantum mechanics: particle vs. wave - those particles travel longitudinally through transverse waves.

Now, more details about Tesla's use of wireless ether waves to  light 200 lamps at a distance of 26 miles from his station.

Once aetheric energy had been obtained from space, it had to be conveyed to consumers.

Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.

Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs.
This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.

Therefore, Tesla used the ether waves LONGITUDINALLY - Hertz produced only temporary ripples in these ether waves, and called his ripples electromagnetic waves.

Now, x-ray and gamma rays propagate through those same subquark strings - please read both Roentgen and Tesla's articles on the subject.

How can a radio read the ripples? Tesla vs. Marconi waves -

http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws09.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws09.htm)

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 26, 2013, 07:17:55 AM
Here is some fun math.  Speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec at the surface of the Earth.  The moon is 15km above the Earth.  The aether distortion starts to play a big part at roughly 12km (as you mentioned earlier).  It takes a radio signal 2.55 seconds to hit the moon and bounce back as was stated at the very beginning of this thread.

12km / 300,000 km/sec = 0.00004 seconds

Subtract this 2 times from 2.55 seconds (for both initial and return trip) 2.55-0.00008= 2.54992 seconds.  This is the amount of time it takes the signal to go 6km (again, both initial and return trips).

6km/2.54992s=2.35 km/s

This is very rough as I'm sure the aether would change in consistency as you gain altitude.  But this aether would need to have an absurdly high refractive index, 127,659.8 to be more exact from my calculations.  The highest known refractive index of any natural material is about 4, Germanium.  Light coming in from nearly every angle would be near vertical if this were the case.

Sokarul, here is the rough calculations for the speed of light for the moon bounce.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 07:41:44 AM
Take your time and read the previous messages: extraordinary proofs of the existence of ether waves (whose refractive index is not known - 20th century physics concentrated instead on the false relativity theory).

The DePalma experiments do prove indeed that terrestrial gravity is a force due to the pressure exerted by the ether waves.

And since planetary/stellar gravity is a rotational type of force, there must a barrier/shield between the two.

This barrier was discovered in 1871 by G. Airy, in his famous experiment.

The most ancient work on how the light from the Sun reaches our atmosphere through the Schumann cavity (dome/barrier):

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71)

duckdodgers, take a moment to review your messages posted here.

You started by denying outright the DePalma experiment; when confronted with evidence and references I posted here, you refrained from commenting any further.

You were not able to argue in any way, shape or form the Tunguska event.

You refused to discuss the axial precesional hoax.

And yet, you choose to ignore everything we have discussed here, as it applies to your most recent comment.

You cannot change the results of Tesla's experiments: they prove the existence of the ether waves.

Perhaps the study of the measure of the refractive index is something which will be undertaken by many scientists once they will give up their cherished (and false) beliefs in a round earth.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 26, 2013, 07:59:56 AM
Here is some fun math.  Speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec at the surface of the Earth.  The moon is 15km above the Earth.  The aether distortion starts to play a big part at roughly 12km (as you mentioned earlier).  It takes a radio signal 2.55 seconds to hit the moon and bounce back as was stated at the very beginning of this thread.

12km / 300,000 km/sec = 0.00004 seconds

Subtract this 2 times from 2.55 seconds (for both initial and return trip) 2.55-0.00008= 2.54992 seconds.  This is the amount of time it takes the signal to go 6km (again, both initial and return trips).

6km/2.54992s=2.35 km/s

This is very rough as I'm sure the aether would change in consistency as you gain altitude.  But this aether would need to have an absurdly high refractive index, 127,659.8 to be more exact from my calculations.  The highest known refractive index of any natural material is about 4, Germanium.  Light coming in from nearly every angle would be near vertical if this were the case.

Sokarul, here is the rough calculations for the speed of light for the moon bounce.
Thanks, just shows how insane his idea is. Light changing 5 orders of magnitude in speed. Water's refractive index is 1.330. The highest refractive index  I use for particle sizing is 2.7. Pyrite particles in water will be around that, maybe a little less. Not even close to a refractive index of 127,659.8.

I guess I'm done picking apart sandokhan's post. He just fills them up with all of his copy paste, thinking they actually answer questions. But I'm not done completely.
Sandokhan you seem to think I'm unqualified to argue against you(yet you never did tell me what degree you have). Well let me point out something I use at work. Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy. The instrument consists of a argon plasma connected to a spectrometer.  It operates in the visible and to some degree ultraviolet.   I use or prep for it every day I am at work. With it I can tell what elements and at what concentration they are at in samples.  I see everyday that what you say is incorrect. I can see spectra with it. I can set it to look at whatever wavelength I want, down to xxx.xxx nm, although I only set it to look at certain set wavelengths. You can say that light is just aether ripples all you want, but you will not disprove what I do for a living. There is a reason what I say is in science books. There is a reason what you say is not.  You have shown to be incapable of answering simple question regarding your ideas. There is countless other instruments that disprove what you say(XRD, XRF, AA, and gamma spectroscopy), even thought that isn't there purpose.
Maybe what you say was once acceptable, but it's not now. Personally I don't even think what you say ever was. Scientists aren't that dumb. You are all over the place. Taking a part of one paper and ignoring the rest or taking something out of context or simply just making up your own conclusion. You disagree with the accepted electromagnetic spectrum, but then in the alchemy thread, you had no problem accepting that some guy saw the gold spectrum in a mercury lap. This is why we all seem to drop out from arguing with you. You are just lost in space, floating around in your aether if you will. When you come down from wherever you are I will continue to debate. I'm not going to waste my three day weekend on you.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: DuckDodgers on May 26, 2013, 08:06:08 AM
I've been trying to stay away from posting in this thread as trying to muddle through walls of text makes this feel more like a job than a pass time.  I stopped commenting about DePalma's experiment because I'm still researching it and at this moment feel that it would only show that the classical view of gravity is a special case (only for bodies not rotating) and that the equation would just need to be modified to account for rotating bodies.  For the Tunguska discussion, see sentence one.  I just made the comment that sunlight coming through the atmosphere wouldn't be reflected by the atmosphere in the way light produced within the atmosphere could.  With axial precession, I don't know enough about the topic to actually comment on it, I will fully admit this.

All I was doing with my most recent post was providing a rough calculation for Sokarul so that he wouldn't need to redo the calculations if he didn't see a problem with them.  That post was from page 8 or 9, I wasn't making a new argument or anything.  I even put in a caveat that it was a rough calculation, not meant to be exact.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 08:17:20 AM

You have yet to address the Tunguska event, the axial precesional hoax, and much more.

Please read again my previous messages on magnetism/light and the existence of ether waves: you cannot deny any of Tesla's experiments.

You cannot deny DePalma's classic experiment.

Light travels through ether waves - your laboratory observations are well within the ether/aether theory presented here.

Again, let us go back to Tesla and the original Maxwell equations.

Now, more details about Tesla's use of wireless ether waves to  light 200 lamps at a distance of 26 miles from his station.

Once aetheric energy had been obtained from space, it had to be conveyed to consumers.

Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.

Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.

Therefore, Tesla used the ether waves LONGITUDINALLY - Hertz produced only temporary ripples in these ether waves, and called his ripples electromagnetic waves.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

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

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

They also prove that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant: to fully calculate the speed of light as it approaches the moon, BEYOND the barrier which separates terrestrial gravity from planetary gravity, we must know the exact refractive index, as I have mentioned already.

Therefore, you no longer have any excuse: all your preconceived ideas about science have been thorougly trashed here, you are out of luck.

I am not making anything up: my bibiographical references speak for themselves: the very best proofs on the existence of ether waves: DePalma, Nipher, Tesla.

Maxwell's original equations do prove that light travels through ether waves, no matter what you say.

duck, your comments have been also thoroughly debunked, from the light in the atmosphere to the DePalma experiment.

What did you say?

I stopped commenting about DePalma's experiment because I'm still researching it and at this moment feel that it would only show that the classical view of gravity is a special case (only for bodies not rotating) and that the equation would just need to be modified to account for rotating bodies.

The DePalma experiment SHOWS THAT TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY CANNOT BE AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE: the energy captured from the ether waves by torsion means that gravity is a force due to the pressure exerted by these waves.

Francis Nipher's experiments showed that terrestrial gravity is totally related to electricity.

The Law of Universal Gravitation is defied by the DePalma experiment, not to mention Kozyrev's experiments.

A body at rest is subject to the dextrorotatory ether waves; to obtain antigravitational effects, you must capture the laevorotatory ether waves (sound, double torsion, electrical tension).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 26, 2013, 08:29:48 AM
No, you haven't.  Going on and on and on and on about why everything that scientists think that they know about EM is wrong still doesn't give us the math on how the sun is only 15 km high.  Seriously, can't you focus long enough just to show us the th*rking 15 km calculation, and only the 15 km calculation?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 08:33:38 AM
markjo, did you just wake up from sleep?

I have clearly explained everything for you earlier.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1498652.html#msg1498652)

The Tunguska explosion proves immediately that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

Furthermore, it proves that the surface of the Earth is completely flat.

Therefore, on a flat geocentric earth, the Sun orbits above the earth, and its size (diameter) and the distance from Earth (orbiting altitude) is much smaller than in the heliocentric case.

Can you understand these things so far?

We do not have at our disposal the perfect refractive index for each and every layer of aether and ether waves: the official scientific establishment has eliminated the study of ether waves ever since the start of the 20th century.

Since we know that the diameter of the Sun IS MUCH SMALLER in a geocentric/flat earth context (as is the altitude at which it orbits above the Earth), the ONLY way to make a meaningful estimate is for some kind of direct estimate.

And we have at our disposal two direct estimates of this much smaller sun: the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit videos/photos and the Antarctica photographs of Fred Bruenjes.

Remember, we already know that the diameter of the Sun is very small, as is the distance at which it orbits above the Earth.

The solar transit videos and photos show very clearly how small this diameter is: some 600 meters; we can also compare this figure with what can be seen in the Antarctica photographs which do confirm this figure.

We know that the initial Explorer missions could not go beyond some 13 km because of the radiation/density of the aether/ether waves encountered, therefore an estimate of 15 km is very reasonable, and we can check this estimate with the photographs taken on top of the Everest peak, which were already posted here.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 08:45:59 AM
By the way mj, when are you going to address the axial precessional hoax?

You are ever eager to address questions with a sneer, but you find yourself at a loss to understand how, for all this time, you have been accepting the heliocentrical planetary system ON FAITH.

I can prove immediately that the Earth NEVER ORBITED the Sun, not even for a single centimeter.

Gauss' Easter Formula is one of the most exact formulas to be used in astronomical dating.

With the Easter formula derived by C.F. Gauss in 1800, Dr. Nosovsky calculated the Julian dates of all spring full moons from the first century AD up to his own time and compared them with the Easter dates obtained from the Easter Book. He reached a surprising conclusion: three of the four conditions imposed by the First Council of Nicaea were violated until 784.

Therefore, the Council that introduced the Paschalia  according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times  in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if were to follow the consensual chronological version, well have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Now, the ecclesiastical vernal equinox was set on March 21st because the Church of Alexandria, whose staff were reputed to have astronomical expertise, reckoned that March 21st was the date of the equinox in 325 AD, the year of the First Council of Nicaea.

However, the Council itself could not have taken place before the year 876-877 AD:

876 or 877 AD was the starting year of the first Easter cycle after 784 AD, which is when the Easter Book must have been compiled. This conclusion about the date of the First Council of Nicaea agreed with Nosovsky's full-moon calculations, which showed that the real and the computed full moons occurred on the same day only between 700 and 1000 AD. From 1000 on, the real full moons occurred more than twenty-four hours after the computed ones, whereas before 700 the order was reversed. The years 784 and 877 also match the traditional opinion that about a century had passed between the compilation and the subsequent canonization of the Easter Book.

But, in fact, as we see from the information presented in the preceeding paragraphs, the Council of Nicaea could not have taken place any earlier than the year 876-877 e.n., which means that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11.

Papal Bull, Gregory XIII, 1582:

Therefore we took care not only that the vernal equinox returns on its former date, of which it has already deviated approximately ten days since the Nicene Council, and so that the fourteenth day of the Paschal moon is given its rightful place, from which it is now distant four days and more, but also that there is founded a methodical and rational system which ensures, in the future, that the equinox and the fourteenth day of the moon do not move from their appropriate positions.

Given the fact that in the year 1582, the winter solstice would have arrived on December 16, not at all on December 11, this discrepancy could not have been missed by T. Brahe, or G. Galilei, or J. Kepler - thus we can understand the fiction at work in the official chronology.

No historical or astronomical proof exists that before 1700 AD any gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation (axial precession) ever took place. The 10 day cumulative error in the Vernal Equinox date since the Council of Nicaea until the year 1582 AD is due just to the reform of the Julian calendar: if we add the axial precession argument, then  the cumulative errors would have added to even more than 10 days, because of the reverse precessional movement. No axial precession means that the Earth did not ever orbit around the Sun, as we have been led to believe.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 26, 2013, 01:31:07 PM
Since Sandokhan has de-railed this topic so many times with his "pasta" copy and since I am to blame for starting this topic in the first place , I am going to take a recess .

Since Sandokhan is so fond of posting links, I am going to leave you with the following.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon)
http://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html (http://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html)

Note that all of the figures correspond with the ham radio measurements of the distance from the earth to the sun.

That is : 1.275  x   186, 000 = 237, 150

I should warn you that FES is in danger of a a massive slander and libel suit from the American Radio Relay League if you hold to  your statement that "Amateur Radio Measurements are Worthless."

That is, if the ARRL  paid any attention to such a statement, which they do not.

Have fun everyone else. I won't promise I won't be back .  ;D

BTW. Is it too much to ask for just a simple explanation of the computations for the 15KM distance ?
The Ham Radio measurements were simple. The FE measurements should be simple ?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 26, 2013, 02:49:57 PM
Typo in previous post. Tried to correct it.

Should have read : " distance from the earth to the moon."

Quote from Sandokhan:
"By the way mj, when are you going to address the axial precessional hoax?"
Unquote

By the way, Sandokhan , when are your going to address the OP ?

I just made a quick review.
This subject has been going for 17 pages, 322 replies and 4305 views.
And still no answer as to the question of how  the 15 KM was computed.
The OP has been repeated at least 4 times.

I lost count in Sandokhan's postings which were mostly off-topic. They have been long dissertations on philosophy but have proved absolutely nothing as to how the FE computations were arrived.

The ham radio methods were (and are) so simple and so close to known and proven values that is seems incredible that they would even be questioned.

But that seems to be the way of the FES.:
To debate a subject to death even when it is known their figures are wrong.

It seems rather incredible, but IMHO Sandokhan has exhibited a complete lack of knowledge in basic radio and basic photography in some of his posts and just doesn't want to admit that the amateur radio measurements are reasonably correct in comparison with known proven results.

I suppose we really should close this thread out as it is incomplete in not having found any  basis for the FE Claim. The 3000 mile distance has sufficiently been de-bunked. Perhaps the reason for the constant de-railing is the hope that someone in the FES is eventually going to come up with the explanation for the FE measurement. ???

I would just be satisfied with an example of the FES computations and just post both results for comparison and just leave both figures for view without further comment just for the record. Also just leave the Poll open and post the results.

I really expected to see a larger number and more votes than the Ham Radio results for the total for both of the FE measurements in the Poll that has been posted so far .

P.S. I don't think that the FES should worry about that slander and libel suit from the ARRL. The ARRL could probably care less what the FES thinks about Amateur Radio Moon Bounce. ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 08:48:26 PM

My bibiographical references do prove exactly the opposite of what you are claiming: the DePalma experiment proves the existence of ether waves, the Tunguska event proves the Earth is flat and that the Sun does not orbit at some 149,000,000 km as you have previously assumed due to your thoughtless acceptance of the heliocentric theory, the axial precessional hoax proves clearly that the Earth NEVER orbited the Sun.

No copy pasta, just the best research ever done here (since you claim to have a degree, you should understand the importance of bibliographical research.)

You ask the same question again and again, and yet you have been answered again and again.

A normal electromagnetic wave is JUST A RIPPLE in the sea of ether waves, NOT a true ether wave.

Hertz discovered just these types of temporary ripples: it is exactly what Tesla told him and brought to his attention in Germany.

Your present understanding of radio wave theory is based SOLELY ON THE HERTZIAN RIPPLES.

THE ORIGINAL MAXWELL equations confirm everything posted here: scalar waves are ether waves - electromagnetic waves are just temporary hertzian ripples in the sea of ether waves.

Is this what you call copy pasta, the fact that you have been given the chance to learn about the original Maxwell equations and the formidable implications?

It is a sign of arrogance and defiance to come back here given the fact that Tesla illuminated 200 lamps wirelessly from a distance of 26 miles, a clear violation of your assumed radio wave theory.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

It is a sign of arrogance and ignorance to come back here given the fact that the original Maxwell equations are based on a scalar wave theory, and on a variable speed of light concept.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

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

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

They also prove that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant: to fully calculate the speed of light as it approaches the moon, BEYOND the barrier which separates terrestrial gravity from planetary gravity, we must know the exact refractive index, as I have mentioned already.

How did I arrive at the 15 km figure? Very simply.

The Tunguska explosion proves immediately that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

Furthermore, it proves that the surface of the Earth is completely flat.

Therefore, on a flat geocentric earth, the Sun orbits above the earth, and its size (diameter) and the distance from Earth (orbiting altitude) is much smaller than in the heliocentric case.

Can you understand these things so far?

We do not have at our disposal the perfect refractive index for each and every layer of aether and ether waves: the official scientific establishment has eliminated the study of ether waves ever since the start of the 20th century.

Since we know that the diameter of the Sun IS MUCH SMALLER in a geocentric/flat earth context (as is the altitude at which it orbits above the Earth), the ONLY way to make a meaningful estimate is for some kind of direct estimate.

And we have at our disposal two direct estimates of this much smaller sun: the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit videos/photos and the Antarctica photographs of Fred Bruenjes.

Remember, we already know that the diameter of the Sun is very small, as is the distance at which it orbits above the Earth.

The solar transit videos and photos show very clearly how small this diameter is: some 600 meters; we can also compare this figure with what can be seen in the Antarctica photographs which do confirm this figure.

We know that the initial Explorer missions could not go beyond some 13 km because of the radiation/density of the aether/ether waves encountered, therefore an estimate of 15 km is very reasonable, and we can check this estimate with the photographs taken on top of the Everest peak, which were already posted here.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 26, 2013, 09:14:48 PM
So the sun moves along at 15km? That's a bit over 50,000 feet. The U2 and SR71 routinely work at 70,000 feet (well, the U2 still does, but I believe the SR71 has been retired), and weather balloons go even higher. I don't know how many different ways that altitude has been verified, but it sure does make that 15km look like nonsense.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 09:28:36 PM
Given everything you have read about the original Maxwell equations, Tesla's wireless use of ether waves, it should come as no surprise to learn that your "facts" are wrong.

Let us take amateur rockets as an example.

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

How do other amateur rocket endeavours measure their claims?

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

But in fact satellites orbit at a much lower altitude, and are powered by Tesla's cosmic ray device.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=543 (http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=543)

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure. A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist starting at about 13-14 km in altitude and going to about 15 km, and which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance actually travelled by the radar waves.

Nasa managed to keep the true facts away from public view regarding its missions: that is, the crafts ran into a belt of resistance much quicker  and at a much lower altitude (12-13 km) than previously thought. For example, in 1958, the Explorer, after sending back some data, not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.

My estimate of 15 km is based on the Tunguska event.

It seems you do not yet understand its significance.

The Tunguska explosion proves immediately that there are no 149,000,000 km between the Earth and the Sun.

Furthermore, it proves that the surface of the Earth is completely flat.

Therefore, on a flat geocentric earth, the Sun orbits above the earth, and its size (diameter) and the distance from Earth (orbiting altitude) is much smaller than in the heliocentric case.

Can you understand these things so far?

We do not have at our disposal the perfect refractive index for each and every layer of aether and ether waves: the official scientific establishment has eliminated the study of ether waves ever since the start of the 20th century.

Since we know that the diameter of the Sun IS MUCH SMALLER in a geocentric/flat earth context (as is the altitude at which it orbits above the Earth), the ONLY way to make a meaningful estimate is for some kind of direct estimate.

And we have at our disposal two direct estimates of this much smaller sun: the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit videos/photos and the Antarctica photographs of Fred Bruenjes.

Remember, we already know that the diameter of the Sun is very small, as is the distance at which it orbits above the Earth.

The solar transit videos and photos show very clearly how small this diameter is: some 600 meters; we can also compare this figure with what can be seen in the Antarctica photographs which do confirm this figure.

We know that the initial Explorer missions could not go beyond some 13 km because of the radiation/density of the aether/ether waves encountered, therefore an estimate of 15 km is very reasonable, and we can check this estimate with the photographs taken on top of the Everest peak, which were already posted here.

The DePalma experiment proves that terrestrial gravity is A FORCE DUE TO THE PRESSURE EXERTED BY THE ETHER WAVES. How then did any Nasa mission ever take place? The U2 and SR71 aircrafts NEVER went beyond some 13 km, that is for sure. Read the satellite hoax thread again. They orbit at a much lower altitude than we are told.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 26, 2013, 09:40:23 PM
To Scintific Method :
IMHO : The fact of the matter is that this whole website is nothing but nonsense. Some people have even called it a farce, but I will be open on that question .

There is a real world outside of the Flat Earth Society website.

To Sandokhan:

Unless you think that wikieup and every thing else in the world is part of the Conpiracy and that everything on it and everything else on the Internet outside the FES is fabricated.

According to the Poll, there are at least  11 other sane people besides Scintific Method and myself.

This whole FES website reminds me of the old saying, "Everybody is out of step except me."

I think it's best  for us outsiders to just to leave the Flat Earth Society to the Flat Earthers and wish them well . Let them debate among themselves for a while. There does seem to be some question between 3000 Miles and 15 KM.

Outside of this website, I have never met a Flat Earth believer. This was something new for me, but it got old terribly fast.

Adios, Sandokhan, I've had my say. It was fun while it lasted, but it got terribly boring. I've posted my results but I never saw yours.
Buena Suerte !

Have you contacted all the places that have been suggested ?

They would really be interested .

Being a ham radio operator, my main suggestion would be for you to contact the ARRL and explain to them how erroneous and in particular worthless the Moon Bounce results have been. They have Professional Engineers on their staff who would be better able to discuss the finer points of your revelations about the reasons for the worthless Moon Bounce inaccuracies you have mentioned. If it is a long distance call, I will gladly contribute \$10 to a fund to cover the cost of the call so that it wouldn't cost you a cent. I will even contribute \$10 to the cost of postage if you chose to correspond by mail. Or you could do it yourself for nothing on the Internet.

Also contact Mc Donald Observatory. Their measurements have been by other means including laser. Please inform them that theirs and those of other observatories'  so-called precise measurements are also vastly erroneous.

Also NASA, USN, USAF, FAA, etc. Include other world wide agencies, etc.

You have your work cut out for you, so I'm going to vacate the website  for a while to give you time for doing your correspondence.

If you would publish the results of your correspondence that would be interesting.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 26, 2013, 11:08:03 PM
Please show to those engineers the following images:

(http://zoev9.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/tesla-wireless-light-bulb.jpg?w=216&h=300)

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

In a conductor electrical current is transmitted through the subquark strings of the atoms which align themselves to allow the bosons to move through its medium.

Ether waves which fill each nanometer of aether consist of these subquark strings.

Therefore, Tesla realized that he can transmit electrical current, WIRELESSLY, through the ether waves to power up light bulbs, electrical motors, and much more.

You will get NORMAL SIGNALS as long as the density of the aether medium and ether waves does not interfere with the temporary electromagnetic hertzian ripple.

Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.

Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.

Therefore, Tesla used the ether waves LONGITUDINALLY - Hertz produced only temporary ripples in these ether waves, and called his ripples electromagnetic waves.

Tesla: true wireless vs. e/m waves

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

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 demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

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

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

They also prove that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant.

It is a sign of arrogance and defiance on your part to still post the same old messages, given the clear demonstration that Tesla illuminated 200 light bulbs from a distance of 26 miles IN TOTAL VIOLATION of Hertzian e/m waves theory.

Your engineers (the ones you are so fond of alluding to) are using the WRONG THEORY and thus are obtaining CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG RESULTS.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 27, 2013, 06:17:44 AM
sandokhan this is 2013. Youtube. Start at 3:40 if you want to skip the "scary" stuff.
Tesla Wireless Power Transmission, Part 2 (http://#ws)

Tesla Did ground breaking work at the time, but now anyone can do it. My toothbrush does it.

Wardenclyffe Tower small scale replication, power propagation via ground (http://#ws) Skip to 10:50 to avoid the "scary "stuff.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 27, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
Consider Case closed for lack of factual evidence (From FE)  regarding 15KM distance question.
Now exiting this website for lack of further interest.(From FE)

Sokarul, thanks very much for the videos . Very good video quality and very interesting :D

Sokarul, I like your signature line !  :)

I have studied, made a living and enjoyed hobbies - especially  in radio and photography- doing what Sandokhan says is impossible for nearly 50 years.  ;D

That's no record . I know of many people who have a lot more years and a lot more experience than that  in doing what Sandokhan says is impossible.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 27, 2013, 11:16:14 AM
Please show to those engineers the following images:

(http://zoev9.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/tesla-wireless-light-bulb.jpg?w=216&h=300)

(http://www.teslasociety.com/pictures/teslapic2.jpg)

In a conductor electrical current is transmitted through the subquark strings of the atoms which align themselves to allow the bosons to move through its medium.

Ether waves which fill each nanometer of aether consist of these subquark strings.

Therefore, Tesla realized that he can transmit electrical current, WIRELESSLY, through the ether waves to power up light bulbs, electrical motors, and much more.

You will get NORMAL SIGNALS as long as the density of the aether medium and ether waves does not interfere with the temporary electromagnetic hertzian ripple.

Tesla had arranged for the automatic activation of aether-rebroadcast circuits in the station. The down pouring aether was automatically shunted to side circuits through capacitors. In these side branches, aether pulsed through dielectrics and expanded over the surfaces of his smaller coils.

Thus stimulated to more rapid pulsation rates, they were ready for "rebroadcast". Being rebroadcast away from the station through large vacuum globes, poised on elevated platforms, these were the aetheric pulsations, which would be utilized in home and industry. Simple and compact receivers would be established in every home and factory, set to receive aetheric current through the ground. Tests were thrilling.

The distant appliances, lamps and motors responded to the powerful pulsations, as if they were physically connected to the station by wire. A small house-like structure was established some 26 miles away from the station.

In it, an aetheric power receiver was tuned to one of the rebroadcast rates. The 200 lamps housed within this structure, each of 50 watts rating, all remained brilliantly illuminated throughout the test runs. This apparently stimulated enough excitement and concern for word of this development to get back east.

200 LAMPS ILLUMINATED FROM 26 MILES DISTANCE, USING ETHER WAVES - THE PERFECT PROOF NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEMPORARY HERTZIAN RIPPLES AND TRUE WIRELESS ETHER WAVES.

Therefore, Tesla used the ether waves LONGITUDINALLY - Hertz produced only temporary ripples in these ether waves, and called his ripples electromagnetic waves.

Tesla: true wireless vs. e/m waves

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

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 demonstrated the use of ether waves and advanced the electromagnetism theory into new dimensions, further than Hertz and other scientists of his time could conceive. He described his "wireless" waves being far superior to Hertzian waves, which diminish with distance.

On the modified Maxwell equations:

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

"Brutally, not a single one of those Heaviside/ Gibbs equations ever appeared in a paper or book by James Clerk Maxwell, even though the severely restricted Heaviside/Gibbs interpretation is universally and erroneously taught in all Western universities as Maxwell's theory.

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

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of scalar ether waves.

Maxwell's truncated equations deal ONLY with the temporary hertzian ripples in the ether sea.

They also prove that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant.

It is a sign of arrogance and defiance on your part to still post the same old messages, given the clear demonstration that Tesla illuminated 200 light bulbs from a distance of 26 miles IN TOTAL VIOLATION of Hertzian e/m waves theory.

Your engineers (the ones you are so fond of alluding to) are using the WRONG THEORY and thus are obtaining CATASTROPHICALLY WRONG RESULTS.

Why don't you just do it yourself ? That is: Why don't you just contact the engineers yourself ?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 27, 2013, 11:41:56 AM
Sandokhan, for you to accuse sokarul, or anyone else for that matter, of making low content posts is really laughable. I have seen you post the exact same thing like 50 times in this thread alone. All you do whenever anyone asks you to explain yourself is post the same pictures and text blocks you have already posted. If that's not low content I don't know what is.

You've been asked repeatedly to produce your calculations for the 15km distance and 600m diameter of the Sun and have not done so once. In fact you say you have done so, and then just point to 2 more of your endless copypasta threads. Really dishonest.

I'm glad you admit now that the 15km is only your estimate and not calculated at all. As you have stated it is merely a guess based on your assumption that the Sun orbits the Earth and therefore must be smaller. It's also funny how you then judge the Sun to be at 15km because of some aircraft that has been up to 12-13km, then you turn around and say that altitude measurements are inherently flawed and the true altitude is much lower. So maybe you should be saying the Sun is only, what, 2-3 km up? Of course you'll never post a calculation of how high aircraft really are based on their stated altitude because you have no idea. Hilarious!

Finally, here's a little calculation based on your "excellent" estimates of the Sun's diameter and distance.

Sun's angular diameter based on 600m actual diameter and 15,000m distance:

Ɵ= Sun's apparent angular diameter seen from Earth's surface

Ɵ = sin-1(600/15000)

Ɵ = sin-1(0.04)

Ɵ = 2.3°

So the Sun according to your numbers should appear to span about 2.3° in the sky. Actual angular diameter observed is 0.5°, less then 1/4 of what I calculated.

Now I know you will say that the "aether density" is a factor in this, but since you don't know how the density changes (or that there even is an aether) this is just more speculation on your part. I think it's far more likely that your numbers are wrong. Which makes sense because I think you just made them up to begin with.  ;D

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 27, 2013, 12:47:07 PM
In the RE vision of science, Maxwell's original set of equations which unify gravity and electricity become "low content posts".  The application of Gauss' Easter formula to the fundamental problem of the axial precessional hoax, becomes "low content posting".  The classic Bruce DePalma spinning ball experiment is again "low content posting".

In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:

'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' Certainly not, I replied, these are radiations.... "I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression.

The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only truly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly express his confidence in its success." N. Tesla

What will it take for the RE to understand that Tesla did not use Hertzian waves to transmit energy?

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

How is it possible to still have a debate given the results of the DePalma spinning ball experiment, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that terrestrial gravity is caused by the pressure exerted by the ether waves used by Tesla?

An explosion which occurred at some 7 km in altitude in Siberia was observed instantaneously across Europe: newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus.

... we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.

And this refers to the initial trajectory path as well, which took place between 7:00 - 7:15 am (local time).

It proves clearly that the Earth DOES NOT orbit the Sun: an explosion which occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere at Tunguska, was seen all the way from London: we are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

Therefore, the estimate of 15 km is a very sound one: we start with the absolute fact that the surface of the Earth is flat, that the Earth does not orbit the Sun at all and we arrive at the conclusions:

In a geocentric context the Sun IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE EARTH ITSELF.

How much smaller can be determined by direct observations, such as the solar transit videos/photos.

The initial Explorer missions went nowhere beyond some 13 km: this is the starting point also for an estimate of the altitude at which the Sun really orbits.

The aether density was proven long ago by the classic experiment of G. Airy in 1871.

Therefore direct visual angle measurements/calculations must be flawed to start with given the fact that we simply do not know the refractive index of the aether/ether waves.

What we do have at our disposal are the following undeniable facts:

1. Maxwell's original equations prove that gravity and electricity are one and the same phenomenon; that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant.

2. DePalma's spinning ball experiment proves clearly the existence of ether waves which do cause the phenomenon known as terrestrial gravity.

3. The Tunguska event proves that the surface of the Earth is flat, and that the Sun orbits above this flat earth.

4. N. Tesla used non-hertzian waves to transmit energy, carefully eliminating any hertzian ripples from his experiments.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 27, 2013, 01:26:46 PM
In the RE vision of science, Maxwell's original set of equations which unify gravity and electricity become "low content posts".  The application of Gauss' Easter formula to the fundamental problem of the axial precessional hoax, becomes "low content posting".  The classic Bruce DePalma spinning ball experiment is again "low content posting".

In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

When you repeat the same arguments and copy paste the same text over and over, while ignoring questions to explain why these facts are even relevant, then yes, I'm afraid that's low content. How many times did you post that Black Sun picture when asked why the Black Sun picture supported your argument? Insisting that you are right is not an argument. Restating your case when asked for clarification is not an argument.

Quote
The initial Explorer missions went nowhere beyond some 13 km: this is the starting point also for an estimate of the altitude at which the Sun really orbits.

Again, you accept the 13km but dispute how this altitude was measured, so I don't know why you bother repeating it.

Quote
The aether density was proven long ago by the classic experiment of G. Airy in 1871.

Therefore direct visual angle measurements/calculations must be flawed to start with given the fact that we simply do not know the refractive index of the aether/ether waves.

Airy calculated the Earth's, density, and he was inaccurate. His ether drift experiments obtained a negative result. Even if he had obtained an "ether density" value, that fact that you don't know what it is doesn't help your argument.

Quote
1. Maxwell's original equations prove that gravity and electricity are one and the same phenomenon; that the speed of light is a variable and not a constant.

Maxwell's equations do no such thing that I'm aware of. Please explain how you reached this conclusion.

Quote
2. DePalma's spinning ball experiment proves clearly the existence of ether waves which do cause the phenomenon known as terrestrial gravity.

DePalma's spinning ball experiment has been replicated and different results were obtained. Even based on DePalma's results, this does not prove the existence of ether or ether waves at least to me. Please show the relation between DePalma's results and your conclusion.

Quote
3. The Tunguska event proves that the surface of the Earth is flat, and that the Sun orbits above this flat earth.

The Tunguska event shows that light can be visible from an aerial explosion over a much greater than expected distance. It's a long way from this, against a lot of opposing evidence, to proving the Earth is flat. Even if the Earth had to be flat for this to happen I don't see what this has to do with the Sun. You get that part of your model from other assumptions you make, but Tunguska doesn't prove anything about the Sun itself.

Quote
4. N. Tesla used non-hertzian waves to transmit energy, carefully eliminating any hertzian ripples from his experiments.

Tesla's achievements in wireless power transmission are well understood today without the need for ether or ether waves. Please show how Tesla's wireless power transmission can only be explained in terms of an ether.

Arguing with you is tiring Sandokhan, but not for the reasons you might think. If you resort to any more copy paste, repetition of your arguments without clarification, or bringing in yet another irrelevant conspiracy theory, I'll consider you to have conceded the argument, and that as I suspected you don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 27, 2013, 01:58:40 PM
You are dodging the same issues all over again by innocently asking for explanations even though they were clearly offerred to you multiple times.

The Black Sun photographs prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no 384,000 km between the Earth and the Moon: no RE has ever been able to show otherwise, perhaps you would like me to bring back these photographs.

You have no understanding of either the truncated or the original Maxwell equations.

Please read the following very carefully so that you can upgrade your catastrophic knowledge of the true history of e/m vs. ether waves controversy.

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

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

Do you understand english, shmeggley? Is this clear enough for you?

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

Neither Lorentz nor Einstein seemed to have been aware of the contents of Maxwell‟s original papers, while both of them seemed to be under the impression that they were fixing something that wasn‟t broken in the first place. In doing so, Einstein managed to drop the luminiferous aether out of physics altogether, claiming that he was basing his investigation on what he had read in the so-called Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space‟! But whatever these Maxwell-Hertz equations might have been, they certainly can‟t have been Maxwell‟s original equations.

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

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

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

On the basis of these original Maxwell equations, Dr. Francis Nipher proved the fact that terrestrial gravity is absolutely linked to electrical tension:

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

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

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

Let us go back to the DePalma experiment.

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

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

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

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

Is this clear enough for you?

The Tunguska event is an undeniable proof that there is no curvature between Siberia and London.

How many times do we have to go through this?

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Do not pretend you do not understand the immediate conclusion: since the light from the explosion itself was SEEN all the way from London, while AT THE SAME TIME the light from the supposed heliocentrical sun COULD NOT BE SEEN AT ALL means that the Sun DOES NOT ORBIT AT THE ACCEPTED 149,000,000 KM DISTANCE FROM EARTH.

A clear proof that the Sun, in the now proven geocentric context, is much smaller than the Earth itself.

Tesla did not use Hertzian waves, please read his own statements on the subject.

Please read very carefully, excerpts from a very good biography of N. Tesla:

The modern day concept of electricity is pretty straightforward. Electrical current is defined by the motion of electrons traveling through a conductive material -- usually a metal such as copper. With a few basic formulas engineers are able to electrify our world, keeping our lights and appliances running.

However, there are some researchers who argue that mainstream science ignores the "true" nature of electricity, and what really constitutes electric current. They claim mainstream science incorrectly eliminated the concept of the aether, or the all pervasive medium in which electromagnetic waves were originally thought to travel. By ignoring the work of the early pioneers of electromagnetism, and dumbing down the original equations of Maxwell (the father of electromagnetism) they are obscuring the aether as the true source of electricity.

Nikola Tesla is an example of an individual who was convinced the aether existed, and built systems to harness it for the benefit of mankind. Some of his systems (today known as Tesla coils) used high frequency, high voltage discharges from capacitors to create disturbances in the aether.

One reason it is likely the mainstream understanding of electricity could be in error is because we do not use the original equations of Maxwell. Instead we use "dumbed down" versions that are easier for electricians and engineers to utilize while designing conventional power systems.

In his paper, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" Maxwell listed eight equations (that when broken down to their bare components equaled twenty equations) that would explain all of electromagnetism. Later, Oliver Heaviside reduced these twenty equations down to only four, in a simpler form of math. In doing so, he eliminated all the possibilities that were allowed for in the original work of Maxwell. For example, the aether and longitudinal waves.

If we are willing to admit that the dogma taught by mainstream science is not divinely inspired, then we should be open to the possibility our understanding of electricity is wrong. When it comes to Tesla's systems, many propose that the "voltage" flowing through his system was actually a pure form of aether.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 27, 2013, 02:27:51 PM
You have no idea what you are posting.

Airy calculated the Earth's, density, and he was inaccurate. His ether drift experiments obtained a negative result.

I am here to teach you, and you are here to learn.

Pay attention.

Many think it proven long ago that the World orbits the Sun. However, the results of two simple experiments, both performed in the nineteenth century, showed that it is the stars which move, and not the World.

An experiment with a water-filled telescope was performed by the then Astronomer Royal, George Airy (after whom the Airy disc of diffraction theory is named), in 1871, which can be considered to be a variation of an earlier investigation by Franēois Arago, performed with a moving slab of glass in 1810.

Arago showed that either light itself or the luminiferous aether is
dragged along by a moving piece of glass. Fresnel explained the effect
by assuming it was the light-carrying medium (this is called Fresnel
drag). George Stokes explained it via compression of the aether, but
the important point is whether we can tell which one is doing the
moving - the light source or the transparent material. When Arago
investigated this effect with starlight, he concluded that the World
(with respect to which the glass plate was stationary in this instance)
was at rest and that it was the stars that were moving.

"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.)

Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.

AN EXACT CONFIRMATION OF ISAAC NEWTON'S CLEARLY EXPRESSED IDEAS ON TERRESTRIAL GRAVITY AND PLANETARY GRAVITY.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Imagine the refractive index of such a flow of aether.

It is the high density of this aether which can be found BEYOND the Schumann cavity which provides the rotational gravitational force to keep in orbit the sun, moon, stars, planets.

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

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

Read Newton's quotes: he understood that there are TWO gravitational forces at work.

One of them is the terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure exerted by the ether waves.

The other one is of a rotational type.

You want more?

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

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

Those who believe in the concept of attractive gravity (you included) have NO competent faculty of thinking in the matters of science, according to Newton.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 27, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
After all.........It's your website, Sandokhan ! I do hope that you do have fun. ;D

I have had mine, thanks to you !

BTW, have you gotten around to contacting  any of the scientists, engineers, amateur radio operators or any others on or not on  the list I supplied ?  ???

I still think it is your duty to do it yourself. ???  ::)

P.S. Interesting the way the Poll is going  ?  :D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 27, 2013, 03:03:43 PM
OK Sandokhan, we've established already that you can't give a simple answer to anything, thanks for confirming that once again. You do understand that the topic is about the Ham radio vs. Flat Earth measurements, right? It's nothing to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction. Googleotomy posted a simple measurement and a calculation. He was looking for the FE equivalent, if I read his intention right. You responded with page after page of lunacy (no pun intended!) without a single real world measurement or calculation based on one.

I can sort of understand WHY looking at those pictures and videos that you think it looks like the Sun and Moon are closer than they are. They are striking pictures to be sure. But beyond saying that you think it looks like the Sun and Moon are closer than they really are, you haven't yet brought a single measurement that you or anyone else has take that you can base a calculation on. I suspect you know how to do basic math, so I can only conclude that you don't have any measurements.

Since you threatened to post the Black Sun pictures yet again, as if that would prove something it didn't before, I can only guess that you either have a real mental health problem (in which case I am concerned for you and I suggest you seek professional help) or you are pretending to have a real mental health problem (in which case you are a stinky troll and I suggest you seek professional help).

In conclusion, Sandokhan is an outstanding member of the FES, and also has no idea what he's talking about.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 27, 2013, 03:24:28 PM
OK Sandokhan, we've established already that you can't give a simple answer to anything, thanks for confirming that once again. You do understand that the topic is about the Ham radio vs. Flat Earth measurements, right? It's nothing to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction. Googleotomy posted a simple measurement and a calculation. He was looking for the FE equivalent, if I read his intention right. You responded with page after page of lunacy (no pun intended!) without a single real world measurement or calculation based on one.

I can sort of understand WHY looking at those pictures and videos that you think it looks like the Sun and Moon are closer than they are. They are striking pictures to be sure. But beyond saying that you think it looks like the Sun and Moon are closer than they really are, you haven't yet brought a single measurement that you or anyone else has take that you can base a calculation on. I suspect you know how to do basic math, so I can only conclude that you don't have any measurements.

Since you threatened to post the Black Sun pictures yet again, as if that would prove something it didn't before, I can only guess that you either have a real mental health problem (in which case I am concerned for you and I suggest you seek professional help) or you are pretending to have a real mental health problem (in which case you are a stinky troll and I suggest you seek professional help).

In conclusion, Sandokhan is an outstanding member of the FES, and also has no idea what he's talking about.

I really can't help from commenting on those pictures.

IMHO :
One of them could just as easily be a picture of a cardboard cutout in front of a bright flood light and just a few feet in front of the person in the picture. My field of expertise (if you want to call it that, but I would say it is more just my field of experience) is radio and radar and I'm just an amateur as far as photography is concerned but they show me absolutely nothing about sizes and distances to the moon and sun. IMHO it's really rather absurd to post them to claim that the distance to the moon is 15KM. I might add the most absurd thing I have ever seen so far.

IMHO :Here is a little about scientists, engineers and technicians. :
Scientists figure out how things work.
Engineers design things and how to make them work from the work the scientists have done.
As for us lowly technicians and amateur radio operators, we're the lazy louts in the chain. We just put the fruits of the works of the scientists and engineers to practical uses.

I probably shouldn't say this since Sandokhan is bound to read this....Or maybe not. I sometimes wonder if he does read any posts but his own......But that includes measuring the distance from the earth to the moon by "Moon Bounce."

And you're right Shmeggley. All  I  really just wanted was to see how FE computed the 15KM distance to compare it with the methods and results of "Moon Bounce."

And Shmeggley, you may find this hard to believe, but believe it or not I find my self in complete agreement with your post ! LOL !

Sandokhan I've saved you the trouble of looking them up, but here are two contacts for  a start.:

225 Main Street
Newington, Connecticut 06111-1494, United States of America
Telephone : 850 - 494 - 0297

Mc Donald Observatory Visitor Center
3640 Dark Star Drive
Fort Davis, Texas 79734 , United States of America
Telephone : 432 - 426 - 3640

I double dare you to call or write them a letter ! LOL !
Or you can go directly to their websites, just search on "arrl" or "mc donald observatory."
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 27, 2013, 08:27:23 PM
You do understand that the topic is about the Ham radio vs. Flat Earth measurements, right? It's nothing to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction.

It has everything to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction, since both exist.

Maxwell's truncated equations refer only to Hertzian temporary ripples in the ether sea.

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of the scalar waves.

Since Tesla actually invented radio wave theory, and at the same time he NEVER used Hertzian e/m waves, perhaps this fact alone might lead you to rethink your statement.

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:

'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' Certainly not, I replied, these are radiations....
What will it take for the RE to understand that Tesla did not use Hertzian waves to transmit energy?

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

One reason it is likely the mainstream understanding of electricity could be in error is because we do not use the original equations of Maxwell. Instead we use "dumbed down" versions that are easier for electricians and engineers to utilize while designing conventional power systems.

In his paper, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" Maxwell listed eight equations (that when broken down to their bare components equaled twenty equations) that would explain all of electromagnetism. Later, Oliver Heaviside reduced these twenty equations down to only four, in a simpler form of math. In doing so, he eliminated all the possibilities that were allowed for in the original work of Maxwell. For example, the aether and longitudinal waves.

If we are willing to admit that the dogma taught by mainstream science is not divinely inspired, then we should be open to the possibility our understanding of electricity is wrong.

Maxwell's original equations unite terrestrial gravity and electricity, as proved by both F. Nipher and B. DePalma.

I. Newton's comment about mental health applies ONLY to those who believe in attractive gravity, such as yourself.

Since believing in attractive gravity is a serious sign of delusion, according to Newton himself, then this delusion is best kept alive denying the very obvious facts which can be seen with the naked eye in the transit videos and the photographs from Antarctica: the 149,000,000 km are nowhere to be found, as the ISS passes right in front of the Sun, and the 384,000 km are nowhere to be found as the "Moon" is located just some hundred of km from F. Bruenjes.

Your words (each and every RE's words) were: MASSIVE COMPRESSION.

Since this compression is not due to the equipment used, as it cannot be in the real world, the missing 149,000,000 km are just that: a sure sign that you are mistaken, and that the Sun orbits the flat earth at a much lower altitude than previously thought.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

This alone proves that we find ourselves in a geocentric context, where the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, and that my assertions are perfectly correct.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 27, 2013, 10:09:53 PM
I really never thought something so simple as the Moon Bounce  subject would go so long.
My apologies for starting it in the first place to anyone who got bored with the whole thing .

So I'll keep this post short.

It's too bad that FE people just don't understand how things are in the real world. Or maybe they just don't want to know.

Moon Bounce works and Radar works to determine distances and they both depend on the same principle using the speed of radio waves. (That's what we simply call them in the real world : "radio waves".) The 300,000 KM per second constant also has to be used in desiging the lengths of antennas for example. It works all the time.

Photography works and we know what to expect in a photo in the real world.

And of lot other things that we know for a fact such as distances and sizes of the moon, the sun,  et cetera, et cetera and so forth. .

We have to make a living doing things in the real world that Sandokhan says is impossible in the Flat Earth world.

But nobody is ever going to be able to change the minds of FE people. Simple as that.

I will leave that to the others.

However, I AM happy to see that the Flat Earth Society Forum  is up and running again after crashing .  :D

Here  is a reference to amateur radio.:

"200 Meters And Down", by Clinton De Soto is a good book on Amateur Radio of the early days.
http://www.arrl.org/shop/200-Meters-and-Down/ (http://www.arrl.org/shop/200-Meters-and-Down/)
The book got mixed reviews. But being a History Nerd, that is to be expected.  ;D
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/5030 (http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/5030)

P.S. I am still waiting for a report from Sandokhan for his discussions with the ARRL and Mc Donald Observatory in reference to the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon. I have supplied contact information for contact by mail or telephone and both sources can also be contacted online for information.

I know how easy it is  to contact the ARRL. Although my contact was not on the subject of this thread. I visited the ARRL HQ several years ago and was planning another visit in the future and they responded with information on visiting hours, etc. including Amateur Radio Station W1AW. So there's no problem in communicating (pardon the pun) with the ARRL online. I can even contact them directly through W1AW. (I have also visited W1AW too.)

I have contacted Mc Donald Observatory, too. Although the contact was also not on this subject either. I had attended a "Star Party" several years ago and was also planning a future visit , so they sent me information on dates and times and also answered a question about when was the best time to go. (During the "New Moon" phase when more stars can be seen.) So there is no probem in contacting Mc Donald Observatory online either.

These are the two of the best places I could think of for Sandokhan to discuss the question of the distance from the earth to the moon. Since it's so simple to contact them I am wondering why Sandokhan has not done it so far.  ???
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 29, 2013, 01:24:49 PM
You do understand that the topic is about the Ham radio vs. Flat Earth measurements, right? It's nothing to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction.

It has everything to do with scalar ether waves and aether refraction, since both exist.

Maxwell's truncated equations refer only to Hertzian temporary ripples in the ether sea.

Maxwell's original equations prove the existence of the scalar waves.

Maybe you'd care to explain how his original equations prove this?

Quote
Since Tesla actually invented radio wave theory, and at the same time he NEVER used Hertzian e/m waves, perhaps this fact alone might lead you to rethink your statement.

Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:

'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' Certainly not, I replied, these are radiations....
What will it take for the RE to understand that Tesla did not use Hertzian waves to transmit energy?

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

Nevertheless Tesla's wireless power transmission is well understood without the concept of ether. Use of telluric currents to transmit energy through the sea or earth is nothing new or surprising. Can you explain why an ether is necessary for this to work? Preferably without copy pasting?

Quote
One reason it is likely the mainstream understanding of electricity could be in error is because we do not use the original equations of Maxwell. Instead we use "dumbed down" versions that are easier for electricians and engineers to utilize while designing conventional power systems.

In his paper, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" Maxwell listed eight equations (that when broken down to their bare components equaled twenty equations) that would explain all of electromagnetism. Later, Oliver Heaviside reduced these twenty equations down to only four, in a simpler form of math. In doing so, he eliminated all the possibilities that were allowed for in the original work of Maxwell. For example, the aether and longitudinal waves.

If we are willing to admit that the dogma taught by mainstream science is not divinely inspired, then we should be open to the possibility our understanding of electricity is wrong.

If it's wrong then can you explain why it's wrong and how it should be corrected? I'm sure physicists around the world would love to hear about this revolutionary new theory.

Quote
Maxwell's original equations unite terrestrial gravity and electricity, as proved by both F. Nipher and B. DePalma.

I thought I explained why the DePalma experiment didn't prove anything. Nobody replicated his results. Even assuming his results were real, you haven't explained why this refutes gravity and more importantly, how the theory needs to be changed to work properly

Quote
I. Newton's comment about mental health applies ONLY to those who believe in attractive gravity, such as yourself.

Newton was not a psychologist, so who cares? Newton was wrong about alchemy, and he was wrong about the ether.

Quote
Since believing in attractive gravity is a serious sign of delusion, according to Newton himself, then this delusion is best kept alive denying the very obvious facts which can be seen with the naked eye in the transit videos and the photographs from Antarctica: the 149,000,000 km are nowhere to be found, as the ISS passes right in front of the Sun, and the 384,000 km are nowhere to be found as the "Moon" is located just some hundred of km from F. Bruenjes.

Your words (each and every RE's words) were: MASSIVE COMPRESSION.

Since this compression is not due to the equipment used, as it cannot be in the real world, the missing 149,000,000 km are just that: a sure sign that you are mistaken, and that the Sun orbits the flat earth at a much lower altitude than previously thought.

Quote
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

This alone proves that we find ourselves in a geocentric context, where the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, and that my assertions are perfectly correct.

Again, it does not prove anything, other than that people in London saw light. How do you know it wasn't light from the meteor as it passed through the atmosphere, which might have been visible from London? There's nothing in the report that says the the light seen in London had to be from the impact and explosion itself.

Quote

Being convinced you are right and sane is perfectly consistent with being deluded.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 29, 2013, 02:19:10 PM
Sandokhan Quote -
"One reason it is likely the mainstream understanding of electricity could be in error is because we do not use the original equations of Maxwell. Instead we use "dumbed down" versions that are easier for electricians and engineers to utilize while designing conventional power systems.

In his paper, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" Maxwell listed eight equations (that when broken down to their bare components equaled twenty equations) that would explain all of electromagnetism. Later, Oliver Heaviside reduced these twenty equations down to only four, in a simpler form of math. In doing so, he eliminated all the possibilities that were allowed for in the original work of Maxwell. For example, the aether and longitudinal waves.

If we are willing to admit that the dogma taught by mainstream science is not divinely inspired, then we should be open to the possibility our understanding of electricity is wrong. " - Sandokhan Unquote

Another suggested source of contact for Sandokhan to discuss the above:

Electrical Engineering Professors and Students at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
You might include Physics, too.

Sandokhan seems to delight in posting endless "pasta." Two can play this game. Here is some more "pasta" from wikieup to add to the post.: LOL.

"The distance to the Moon is calculated approximately using this equation:
Distance = (Speed of light × Time taken for light to reflect) .
In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2½ seconds is affected by the relative motion of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects. Nonetheless, the Earth-Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years. The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages about 384,467 kilometers (238,897 miles).

At the Moon's surface, the beam is only about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (approximately two miles) away. The reflected light is too weak to be seen with the human eye: out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one will be received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. They can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic. This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to one hundredth of an inch. As of 2002[update] work is progressing on increasing the accuracy of the Earth-Moon measurements to near millimeter accuracy, though the performance of the reflectors continues to degrade with age."

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2013, 05:14:23 AM
The Tunguska event was not caused by a meteorite, asteroid or a comet.

I thought you understood this much.

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.

The most startling evidence concerns the path of the object:

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

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

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60ŗ55' N, 101ŗ57' E (LeMaire 1980).

Felix Zigel, professor of aerodynamics (Moscow Aviation Institute) and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region.

"It is clear that the Tungus cosmic body ... could not have been a comet," wrote the geophysicist A.V.
Zolotov, speaking for many of his fellow Soviet scientists. "Neither could it have been a normal ice,
stone, or iron meteorite. The Tungus body obviously represents a new yet unknown, much more
complicated phenomenon of nature than has been encountered up to this time."

The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.

You have not done your homework, obviously.

The explosion was seen instantaneously across Europe, moreover the trajectory itself was also observed/seen from London:

Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself.  I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.

We are told that the rays of light from the Sun (and it was morning over Siberia on June 30, at 7:20 am) cannot reach, for example, London, at the same time, due to the curvature; then NOTHING could have been observed/seen from Tunguska as well on a globe; an explosion on one side of a globe could not possibly influence in any way visual observations on the other side of the same globe; the visual range limit for the Tunguska explosion, on that cloudless day, is just 400 km.

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

Therefore, you are out of luck: no other astronomical event occurred at 0:00 - 0:30 am at that time, other than the Tunguska event.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

This alone proves that we find ourselves in a geocentric context, where the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, and that my assertions are perfectly correct.

Since the Earth is actually flat, the Sun must be smaller than the Earth itself.

We are no longer debating the 149,000,000 km distance or the 384,000 km distance: these have been proved WRONG by the Tunguska event.

Since believing in attractive gravity is a serious sign of delusion, according to Newton himself, then this delusion is best kept alive denying the very obvious facts which can be seen with the naked eye in the transit videos and the photographs from Antarctica: the 149,000,000 km are nowhere to be found, as the ISS passes right in front of the Sun, and the 384,000 km are nowhere to be found as the "Moon" is located just some hundred of km from F. Bruenjes.

Your words (each and every RE's words) were: MASSIVE COMPRESSION.

Since this compression is not due to the equipment used, as it cannot be in the real world, the missing 149,000,000 km are just that: a sure sign that you are mistaken, and that the Sun orbits the flat earth at a much lower altitude than previously thought.

Scott Bideau:

Lens compression doesnt technically exist. There is no magic in a lens that changes physics and compresses a scene. The compression is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject.

There you have it: the distance is all that matters.

And that distance if very small as proven the Tunguska event.

As for the other questions, they were already very well explained here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1499261.html#msg1499261 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1499261.html#msg1499261)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:22:44 AM
We already know that you can cut and paste a wall of text, now can you prove that you actually understand it and summarize how this proves the things you claim, preferably with the maths to work out the distance to the moon.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 30, 2013, 10:19:27 AM
Since I suppose I am to blame for starting this mess of this subject in the first place, perhaps I should make a comment that both sides of this question should be more respectful of both sides of the question of who is right and who is wrong on this subject, which originally was the subject of the distance from the earth to the moon and how it was computed. And refrain from making insulting comments. I supose I am as guilty as any in my zeal to explain the Ham Radio side of the subject.

There are all sorts of weird cults, sects, groups and so forth who may have beliefs that sound weird and strange to the other side, but both RE's and FE's should be more respectful of each side of the question on this forum. In the future I shall try to be more tolerant, even though I may have a few reservations about some of the material  posted by the other side of the question.

And ..... Please Understand......I do not mean to be mean, insulting or  judgmental, but I am only reporting what I hear......But....From what I have heard there are some who believe that one such group are the weirdest of all of  these.:

Namely :
The millions of Amateur Radio Operators, who are strangely but duly legally licensed in their respective countries to practice their hobby.  And the weirdest of all are the hundreds of those persons who engage in bouncing radio waves off the moon in their "Moon Bounce" operations on the Amateur Radio "Bands" of frequencies.

This is all just "hearsay evidence" and probably would or wouldn't stand up in a court of law. ???
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 30, 2013, 10:31:39 AM
We already know that you can cut and paste a wall of text, now can you prove that you actually understand it and summarize how this proves the things you claim, preferably with the maths to work out the distance to the moon.

I'll post mine again.:

Example of the "Moon Bounce" Operation presented.:
Aim an antenna at the moon. Transmit a signal . Wait for the signal to return to the receiver. Note the time for the signal to go to the moon and return. Use this time to compute the distance using the speed of radio waves. Multiply the one way time by the value of the speed of radio waves to compute the distance.

For this example the time interval between the transmission to the moon and back was measured at  2.55 seconds for the "round trip" from the earth to the moon and return. Half of that time was 1.275 seconds for the "one way" trip to the moon or the "one way" trip to the earth.

1.275 Seconds (Measured one way time to or from the moon) times 186,000 Miles Per Second (Speed of radio waves) equals 237,150 Miles

1.275 Seconds (Measured one way time to or from the moon) times 300,000 Kilometers Per Second (Speed of radio waves) equals 382,500 Kilometers

See previous posts for proofs from other reliable souces of this figure for the distance from the earth to the moon. (They are definitely not "fabrications")  ;D

Caveat: The "Moon Bounce" figures are not as exact as those made by Astronomical Observatories, but  nevertheless are fairly close approximations.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 30, 2013, 11:39:24 AM
The calculations are very simple.

The light from the explosion was seen from London across a distance which encompasses seven time zones.

Do not pretend you have not read my messages until now.

The additional information can be found by doing a simple search: the visual obstacle from London, the eyewitness accounts from the Gobi desert and lake Baikal.

This alone proves that the surface of the Earth is actually flat. Moreover, it proves that the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The DePalma experiment has been confirmed hundreds of times by Russian physicists (see the references already provided earlier). It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the fallacy of the "law" of universal gravitation.

The best and the most correct proofs: that is why sanity is the hallmark of the flat earth theory. To believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water simply stay glued to the surface of the round earth without attractive gravity would mean to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of psychiatry.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 30, 2013, 12:07:43 PM
As I previously remarked, I am going to try to not make any further remarks on Sandokhan's posts even if I do have a few reservations.  ;D

He is quite welcome to make any on my posts, however.

It's fair game for everyone else, though. I shall not attempt to interfere with same.  ;D

Sandokhan I am sure there are other persons on this forum who would be interested in reports on your contacts with the ARRL and Mc Donald Observatory. Please post them as soon as possible. Thank you.  :) I've done my homework on that area.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on May 30, 2013, 12:08:55 PM
The calculations are very simple.
Does this mean that you are finally going to show the calculations?

Quote
The light from the explosion was seen from London across a distance which encompasses seven time zones.

Do not pretend you have not read my messages until now.

The additional information can be found by doing a simple search: the visual obstacle from London, the eyewitness accounts from the Gobi desert and lake Baikal.

This alone proves that the surface of the Earth is actually flat. Moreover, it proves that the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The DePalma experiment has been confirmed hundreds of times by Russian physicists (see the references already provided earlier). It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the fallacy of the "law" of universal gravitation.

The best and the most correct proofs: that is why sanity is the hallmark of the flat earth theory. To believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water simply stay glued to the surface of the round earth without attractive gravity would mean to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of psychiatry.
Umm...  None of that counts as showing calculations.  I can tell because calculations involve numbers and mathematical operators and you didn't provide either.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 30, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
The calculations are very simple.
Does this mean that you are finally going to show the calculations?

Quote
The light from the explosion was seen from London across a distance which encompasses seven time zones.

Do not pretend you have not read my messages until now.

The additional information can be found by doing a simple search: the visual obstacle from London, the eyewitness accounts from the Gobi desert and lake Baikal.

This alone proves that the surface of the Earth is actually flat. Moreover, it proves that the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

The DePalma experiment has been confirmed hundreds of times by Russian physicists (see the references already provided earlier). It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the fallacy of the "law" of universal gravitation.

The best and the most correct proofs: that is why sanity is the hallmark of the flat earth theory. To believe that 1000 billion trillion liters of water simply stay glued to the surface of the round earth without attractive gravity would mean to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of psychiatry.
Umm...  None of that counts as showing calculations.  I can tell because calculations involve numbers and mathematical operators and you didn't provide either.

Markjo and Sandokhan:
Umm......Do you need any further information on "Moon Bounce" ? Do I need to elaborate further on the means and ends of the calculations involved ?

Umm...Broke my rule but couldn't resist this.:
Sandokhan:
"The best and the most correct proofs (Insert ?????) : that is why (Insert insanity)  sanity is the hallmark of the flat earth theory....."

Amended as marked without comment. ;D
"De debil made me do it.": ::)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 30, 2013, 02:22:57 PM
Just a reminder to sandokhan, when the sun goes behind the horizon or in my case, behind the mountains, it doesn't get instantly dark. Light makes it around the globe more than just line of sight.

Quote from: sandokhan
You have not done your homework, obviously.
So I was actually helping with research and I took some pictures.
Here is just a small part of the instruments wavelength guide.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07061.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07061.jpg.html)
And here is a picture from an actual method.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07071.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07071.jpg.html)
Strange how it goes against what you say about EM but there it is. I think I know who really needs to do there homework. I suggest you also take a field trip, preferable somehere after the year 1910.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Shmeggley on May 30, 2013, 02:30:13 PM
Just a reminder to sandokhan, when the sun goes behind the horizon or in my case, behind the mountains, it doesn't get instantly dark. Light makes it around the globe more than just line of sight.

Quote from: sandokhan
You have not done your homework, obviously.
So I was actually helping with research and I took some pictures.
Here is just a small part of the instruments wavelength guide.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07061.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07061.jpg.html)
And here is a picture from an actual method.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07071.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07071.jpg.html)
Strange how it goes against what you say about EM but there it is. I think I know who really needs to do there homework. I suggest you also take a field trip, preferable somehere after the year 1910.

So were you using Hertzian or Longitudinal waves there? Because that makes a huge difference you know.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 30, 2013, 02:37:49 PM
They are normal electromagnetic transverse waves. The ones that don't exist because Tesla used longitudinal waves so it means transverse waves don't exist because Tesla didn't use them.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on May 31, 2013, 03:13:23 AM
What will it take for everybody to understand the difference between e/m waves and Tesla waves?

An ether wave is a transverse wave.

These waves are made up of subquark strings.

These subquark strings consists of bosons which propagate LONGITUDINALLY inside the ether waves themselves.

Tesla never used e/m waves, that is, ripples of the ether waves. Instead he sent the signal/energy directly through the bosons longitudinally.

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

Another confirmation of the existence of ether waves.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect (http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect)

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/gravitor/gravitor.htm)

# (http://#)]Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil

# (http://#)]Biefeld-Brown Effect

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown)

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html (http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html)

T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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

And, of course, a confirmation of the original Maxwell equations' implications:

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

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

The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

Neither Lorentz nor Einstein seemed to have been aware of the contents of Maxwell‟s original papers, while both of them seemed to be under the impression that they were fixing something that wasn‟t broken in the first place. In doing so, Einstein managed to drop the luminiferous aether out of physics altogether, claiming that he was basing his investigation on what he had read in the so-called Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space‟! But whatever these Maxwell-Hertz equations might have been, they certainly can‟t have been Maxwell‟s original equations.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on May 31, 2013, 04:01:31 AM
What will it take for everybody to understand the difference between e/m waves and Tesla waves?
What will it take for you to realize Tesla waves are EM waves?

Quote
An ether wave is a transverse wave.

These waves are made up of subquark strings.

These subquark strings consists of bosons which propagate LONGITUDINALLY inside the ether waves themselves.

Tesla never used e/m waves, that is, ripples of the ether waves. Instead he sent the signal/energy directly through the bosons longitudinally.

"... It is too noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of TRUE CONDUCTION AND IS NOT TO BE CONFOUNDED WITH THE PHENOMENA OF ELECTRICAL RADIATION which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically IMPOSSIBLE THE TRANSMISSION OF ANY APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF ENERGY TO SUCH DISTANCES as are of practical importance. ..."

Obviously, Nikola Tesla accentuates that his "energy-transfer-waves" ARE NOT HERTZIAN !!!.

"... It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space IN THE FORM OF HERTZIAN OR ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES IS VERY SMALL. "

Another confirmation of the existence of ether waves.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect (http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect)

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Dr. Townsend Brown patents:

T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

And, of course, a confirmation of the original Maxwell equations' implications:

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

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

The simple vector equations produced by Heaviside and Gibbs captured only that subset of Maxwell's theory where EM and gravitation are mutually exclusive. In that subset, electromagnetic circuits and equipment will not ever, and cannot ever, produce gravitational or inertial effects in materials and equipment.

Neither Lorentz nor Einstein seemed to have been aware of the contents of Maxwell‟s original papers, while both of them seemed to be under the impression that they were fixing something that wasn‟t broken in the first place. In doing so, Einstein managed to drop the luminiferous aether out of physics altogether, claiming that he was basing his investigation on what he had read in the so-called Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space‟! But whatever these Maxwell-Hertz equations might have been, they certainly can‟t have been Maxwell‟s original equations.
My pictures show you are wrong. You didn't even address them. There are so many more scientific instruments that show the current electromagnetic spectrum to be correct.You just don't know because you sit at your computer thinking experiments from 1910 can't be shown to be incorrect.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 31, 2013, 10:06:48 AM
Things don't go as planned on this forum.  :'((The understatement of the year !  ;D

This what I had really planned for this subject.:

Post #1 :OP: The method and results of Ham Radio Measurements are explained along with results from other sources as to the distance from the earth to the moon and the size of the moon. (Figures and methods for computation are shown.)

Post #2 : FE Response: This is the method and the results from FE for the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon and the size of the moon. (Figures and methods for computations are shown.)

Post #3 : RE Response: Thank you for your explanation. I just wanted to see how FE computed and results for comparison. Thanks again. I'll just start a poll - This is just for a matter of opinion anyway. Readers : Please vote for what is your opinion as to the question in point.

This subject could have ended there on the first page. I had hoped it would have been as simple as that.

That was all I really wanted. But this thread got de-railed more times than one of those old time railroads. :P
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: FlatOrange on May 31, 2013, 03:06:37 PM
The calculations are very simple.

The light from the explosion was seen from London across a distance which encompasses seven time zones.

Do not pretend you have not read my messages until now.

The additional information can be found by doing a simple search: the visual obstacle from London, the eyewitness accounts from the Gobi desert and lake Baikal.

This alone proves that the surface of the Earth is actually flat. Moreover, it proves that the Sun is much smaller than the Earth.

Across 7 time zones is not the route light would take, it is a much shorter route following an arc. Additionally, longitude lines are closer and closer near the poles. And, being a meteor it could've easily streaked across the sky lighting much more places than where it hit.

The Tunguska explosion doesn't prove the earth is flat.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on May 31, 2013, 05:15:26 PM

(http://i45.tinypic.com/334n0yc.png)

I'm not sure if the measurement was actually made, or if it was purely theoretical, but it was most definitely flawed.

The great thing about this forum is that it has made me think of many new ways of testing the shape of the earth without bias. By that i mean, developing an experiment based on very simple principles and making no assumption about the earth's shape, taking  bunch of measurements, and asking the question "what does this tell me about the shape of the earth? Does it fit a flat earth, or a round earth?" Most of the time, it fits a round earth. The rest of the time, it fits both equally well, which makes those experiments inconclusive.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 31, 2013, 05:57:54 PM
Thanks very much Scintific Method :.
That was all that  I had been looking for on lo, these 18 pages.
I should have done the research myself, but I was hoping some FE would do it.
Just one example.:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/ (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/)

Edited. Deleted due to low content.

Scintific Method :
P.S.
Seriously, I do agree with you  that this forum does get you to thinking about a lot of things and in the process makes you do a bit of research and reviewing of things you learned long ago in physics and other science subjects and subjects such as radio , photography and astronomy going way back to your High School and College days.

My signature line was first made up just in jest as a parody from an old quote *, but I believe it fairly well sums it up as far as The Flat Earth Society Forum is concerned.
* (Billy Rose, 1936 : "Come to Fort Worth for entertainment. Go to Dallas for education.")

Thanks again for your participation. I'm going to hand this off back to the FE-ers and try to depart the scene of the crime as best I can. ;D

P.P.S.
And even if Sandokhan doesn't take me up on my invitations, I am hoping to make some repeat visits to Newington, Connecticut and Mount Locke, Texas !

EDITED: Correction : Should have directed this to Scintific Method but thanks also due to Sokarul and all others.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on May 31, 2013, 08:29:43 PM
Just a reminder to sandokhan, when the sun goes behind the horizon or in my case, behind the mountains, it doesn't get instantly dark. Light makes it around the globe more than just line of sight.

Quote from: sandokhan
You have not done your homework, obviously.
So I was actually helping with research and I took some pictures.
Here is just a small part of the instruments wavelength guide.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07061.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07061.jpg.html)
And here is a picture from an actual method.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_07071.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_07071.jpg.html)
Strange how it goes against what you say about EM but there it is. I think I know who really needs to do there homework. I suggest you also take a field trip, preferable somehere after the year 1910.

So were you using Hertzian or Longitudinal waves there? Because that makes a huge difference you know.

Also notice the afterglow after sunset, especially if there are high clouds on the horizon.......
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Puttah on May 31, 2013, 10:55:54 PM

(http://i45.tinypic.com/334n0yc.png)

I'm not sure if the measurement was actually made, or if it was purely theoretical, but it was most definitely flawed.

The great thing about this forum is that it has made me think of many new ways of testing the shape of the earth without bias. By that i mean, developing an experiment based on very simple principles and making no assumption about the earth's shape, taking  bunch of measurements, and asking the question "what does this tell me about the shape of the earth? Does it fit a flat earth, or a round earth?" Most of the time, it fits a round earth. The rest of the time, it fits both equally well, which makes those experiments inconclusive.

I find the measurements to find the height of the sun on a flat Earth quite amusing considering that not only does it give varying heights for different angles of measurement, but because of bendy light theory which has been proposed to account for the anomaly for why the sun seems to fall below the horizon, even the 3000 mile high sun cannot be correct since light is supposed to be bending.

So an FEer tries to make an FE calculation, comes up with a value, then makes up more theories to help answer unexplainable observations which then causes the initial calculation to be wrong because it didn't take their most recent theory into account.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on June 01, 2013, 08:55:16 AM
flatorange, the Tunguska event was not caused by a meteorite, asteroid or comet. Please read carefully, and avoid such silly mistakes in the future:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1499960.html#msg1499960 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1499960.html#msg1499960)

The Tunguska event proves very clearly that the Earth is actually flat.

Newspapers could be read at midnight in London, photographs could be taken outdoors in Stockholm without flash apparatus; no other meteorological/astronomical phenomenon occurred at that time in the world, no such records exist.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

This alone proves that we find ourselves in a geocentric context, where the Sun is much smaller than the Earth itself, and that my assertions are perfectly correct.

Eyewitness account:

Nizshne-Karelinskoye (465 km). Extremely bright (it was impossible to look at it) luminous body was seen rather high in the north-western sky soon after 8 a.m. It looked like a tube (cylinder) and for 10 minutes moved down to the ground. The sky was clear, but only in the side, where the body was seen, a small dark cloud was present low above the horizon. While coming to the ground, the body dispersed (flattened) and at this place a large puff of black smoke appeared. Then a flame emanated from this cloud.

500 meter altitude - 11.6 km visual obstacle
800 meter altitude - 10.4 km visual obstacle
1000 meters altitude - 9.7 km visual obstacle

At around 7:15 a.m., Tungus natives and Russian settlers in the hills northwest of Lake Baikal observed a column of bluish light, nearly as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky. About 10 minutes later, there was a flash and a loud "knocking" sound similar to artillery fire that went in short bursts spaced increasingly wider apart.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june302008/tunguska_day_6-30-08.php)

That is when Tungus natives and others living in the hills northwest of Russia's Lake Baikal reported seeing a column of bluish light, that they described as being almost as bright as the Sun, moving across the sky.

A few minutes later they reported a flash and a sound that many said resembled artillery fire. The accompanying shock wave broke windows thousands of miles away from the impact zone, and knocked countless numbers of people to the ground.

Even if we take a 560 km distance to Tunguska, and a 1 km altitude (although Lake Baikal is located at some 435 meters in elevation), the visual obstacle will measure 15.5 km, no way for anybody located at Lake Baikal to have seen the explosion itself.

Let us ascend to 1,6 km in altitude at Lake Baikal; even then, the visual obstacle will measure 13.66 km.

Even the original trajectory (10 minutes duration) was seen from London before the actual explosion:

... we saw it between 12 oclock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.

Here is a diagram of what this would look like.  The large circle represents a  cutaway of a spherical Earth.  I divided the Earth into 24 evenly spaced time zones.  Point A represents an event happening.  Point B represents an observer 7 time zones away.  The line extending along the horizon at point B represents the line of view of the person at that point.  He would never see the event happen.

(http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx38/jorroa5990/Screenshotfrom2012-09-26082347.png)

Maxwell's original equations fulfill the dream of each and every physicist.

They unite terrestrial gravity and electricity.

J.C. Maxwell's genius was in understanding that there are two types of electrical forces: the dextrorotatory string and the laevorotatory string.

He proved that the a regular electromagnetic wave is made up of two such scalar waves of opposite spin.

The Biefeld Brown effect demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the correctness of the original Maxwell equations.

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)

sokarul, I read your diagrams, they are wonderful. I never doubted your ability to amass disconnected bits of data, no clear idea of context, or overall cognitive goal.

What we are debating here is the existence of ether waves, not their application to spectroscopy.

Remember that light does not split into a spectrum of colors as you have assumed up until now:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310)

The ether waves' existence is clearly proven by DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown, Tesla, Nipher (their extrarordinary experiments).
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on June 01, 2013, 09:17:42 AM
Since I started this thread, and now that the method and result of the FE 3000 mile distance has been explained, I am satisfied and see no  need for further discussion, at least as far as the question of the distance from the earth to the  moon is concerned.

I must confess that the 15KM measurement is still a bit unclear.  ??? To me at least.

The original intent was just to have a comparison of all figures , with information as to how they were computed with measurements from other sources to back up the claims.

If I have made comments and have been overly critical of other results, I apologize for same and retract them and only submit those in reference to the "Ham Radio" Measurements.

Let the distances of 237,150 Miles ; 3000 Miles and I5 Kilometers stand for comparison. Readers of this subject are free to post their opinion on which figure they think is correct on the poll.

However, I realize that this subject could go on and on. But once again. : I'm Satisfied ! Mission Accomplished ! ;D

P.S. I am fond of Italian Cuisine, but there is such a thing as too much pasta.  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on June 01, 2013, 04:47:58 PM
...

The Biefeld Brown effect demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the correctness of the original Maxwell equations.

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

Dr. Brown experimented with umbrella and disk shaped gravitators. The umbrella devices consisted of two electrodes, one positive and one negative, with one electrode shaped like a large bowl and the other like a smaller bowl. Overall, this formed an open-air capacitor but with asymmetric electrodes, whose asymmetric electric fields generated unbalanced gravitational divergences and increased acceleration. The disk gravitators, described earlier, did the same except one electrode formed the leading edge of the disk, while the other electrode formed the body and trailing edge.

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Biefeld-Brown effect tested with Bi-Polar Tesla Coil (http://#)

Biefeld-Brown Effect (http://#)
For what the Biefeld-brown effect really is read here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect)

Quote
sokarul, I read your diagrams, they are wonderful. I never doubted your ability to amass disconnected bits of data, no clear idea of context, or overall cognitive goal.
I get it, science is over your head. They are not diagrams, they are what the ICP-OES was checking for. Those numbers are wavelengths in nm. You cannot say that electromagnetic waves are really ether waves when I use real EM waves all the time. Not in 1910, but right now.

Quote
What we are debating here is the existence of ether waves, not their application to spectroscopy.
I would love to hear how you think different types of spectroscopy can work in your theory.

Quote
Remember that light does not split into a spectrum of colors as you have assumed up until now:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1394310.html#msg1394310)
Scientific instruments show you to be incorrect. So linking to your own argument doesn't do anything. You are going to need to bring a better argument against spectroscopy.

Quote
The ether waves' existence is clearly proven by DePalma, Kozyrev, Brown, Tesla, Nipher (their extrarordinary experiments).
DePalma never made that claim. Tesla never made that claim. All he did was use a different type of wave. Brown did make that claim and then it was retracted. It is known what he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_ioniser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_ioniser) . I must have missed what Kozyrev and Nipher did, but I don't care.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sandokhan on June 02, 2013, 09:07:49 AM
You have not done anything out of the ordinary to access the longitudinal waves.

Of course you will get normal results (the truncated Maxwell equations).

Out of the ordinary = double torsion (DePalma spinning ball, Schauberger turbine), sound (cymatics) or electrical tension (Biefeld-Brown effect).

I am sorry to disappoint your horrendous homework on the Biefeld Brown effect:

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Brown did not retract anything, you are dreaming.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect (http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect)

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown)

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html (http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html)

T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -

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

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

You tried this bullshit before and it did not work.

"Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.

But he does.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2013, 09:44:46 AM
You have not done anything out of the ordinary to access the longitudinal waves.

Of course you will get normal results (the truncated Maxwell equations).

Out of the ordinary = double torsion (DePalma spinning ball, Schauberger turbine), sound (cymatics) or electrical tension (Biefeld-Brown effect).

I am sorry to disappoint your horrendous homework on the Biefeld Brown effect:

Nevertheless, for those wishing to debunk the Biefeld-Brown effect by attributing it entirely to ion wind, it must be pointed out that closed capacitors, the cellular gravitators, also self-accelerate without any ion wind effects. Electrogravity arises primarily from the gravitational component of the electric field, harnessed for propulsion via the asymmetrical gravitational field of electric dipoles. Brown also experimented with disk gravitators in vacuum chambers and observed them accelerating nearly as quickly as when run at atmospheric pressure.

The Biefeld-Brown effect demonstrates a link between electricity and gravity.

Brown did not retract anything, you are dreaming.

BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT

During the period 1919 - 1923,  Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld outlined to his student, Thomas Townsend Brown, certain experiments which led to the discovery of the phenomenon now known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. Further, these experiments helped to define the inter-relationship of electrical and gravitational fields. This coupling effect parallels electricity and magnetism.

The original experiments concerned the behavior of a condenser when charged with electricity. The first startling result was that if placed in a free suspension with the poles horizontal, the condenser, when electrically charged, showed a forward thrust toward the positive pole !!! When the polarity was reversed, it caused a reversal of the direction of thrust.

The intensity or magnitude of the effect is determined by five known factors, namely:

1) The separation of the plates of the condenser - the closer the plates, the greater the effect.

2) The ability of the material between the plates to store electrical energy in the form of elastic stress. A measure of this ability is called the 'K' factor of the material. The higher the 'K', the greater the Biefeld-Brown effect.

3) The area of the condenser plates - the greater area giving the greater effect.

4) The voltage difference between the plates - the greater the voltage, the greater the effect.

5) The mass of the material between the plates - the greater the mass, the greater the effect.

...

T. Townsend Brown, of the greatest American physicists of the 20th century, continued the work done by Dr. Francis Nipher, electricity can alter gravitation attraction -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect)
http://www.sharperimage.com/si/view/category/Ionic-Breeze-Air-Purifier/100280?mainCatId= (http://www.sharperimage.com/si/view/category/Ionic-Breeze-Air-Purifier/100280?mainCatId=)

Quote

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

You tried this bullshit before and it did not work.

"Non spinning ball followed predicted path established by gravity"?  He never made the claim "attractive gravity" is now invalid due to his experiment.

But he does.

Basically the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; present a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical...

Do you understand English? The spinning ball went higher than the identical non-rotating  ball, and fell faster too, a clear violation of the law of attractive gravity.
Yeah gyroscopes do strange things.
(http://)
You are played out.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on June 07, 2013, 07:22:41 AM
Admittedly, this subject has been going on far too long, but I was hoping that Sandokhan would at least take up the suggestion and invitation to contact  ARRL and Mc Donald Observatory for information and discussion on the distance from the earth to the moon.

So far I haven't seen any replies. There are certainly no problems in contacting both sources for information and discussion , either online, by telephone,or in person. Was it too much to suggest those contacts , Sandokhan ?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on June 22, 2013, 02:00:43 PM
Another 2 weeks have gone by and still no reply from sandokhan.  I guess he really is played out.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on June 25, 2013, 08:09:46 PM
The Flat Earth Society Forum has certainly been a source of education. :)

A few things I have learned.:

Most supporters of  FE seem to fall into a pattern. :

I won't call out any specific names.:
Some can't even do simple math, or pretend so.
Some can't even make sensible replies or posts or pretend so.
Some add endless material which makes no sense to the subject at hand. (Some have called it "pasta".)
There is usually an attempt to "derail" a subject, no matter how simple it may be.
Nothing...or being very generous - very little....... in "Flat Earth Theory" seems to make any sense.
There are probably a lot of other details  to add. It would be interesting to see others.

I suppose the Flat Earth Society should be thanked for this website, if only for the amusement and
entertainment value. I rest on my signature line as far as the education value is concerned.

And finally the forum is an interesting place to go and look up things for yourself even in FE seems to be unwilling or unable to do it for themselves.

I notice the Poll is running rather heavily in favor of the "Ham Radio Operator Measurements" at this time. I don't know if this proves anything or not, but it has proved interesting.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on June 25, 2013, 08:19:05 PM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

I nominate that post  for the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this forum. Radio and Radar are exactly the same principle on this topic. I thought everyone knew that RADAR was simply an acronym for "Radio Detection and Ranging" which of course uses radio waves. (There was a lot of "pasta" trying to confuse radio waves as being some other kind of waves). And anyone who reads the newspapers would have seen articles from time to time about amateur radio operators measuring the distance from the earth to the moon. FE members seem to be woefully uninformed on anything (and I suppose that means everything) that doesn't fit into the "Flat Earth Theory" category. And all this aside from values which are nothing new . Et cetera, et cetera and so forth.

Laissez les bon temps rouler !
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on July 07, 2013, 07:43:01 PM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

I nominate that post  for the dumbest thing I have ever seen on this forum. Radio and Radar are exactly the same principle on this topic. I thought everyone knew that RADAR was simply an acronym for "Radio Detection and Ranging" which of course uses radio waves. (There was a lot of "pasta" trying to confuse radio waves as being some other kind of waves). And anyone who reads the newspapers would have seen articles from time to time about amateur radio operators measuring the distance from the earth to the moon. FE members seem to be woefully uninformed on anything (and I suppose that means everything) that doesn't fit into the "Flat Earth Theory" category. And all this aside from values which are nothing new . Et cetera, et cetera and so forth.

Laissez les bon temps rouler !

I'm admittedly making a nuisance of myself by constantly posting from time to time , but I am still awaiting some information from sandokhan to see if he has taken up on my suggestion for contacting The American Radio League or Mc Donald Observatory in regard to a discussion of the differences between their measurements versus The Flat Earth Society specifically in reference to The distance from the earth to the moon and the size of the moon. ???

Since sandokhan hasn't bothered to do so, here is an excerpt .:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
"Nonetheless, the Earth-Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years. The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages about 384,467 kilometers (238,897 miles)."
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 08, 2013, 03:18:04 AM
I hope you realize that people do not want to answer you when you act like an ass.  I am just wondering since you do it a  lot.   :-\
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on July 08, 2013, 03:48:50 PM
If I may say so this is clearly a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

I consider your reply very vulgar and I believe an apology is in order.

I sincerely hope you have no official capacity with the Flat Earth Society as your reply is very vulgar, unprofessional and a discredit to the organization .

All I have asked for is simply a reply from Mr. Sandokhan as to his discussions with the American Radio Relay League and/or Mc Donald Observatory in reference to the question of the Distance from the Earth to the Moon. He seems quite adept at long postings and the results of his contacts would be interesting IMHO.

I have suggested this as courteously as possible. It is merely a suggestion as well as  a cordial invitation.

I have been in contact with both sources myself.
Both of these organizations are open to correspondence from non-members and are glad for discussions and answers to questions .

I just post from time to time to keep up on  the progress of this topic and to see if I have received the courtesy of a reply from Mr. Sandokhan....Which, as of this date, I have not.

If this is truly an open forum website this should be a common courtesy extended to all .
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on July 09, 2013, 07:05:50 PM
I'm going to keep making a nuisance of myself until I get an answer from sandokhan. :D

I have contacted the ARRL to verify the results of the "Ham Radio Moon Bounce" measurements and then I contacted Mc Donald Observatory to see if they coincide. The measurements by "Ham Radio Moon Bounce" are not as accurate as those from Mc Donald Observation but they are close enough for comparison.

All I am asking is for Mr. Sandokhan to call the ARRL and Mc Donald Observation to discuss the differerences in the measurements. It is not necessary to contact the ARRL or Mc Donald Observatory. Any local Amateur Radio Club can verify their measurements and any Observatory can confirm their measurements for comparison with yours,  Mr. Sandokhan. Any High School or College could probably supply the information, too.

Nothing could be simpler.

FES can probably write this off as a mass conspiracy of all the Astronomical Observatories in the world and all the Amateur Radio Operators in the world anyway at all of them arriving at the same figure.  ;D

Cordially yours,
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: FlatOrange on July 11, 2013, 01:08:51 AM
I hope you realize that people do not want to answer you when you act like an ass.  I am just wondering since you do it a  lot.   :-\

He's only doing so because people here say they are after the truth. Googleotomy wants sandokhan to show a desire to investigate the matter at hand.

Of course people who do research and investigate are really just asses.  It's better and kinder to just not care.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on July 11, 2013, 04:52:20 PM
And I have presented the case for the 237,150 miles and seen an illustration explaining the 3,000
miles distance from the earth to the moon and would really like to stop making a nuisance of myself (or whatever you want to call me ) by posting over and over.

But I really would like to see some explanation for the 15 kilometer distance before I give up. ???

I've given up on any further response from sandokhan. ;D :'(
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on July 11, 2013, 04:58:03 PM
I hope you realize that people do not want to answer you when you act like an ass.  I am just wondering since you do it a  lot.   :-\

He's only doing so because people here say they are after the truth. Googleotomy wants sandokhan to show a desire to investigate the matter at hand.

Of course people who do research and investigate are really just asses.  It's better and kinder to just not care.

Thank you flatorange that  was the sole intent of my post.

EDITED 12 JULY 2013 : I must confess this is purely out of a personal interest . This subject is just my one "pet project" and my sole contribution to the Flat Earth Society Forum.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on August 16, 2013, 11:00:35 AM
ITT: RErs confuse ham radio with RADAR and assume some guy in his shed can bounce signals off the moon. In actual fact you need a dish the size of football field and a small power station to yourself, but its something you can do at home and there isn't a sniff of conspiracy about this tall tale.  ::)

Question, if you can bounce radio off the moon, why do you lose reception in a valley?

I will freely, honestly and truthfully state and admit  that I am "bumping" this thread again. ;D

But just an explanation on some basic antenna theory for thork.:

As for the size of an antenna for the "moon bounce" operations.:

The frequencies used for the "moon bounce" by the amateur radio operators are in the Ultra High Frequency range such as 432 Megaherz. Wave length is inverse to frequency, so the wave lengths are very short  and thus antennas do not have to be "a dish the size of a football field."

As you go higher in frequencies to the microwave range - frequencies in the Gigahertz range - the wave lengths become even smaller and you can make even smaller antennas. The beauty about this is that you can make an antenna with higher "gain" or the ability to amplify the power of the transmitter or the sensitivity of the receiver in a smaller space. You can "stack" many of these small antennas to get higher "gain" than just a simple one element antenna.

Amateur radio operators also used radio frequency amplifiers to amplify the small amount of signal received from the "moon bounce" too. All of this is admittedly a rather long explanation of how the "hams" - amateur radio operators are able to do the "moon bounce" - admittedly to no little expense - but within range of some of the more affluent members of the hobby.

All of this was in reference to refute thork's statement about the size of antennas needed to send a signal to the moon and receive the reflection of that signal on the earth, measure the time and compute the distance to the moon. Admittedly not as accurate as the laser beam/reflector measurement of the astronomical observatories - which have now measured the distance within centimeters - but well within the measurements that have been well established facts for years.

In short, you don't need an antenna "the size of a football field" for "moon bounce." Also "moon bounce" and radar are using exactly the same principle - bouncing radio waves off objects to measure the distance.

This might be an exercise to see what the FE response might be in trying to refute or de-bunk this posting.

BTW :
To Sandokhan and thork:
Have you visited or written to any astronomical observatories or amateur radio organization in reference to the distance from the earth to the moon ?
Suggestions:
Mc Donald Observatory, Fort Davis, Texas, USA
American Radio Relay League, Newington, Connecticut, USA

EDITED : 17 AUGUST 2013.
P.S. I might add that hundreds of amateur radio operators have probably done "moon bounce" at one time or another. They have all observed the times for a signal to be sent and received. They have all been close to the same amount of time. Thus the same distance from the earth to the moon. It is definitely not 3000 miles nor is it 15 kilometers. It is definitely somewhere in the order of 237,150 miles. This can be verified by many measurements going back in time to the present measurements using laser beams which have measured the distance to within a few centimeters.

It is no wonder there have been no further posts from FE's.

EDITED: 18 AUGUST 2013.
I will apologize if I seem to keep coming back to this thread, but maybe some facts on radio antenna might be of interest to thork and others. I'm not an expert but I have had some experience on radio antennas. Also the more "elements" or separate antennas you can make in an "array" or a combination of these basic antennas, you can focus the beam of the radio waves  into a smaller "pattern" and they will effectively be more powerful in the case of the transmitted signal or more sensitive in the case of the received signal. That is why some of those ham radio antennas are so complicated with so many "elements" and why there are such large "reflectors" on those radar antennas.

I saw this on another post : Quote - "Your turn, FE."- Unquote
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on August 21, 2013, 11:58:04 AM
"Bumped" again.

Still waiting for a reply from thork and sandokhan or any other FE..
I have visited or been in touch with both sources.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Son of Orospu on August 21, 2013, 12:28:37 PM
Why don't you just go back to the beginning and actually read the replies you have already gotten?  This thread is getting old.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Alex Tomasovich on August 21, 2013, 12:49:25 PM
Why don't you just go back to the beginning and actually read the replies you have already gotten?  This thread is getting old.
It's 19 pages of FEers derailing the thread and avoiding the question (redundant?) First it was terrible math, then questioning whether the moon even exists, and then a whole bunch on the nature of radio waves.

But you're right, this thread is old, and still unanswered. You can kill it by answering it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on August 21, 2013, 02:12:52 PM
Why don't you just go back to the beginning and actually read the replies you have already gotten?  This thread is getting old.
It's 19 pages of FEers derailing the thread and avoiding the question (redundant?) First it was terrible math, then questioning whether the moon even exists, and then a whole bunch on the nature of radio waves.

But you're right, this thread is old, and still unanswered. You can kill it by answering it.

I really ought to stop . It's a hopeless case. Might as well give it up. About to be expected.
Moderator , you can put this in the UCOS files if  you wish .  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 08, 2013, 05:53:33 PM
I know, I know. ;D But I still haven't gotten any answers from an FE. :P

So I'll jest a keep on a bumpin' this thread from time to time. Yee Haw !

Also, as an amateur radio operator, I resent the snide remarks from FE's about Ham Radio Operators. And it's rather amusing to notice their asinine remarks and total ignorance of how radio waves work. Not only on this thread but I have seen it in on some other threads.

IMHO that's what makes this website interesting.

I suppose this will be considered "low posting" or whatever you want to call it  to FE moderators. But it seems this is OK for FE's but not for RE's, even if the RE's are posting just pure facts and evidence.

I think the poll speaks for itself so far. Come on, FE's let's get some more votes from you !

I suppose I really don't need any more answers. RE's have already posted how they got their measurements . The RE's also had to post how the FE's got their measurements. Maybe that should have been enough. But it might be interesting to "get it straight from the horse's mouth"....From an FE direct, that is. Maybe the FE answer is really that old word called "denial."... Or "silence."  ???

An' keep on a'makin a nuisance of mahself to the FE's.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 07:45:52 PM
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: REphoenix on September 09, 2013, 07:48:35 PM
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.
What did you base this claim on?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Pyrolizard on September 09, 2013, 07:50:22 PM
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.
What did you base this claim on?

Ignore him, Phoenix.  He's obviously trolling, and unlike EJ, he's not going away.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 07:53:51 PM
What did you base this claim on?

Do you see any radio communication being used in space? Even satellites supposedly use microwaves and NASA ensures that their moon measurements are light-spectrum based. Even they are not profoundly uneducated enough to think radio waves can reach the moon, because everyone who knows what a radiowave is would scoff at the idea.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Scintific Method on September 09, 2013, 07:56:56 PM
What did you base this claim on?

Do you see any radio communication being used in space? Even satellites supposedly use microwaves and NASA ensures that their moon measurements are light-spectrum based. Even they are not profoundly uneducated enough to think radio waves can reach the moon, because everyone who knows what a radiowave is would scoff at the idea.

Wow. Just, wow. It's going to take me while to come to terms with this level of stupid.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2013, 08:06:21 PM
What did you base this claim on?

Do you see any radio communication being used in space? Even satellites supposedly use microwaves and NASA ensures that their moon measurements are light-spectrum based. Even they are not profoundly uneducated enough to think radio waves can reach the moon, because everyone who knows what a radiowave is would scoff at the idea.
*sigh*
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 08:10:44 PM
Markjo, if I make a distinction between microwave and radio wave, then obviously I'm excluding any overlapping spectra.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 09, 2013, 08:29:33 PM
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.

If you have made that post, you have evidently read it . Why ?

If ignorance is bliss, this guy must be the happiest person on earth ! ....On a flat earth, that is. LOL.

However, I 'm happy to see a few more votes from the FE's. Since this is The Flat Earth Society Forum I was expecting the results of the poll would be the opposite of the present trend.

I sincerely do miss Excelsior John and Sceptimatic.....Haven't had any more pasta from Sandokhan either.  :'(
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2013, 08:41:19 PM
Markjo, if I make a distinction between microwave and radio wave, then obviously I'm excluding any overlapping spectra.
Are you suggesting that there is any distinction between radio waves and microwaves?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 08:49:20 PM
Are you suggesting that there is any distinction between radio waves and microwaves?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave)

There is no one end-all definition for EM spectra, but I thought I was being pretty clear on what I was referring to. Radio waves and microwaves are not always defined to be the same thing.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2013, 08:55:49 PM
Are you suggesting that there is any distinction between radio waves and microwaves?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave)

There is no one end-all definition for EM spectra, but I thought I was being pretty clear on what I was referring to. Radio waves and microwaves are not always defined to be the same thing.
Microwave refers to a range of wavelengths and radio frequencies are classified by wavelength.  So, how are microwaves not radio waves, especially when used for communication purposes?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 08:58:18 PM
Microwave refers to a range of wavelengths and radio frequencies are classified by wavelength.  So, how are microwaves not radio waves, especially when used for communication purposes?

I never said microwaves are not radio waves.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 09, 2013, 09:11:53 PM
I never said microwaves are not radio waves.

That was the obvious implication when you said this:
Do you see any radio communication being used in space? Even satellites supposedly use microwaves and NASA ensures that their moon measurements are light-spectrum based.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 09, 2013, 09:43:34 PM
That was the obvious implication when you said this:

There was no implication, I said exactly what I meant to say. The only problem seems to be on your end. Do you think that all radio waves are microwaves?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 12:30:37 AM
Quote from: Rushy
I never said microwaves are not radio waves.
Quote from: Rushy
Even satellites supposedly use microwaves

Can I conclude that satellites supposedly use radio wave?

Quote from: Rushy
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2013, 05:03:16 AM
...because everyone who knows what a radiowave is would scoff at the idea.

Can you support this claim?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 05:35:52 AM
That was the obvious implication when you said this:

There was no implication, I said exactly what I meant to say. The only problem seems to be on your end. Do you think that all radio waves are microwaves?
Radio waves cover a wide range of frequencies, including, but not limited to, frequencies in the microwave band.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 06:01:14 AM
Can I conclude that satellites supposedly use radio wave?

Indeed.

Radio waves cover a wide range of frequencies, including, but not limited to, frequencies in the microwave band.

But do microwaves cover the radio band, Markjo? I hope you see what I'm getting at, here.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Junker on September 10, 2013, 06:19:15 AM
Ignore him, Phoenix.  He's obviously trolling, and unlike EJ, he's not going away.

Wow. Just, wow. It's going to take me while to come to terms with this level of stupid.

Both of you, please keep it out of the upper fora.  Either have a discussion, or don't post.  Consider this a warning.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 06:23:26 AM
Radio waves cover a wide range of frequencies, including, but not limited to, frequencies in the microwave band.
But do microwaves cover the radio band, Markjo?
Let's see, the microwave band covers from about 300 MHz to 300 GHz and the radio frequencies go from about 3 KHz to about 300 GHz, so I think that it's safe to say that the microwave band covers a good chunk of the range of frequencies used for radio.

Quote
I hope you see what I'm getting at, here.
I'm not sure if you know what you're getting at.  First you said:
Do you see any radio communication being used in space?
Which implies that that radio communication is not being used in space.

Then you said:
Even satellites supposedly use microwaves...
Which, following your previous statement, implies that microwaves are not a form of radio communication.

Am I misinterpreting what you said or are you just being deliberately vague and misleading?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 07:27:25 AM
Can I conclude that satellites supposedly use radio wave?

Indeed.

OK, let's just use the term radio wave regardless of its spectrum here.

But before I can engage in a discussion you first need to help me to understand your claim. I suppose it is safe to assume that you don't believe that moon bounce (earth-moon-earth or EME) can be achieved using radio wave.  What I don't understand is your argument. When you said "even satellites supposedly use microwaves... ", did you mean that satellites didn't use radio wave or you didn't believe that satellites existed or something else?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:49:55 AM
Let's see, the microwave band covers from about 300 MHz to 300 GHz and the radio frequencies go from about 3 KHz to about 300 GHz, so I think that it's safe to say that the microwave band covers a good chunk of the range of frequencies used for radio.

That's a lot of words to answer "no" to my question.

Which implies that that radio communication is not being used in space.

Does it? Or do you want to think it does?

Am I misinterpreting what you said or are you just being deliberately vague and misleading?

The problem appears to be most definitely on your end.

OK, let's just use the term radio wave regardless of its spectrum here.

But before I can engage in a discussion you first need to help me to understand your claim. I suppose it is safe to assume that you don't believe that moon bounce (earth-moon-earth or EME) can be achieved using radio wave.  What I don't understand is your argument. When you said "even satellites supposedly use microwaves... ", did you mean that satellites didn't use radio wave or you didn't believe that satellites existed or something else?

If NASA must use microwaves to reach satellites, then by what reasoning could any type of radio wave reach thousands of kilometers farther and hit the moon? Not to mention that this experiment requires you to be bouncing waves off the moon, something NASA claims it only did so with the aid of mirrors and they received a grand total of one photon back. Yes, they claim one photon proves they went to the moon.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 08:18:26 AM
OK, let's just use the term radio wave regardless of its spectrum here.

But before I can engage in a discussion you first need to help me to understand your claim. I suppose it is safe to assume that you don't believe that moon bounce (earth-moon-earth or EME) can be achieved using radio wave.  What I don't understand is your argument. When you said "even satellites supposedly use microwaves... ", did you mean that satellites didn't use radio wave or you didn't believe that satellites existed or something else?

If NASA must use microwaves to reach satellites, then by what reasoning could any type of radio wave reach thousands of kilometers farther and hit the moon? Not to mention that this experiment requires you to be bouncing waves off the moon, something NASA claims it only did so with the aid of mirrors and they received a grand total of one photon back. Yes, they claim one photon proves they went to the moon.

Now I understand better your claim. Well at least we agree that NASA and satellites do exist. Laser is possible to use on the moon because we have placed some mirrors on it. These arrays of mirrors make precision measurement of the distance to the moon using laser possible. It doesn't mean that radio wave cannot be used to measure the distance to the moon. It can but with less precision. Radio wave have been used to measure the distance to other nearby objects where there are no mirrors.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 08:18:58 AM
The problem appears to be most definitely on your end.
Then please clarify so that a simpleton like me can understand.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 09:13:56 AM
Then please clarify so that a simpleton like me can understand.

Microwaves are radio waves. (This part assumes you're using the broad definition of Radio waves, something normally only RF engineers use)

Now I understand better your claim. Well at least we agree that NASA and satellites do exist.

Is theoretical postulation not a possibility?

Laser is possible to use on the moon because we have placed some mirrors on it. These arrays of mirrors make precision measurement of the distance to the moon using laser possible. It doesn't mean that radio wave cannot be used to measure the distance to the moon. It can but with less precision. Radio wave have been used to measure the distance to other nearby objects where there are no mirrors.

Radio waves are one of the most efficient, but terrible ways to measure things. We use systems such as RADAR because we can shoot out radio waves everywhere without frying someone's skull (at least assuming you're not standing next to the emitter), not because it is an accurate measurement of aerial or terrestrial subjects.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 09:33:25 AM
Then please clarify so that a simpleton like me can understand.

Microwaves are radio waves. (This part assumes you're using the broad definition of Radio waves, something normally only RF engineers use)

Not all radio waves are not microwaves.

Fixed that for you because, as you just said, microwaves are radio waves, there fore some radio waves are, indeed, microwaves.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 09:40:28 AM
Now I understand better your claim. Well at least we agree that NASA and satellites do exist.

Is theoretical postulation not a possibility?

Of course it is possible but I personally am not into a discussion about something which is assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. It's kind not zetetic. I needed to know where I should stand. If you had said you didn't believe in NASA/satellites, I wouldn't have mentioned about mirrors on the moon. I would probably have asked you why you used something that you didn't believe yourself as an argument instead.

Laser is possible to use on the moon because we have placed some mirrors on it. These arrays of mirrors make precision measurement of the distance to the moon using laser possible. It doesn't mean that radio wave cannot be used to measure the distance to the moon. It can but with less precision. Radio wave have been used to measure the distance to other nearby objects where there are no mirrors.

Radio waves are one of the most efficient, but terrible ways to measure things. We use systems such as RADAR because we can shoot out radio waves everywhere without frying someone's skull (at least assuming you're not standing next to the emitter), not because it is an accurate measurement of aerial or terrestrial subjects.

Indeed, but although radio method is not high precision, it is enough to produce a value relatively close that scientists have obtained.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 09:52:26 AM
Fixed that for you because, as you just said, microwaves are radio waves, there fore some radio waves are, indeed, microwaves.

The term "radio waves" is all inclusive. Therefore the statement "radio waves are not microwaves" is correct.

Indeed, but although radio method is not high precision, it is enough to produce a value relatively close that scientists have obtained.

Which scientists? "scientists" is not a magical term used to refer to a conglomeration of trustworthy people as far as I'm concerned.

Of course it is possible but I personally am not into a discussion about something which is assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument. It's kind not zetetic. I needed to know where I should stand. If you had said you didn't believe in NASA/satellites, I wouldn't have mentioned about mirrors on the moon. I would probably have asked you why you used something that you didn't believe yourself as an argument instead.

Belief is not a prerequisite to debate.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 10:08:37 AM
I hate to side with a FE'r here, especially this one but I think he is correct about the distinction between radiowaves and microwaves.

ra·di·o wave
noun

1.
an electromagnetic wave of a frequency between about 104 and 1011 or 1012 Hz, as used for long-distance communication.

mi·cro·wave
ˈmīkrəˌwāv/
noun
noun: microwave; plural noun: microwaves

1.
an electromagnetic wave with a wavelength in the range 0.0010.3 m, shorter than that of a normal radio wave but longer than those of infrared radiation. Microwaves are used in radar, in communications, and for heating in microwave ovens and in various industrial processes.

Both radio and micro waves are types of electromagnetic waves that are defined by the range that they fit in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Here's the spectrum which I'm sure we are all familiar with:

Wikipedia actually makes this distinction:

Quote
Microwave technology is extensively used for point-to-point telecommunications (i.e., non broadcast uses). Microwaves are especially suitable for this use since they are more easily focused into narrow beams than radio waves.

Honestly, why is this even relevant? This is just a semantic argument.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 10, 2013, 10:11:25 AM
No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon, this thread is wrong and  I don't even have to read it, thanks for making it easy, RE'ers.

What information do you base your statememt ? : "No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon."

Well, the ham radio operators DID have their signals "powerful enough to reach the moon"..and "bounce" back to them. And they did do this for communications with other hams.
http://www.arrl.org/weak-signal-vhf-dx-meteor-scatter-eme-moonbounce (http://www.arrl.org/weak-signal-vhf-dx-meteor-scatter-eme-moonbounce)

The most commonly used frequencies were in the 432 MHZ Amateur Radio Band.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 10:13:40 AM
What information do you base your statememt ? : "No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon."

Well, the ham radio operators DID have their signals "powerful enough to reach the moon"..and "bounce" back to them. And they did do this for communications with other hams.

The most commonly used frequencies were in the 432 MHZ Amateur Radio Band.

Is there an antenna on the moon to verify the wave you're receiving is actually getting to the moon? Or are you just receiving a signal back from the sky and assuming it came from the moon?

Honestly, why is this even relevant? This is just a semantic argument.

Welcome to FES, go ahead and stay awhile.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 10, 2013, 10:16:53 AM
What information do you base your statememt ? : "No type of radio wave is powerful enough to reach the moon."

Well, the ham radio operators DID have their signals "powerful enough to reach the moon"..and "bounce" back to them. And they did do this for communications with other hams.

The most commonly used frequencies were in the 432 MHZ Amateur Radio Band.

The antennas were aimed at the moon. If you don't understand how this works, why don't you just contact the ARRL, some local Amateur Radio Club or some local Amateur Radio Club and they will be glad to explain how "Moon Bounce" works ? .....Oh, sorrry, my apologies....FE's don't do things like that.

Is there an antenna on the moon to verify the wave you're receiving is actually getting to the moon? Or are you just receiving a signal back from the sky and assuming it came from the moon?

I suggest we ignore all this nonsense. It's useless to post and try to explain it. In the jargon of ham radio, all I seem to be getting from "Rushy" is a lot of QRM ! LOL. In the words of a book reviewer who said of a bad book, "It's so stupid it's funny."  ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 10:19:28 AM
Which scientists? "scientists" is not a magical term used to refer to a conglomeration of trustworthy people as far as I'm concerned.

Here I refer to scientists as a whole, as a system. I trust in how the system works. When someone does a scientific work, he publishes his method and his result for anybody to scrutinize.  A scientist claims that a particle can travel faster than light, then everybody will do whatever they can to either confirm, deny or refine the result. As for me, I don't care which result they come up with at the end, because I trust that it comes out from the system.

Belief is not a prerequisite to debate.

That's probably where we differ.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 10:24:25 AM
The antennas were aimed at the moon. If you don't understand how this works, why don't you just contact the ARRL, some local Amateur Radio Club or some local Amateur Radio Club and they will be glad to explain how "Moon Bounce" works ? .....Oh, sorrry, my apologies....FE's don't do things like that.

That's a "no," then? Seriously. When I ask a question and the answer is an affirmative know, you guys can just say no. You don't have to give me a paragraph of poor excuses, because I'm not going to buy it.

You point an antenna at the moon and you just assume it's the moon bouncing it back. That sounds like what an amatuer would do. Ah, that's right. You are amatuers.

Here I refer to scientists as a whole, as a system. I trust in how the system works. When someone does a scientific work, he publishes his method and his result for anybody to scrutinize.  A scientist claims that a particle can travel faster than light, then everybody will do whatever they can to either confirm, deny or refine the result. As for me, I don't care which result they come up with at the end, because I trust that it comes out from the system.

Did you know scientists sometimes disagree with one another? They're not a monolithic entity you can refer to in order to make a point. "The scientists say so" is not a source.

That's probably where we differ.

Only the dull of mind live in echo chambers.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 10:27:05 AM

Here I refer to scientists as a whole, as a system. I trust in how the system works. When someone does a scientific work, he publishes his method and his result for anybody to scrutinize.  A scientist claims that a particle can travel faster than light, then everybody will do whatever they can to either confirm, deny or refine the result. As for me, I don't care which result they come up with at the end, because I trust that it comes out from the system.

Did you know scientists sometimes disagree with one another? They're not a monolithic entity you can refer to in order to make a point. "The scientists say so" is not a source.

Rushy, clearly Cartesian made that distinction.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 10, 2013, 10:27:13 AM
Which scientists? "scientists" is not a magical term used to refer to a conglomeration of trustworthy people as far as I'm concerned.

Here I refer to scientists as a whole, as a system. I trust in how the system works. When someone does a scientific work, he publishes his method and his result for anybody to scrutinize.  A scientist claims that a particle can travel faster than light, then everybody will do whatever they can to either confirm, deny or refine the result. As for me, I don't care which result they come up with at the end, because I trust that it comes out from the system.

Belief is not a prerequisite to debate.

That's probably where we differ.

I will admit to prejudice and bias, but I do trust the amateur radio operators on "Moon Bounce."
Quite a few of them are also professional scientists, engineers and technicians. The term "Amateur Radio Operator" is just a distinction from commercial radio stations such as broadcast or TV. Main word is "not for profit." Amateur Radio Operators do not charge for their services. Another acronym is "PICON" : "In the Public Interest, Convenience or Necessity."

P.S. I wonder if "Rushy" understands how RADAR works ? It doesn't depend on an antenna on the target to get a signal on the returnl. Just to be one step ahead:  If "Rushy" should say, "Well RADAR isn't radio waves !" (That's been posted before). Look up the acronym for "RADAR" : It's "RADIO Detection And Ranging." "Moon Bounce" operates on the same principle...Using RADIO WAVES of course. ;D
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 10:32:10 AM
Rushy, clearly Cartesian made that distinction.

No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

I will admit to prejudice and bias, but I do trust the amateur radio operators on "Moon Bounce."

Measurements without verification are completely useless as anything but a fun-time hobby. No one would actually publish these results as real data for anything above hobbyist designs. At least NASA had the decency to place mirrors on the moon.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 10:34:22 AM
Rushy, clearly Cartesian made that distinction.

No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

Well in some way it is like that. It's a checks-and-balances system.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 10:39:59 AM
Well in some way it is like that. It's a checks-and-balances system.

Science is a vote by majority, not a checks-and-balances. There are many, many broken theories that are kept around because other scientists built theories on top of them. Like building a skyscraper with the gound floor made out of straw.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 10:41:13 AM
No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

I didn't.

Only the dull of mind live in echo chambers.

I prefer to live in my round earth than day dreaming in your flat earth.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 10:47:20 AM
Science is a vote by majority, not a checks-and-balances.

Science is check and balance. The majority accepts a new theory not by vote but by counter checking it.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 10, 2013, 10:48:07 AM
No, it still sounds as if he is referring to "scientists" as a summation of a singular being.

I didn't.

Only the dull of mind live in echo chambers.

I prefer to live in my round earth than day dreaming in your flat earth.

Hear ! Hear !

I am also a snob when it comes to people making fun of Ham Radio.

But I supose it's the same way with FE'ers about people making fun of FE'ers. LOL.

I'm not going to make any rash remarks about which group is in the majority. LOL.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 11:03:03 AM
An example of science at work as a system. This is about the recent faster-than-light experiment:

Quote
On September 22, 2011, a paper from the OPERA Collaboration indicated detection of 17 and 28 GeV muon neutrinos, sent 730 kilometers (454 miles) from CERN near Geneva, Switzerland to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, traveling faster than light by a factor of 2.48×10−5 (approximately 1 in 40,000), a statistic with 6.0-sigma significance. On 18 November 2011, a second follow-up experiment by OPERA scientists confirmed their initial results. However, scientists were skeptical about the results of these experiments, the significance of which was disputed. In March 2012, the ICARUS collaboration failed to reproduce the OPERA results with their equipment, detecting neutrino travel time from CERN to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory indistinguishable from the speed of light. Later the OPERA team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside of their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 11:34:57 AM
Hear ! Hear !

I am also a snob when it comes to people making fun of Ham Radio.

But I supose it's the same way with FE'ers about people making fun of FE'ers. LOL.

I'm not going to make any rash remarks about which group is in the majority. LOL.

You make posts like these and wonder why posters ignore you.

An example of science at work as a system. This is about the recent faster-than-light experiment:

Here's an example of theories built on theories:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015)

Yes, they are working out the kinks of redshift, but it's takens them almost a hundred years to do so. Another kink (unrelated to the article) is pulsars having anomalous redshifts. So what does the Astronomy community do? Move the pulsars. That's right, we now have pulsars in the middle of deep space for no reason other than to match doppler redshift. Doppler redshift is one big science fail, yet few scientists are trying to go against it. The ones that do get ousted because the majority don't like it. It is even said the many Astronomers already know what they're looking at before they ever peer through a telescope. A sad state of affairs indeed.

If you think science isn't a majority-rules spectacle, then I'm sorry to say you've never been in science before. You only see through the looking glass.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 11:46:48 AM
Here's an example of theories built on theories:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1015)

Yes, they are working out the kinks of redshift, but it's takens them almost a hundred years to do so. Another kink (unrelated to the article) is pulsars having anomalous redshifts. So what does the Astronomy community do? Move the pulsars. That's right, we now have pulsars in the middle of deep space for no reason other than to match doppler redshift. Doppler redshift is one big science fail, yet few scientists are trying to go against it. The ones that do get ousted because the majority don't like it. It is even said the many Astronomers already know what they're looking at before they ever peer through a telescope. A sad state of affairs indeed.

If you think science isn't a majority-rules spectacle, then I'm sorry to say you've never been in science before. You only see through the looking glass.

I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accepted it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. If one day, that theory is later proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 11:52:12 AM
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that. You talk about verifying the data of others and at the same time trust those others to just be automagically right.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 11:58:13 AM
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that. You talk about verifying the data of others and at the same time trust those others to just be automagically right.

I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2013, 12:03:27 PM
I don't think you grasp what I said about science. If a theory is not accept it means it hasn't withstood the scrutiny from the rest of the world. If it survives then so be it. One day that theory may be proven wrong or incomplete, then they just need to adopt the new one or improve the old one.

The rest of the world doesn't scrutinize anything, in fact it is an impossibility for one to scrutinize all of science. The problem with experts in a field is they remain to be considered experts for far too long. You end up with 50-year generation gaps where the experts believe the same thing they believed to be true decades ago and judge everything by that.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 12:16:08 PM
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rama Set on September 10, 2013, 12:22:14 PM
I have explained my view and so have you. You are entitled to not believe in science if that's your choice.

A poor cop-out.

Sounds like you are making a blanket generalization that really should not be taken seriously.

Just calling you out on your pretentious BS mate.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 12:26:27 PM
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 12:34:15 PM
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)

You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 01:20:55 PM
You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

You skitter away from a debate like a roach from light.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Cartesian on September 10, 2013, 02:39:13 PM
You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

You skitter away from a debate like a roach from light.

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: robintex on September 10, 2013, 03:26:57 PM
One thing I have learned on this forum. Any thread is fair game for a de-railment or off-topic posting by any FE. Any facts and evidence presented by any RE is going to be posted as being faked by any FE. That's just the way it is and I have learned to accept that.

Back on-topic.:
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.
This is just one of many references.:
http://spie.org/x38304.xml (http://spie.org/x38304.xml)

This is just one example of observations that have been made by numerous observatories, etc. and have established factual evidence of their accuracy.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Junker on September 10, 2013, 05:32:23 PM
What do you expect to come out from this discussion hein? I believe in science and you don't. What's more to it?

At what point have I ever said I don't "believe" in science? (whatever that means?)

You enjoy the discussion about semantic, don't you. I am not impressed.

Guys, keep it on topic please.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 06:31:48 PM
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.

Amatuer radio is out of the question, because they can't even verify or pretend to know where their signals come from. Could be the moon. Could be space. Could be the NSA's backyard. They don't know the difference and they don't have the equipment to do any real work.

This is just one of many references.:
http://spie.org/x38304.xml (http://spie.org/x38304.xml)

This is just one example of observations that have been made by numerous observatories, etc. and have established factual evidence of their accuracy.

This phenomenon is just as questionable. NASA supposedly put mirrors on the moon, but, ah, wait, no one without a properly equipped NASA-endorsed observatory can actually do the experiment. Not to mention they tell you when you attempt it that it may not work because the mirrors get dusty or the signal is off. In the official experiments, NASA received tens of photons, in some they even received one. One single photon. LLR is complete baloney and they know it. Go ahead, do it yourself. When you come back as well with a "ah guys the signal trajectory must have been off by a few millimeters" and they sent you home, I'll be here to laugh and laugh and laugh.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 06:57:02 PM
BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.

Amatuer radio is out of the question, because they can't even verify or pretend to know where their signals come from. Could be the moon. Could be space. Could be the NSA's backyard. They don't know the difference and they don't have the equipment to do any real work.

Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice".
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:00:47 PM
Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice".

am·a·teur  (m-tūr, -tr, -chr, -chr, -tyr)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.
2. Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
3. Not professional; unskillful.

Notice how amateur is a noun and an adjective and you're trying to use the noun definition?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 07:26:30 PM
An amateur radio operator is a person, so why should I not use the noun definition?  After all, it is not uncommon for dedicated amateurs to be more adept than many professionals.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 07:32:54 PM
Rushy, don't confuse "amateur" with "novice".

am·a·teur  (m-tūr, -tr, -chr, -chr, -tyr)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
2. Sports An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
3. One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.
2. Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
3. Not professional; unskillful.

Notice how amateur is a noun and an adjective and you're trying to use the noun definition?

I'm a little confused about why you submitted all the definitions for the word. When a word is used, there is typically only one that is applicable.

"1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

So you can throw those other ones out the window. These are the people that usually have some experience in the field, now, it can be assumed that some of those other definitions might apply but I think just this one is the majority. These people who engage in the art/science/study as past time do so out of enjoyment and they may have started as novices but some percentage of them are likely to even be skilled at the art/science/study.

Now, if you want to debate the merits of an amateur's skill then by all means, take it up with an actual amateur radio operator but don't act like you know what you are talking about in regards to the subject. You're not even a novice. You have no experience whatsoever.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: odes on September 10, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
An amateur loves his field, while a novice is a beginner.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:37:12 PM
An amateur radio operator is a person, so why should I not use the noun definition?  After all, it is not uncommon for dedicated amateurs to be more adept than many professionals.

You just used the adjective again, Markjo. That's hilarious.

I'm a little confused about why you submitted all the definitions for the word. When a word is used, there is typically only one that is applicable.

"1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession."

So you can throw those other ones out the window. These are the people that usually have some experience in the field, now, it can be assumed that some of those other definitions might apply but I think just this one is the majority. These people who engage in the art/science/study as past time do so out of enjoyment and they may have started as novices but some percentage of them are likely to even be skilled at the art/science/study.

Now, if you want to debate the merits of an amateur's skill then by all means, take it up with an actual amateur radio operator but don't act like you know what you are talking about in regards to the subject. You're not even a novice. You have no experience whatsoever.

Please read my post. "Amateur" is not used as a noun anywhere in it. Also, if I don't post all of them posters call me out saying I'm purposefully using only one. Now posters are calling me out saying I'm using too many? Why are you being purposefully argumentative?

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 07:42:27 PM
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:43:44 PM
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

Turning adjectives into nouns, now? This is the best you can do? Shoo off, so I can wait for someone who actually fires off neurons when they post.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 07:45:48 PM
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

Turning adjectives into nouns, now? This is the best you can do? Shoo off, so I can wait for someone who actually fires off neurons when they post.

no, actually I'm not. I'm also not inclined to accept your cherry picked definitions so I'll cherry pick google's:

am·a·teur
ˈamətər,-ˌtər,-ˌCHo͝or,-CHər/Submit
noun
1.
a person who engages in a pursuit, esp. a sport, on an unpaid basis.
synonyms:   nonprofessional, nonspecialist, layman, layperson; More
antonyms:   professional
a person considered contemptibly inept at a particular activity.
"that bunch of stumbling amateurs"
synonyms:   bungler, incompetent, bumbler More
antonyms:   expert
1.
engaging or engaged in without payment; nonprofessional.
"an amateur archaeologist"
synonyms:   nonprofessional, nonspecialist;

According to Google the definitions that helped your case were simply synonyms.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 07:47:10 PM
An amateur radio operator is a person, so why should I not use the noun definition?  After all, it is not uncommon for dedicated amateurs to be more adept than many professionals.

You just used the adjective again, Markjo. That's hilarious.

So what?  How does the adjective definition 1 or 2 that you provided make amateur radio operators unreliable?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:52:18 PM
So what?  How does the adjective definition 1 or 2 that you provided make amateur radio operators unreliable?

Cherrypicking? And why are we even discussing this? You obviously don't have any real counterpoints in my argument.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Pyrolizard on September 10, 2013, 07:54:56 PM
If you take that 1st definition to be an amateur of any of those fields, whether it be science, art or whatever then its appropriate to follow the word amateur with the name of the field.

Evidently its an amateur doing science so the definition is appropriate.

Turning adjectives into nouns, now? This is the best you can do? Shoo off, so I can wait for someone who actually fires off neurons when they post.

Even by the definitions you gave, the use of amateur as an adjective can have reference to it's use as a noun.

am·a·teur  (m-tūr, -tr, -chr, -chr, -tyr)
n.
1. A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
1. Of or performed by an amateur.

"Performed by someone who engages in the activity for recreation rather than professionally", sounds accurate.

Perhaps make yourself clearer if you want to be understood and to debate the topic at hand rather than semantics.  Or you could go back to your bridge in the lower boards, either way.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 07:57:46 PM
Perhaps make yourself clearer if you want to be understood and to debate the topic at hand rather than semantics.  Or you could go back to your bridge in the lower boards, either way.

I'm not the one who started this little semantics tirade. Maybe you should actually read the thread before offering an opinion.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Pyrolizard on September 10, 2013, 08:00:31 PM
I'm not the one who started this little semantics tirade. Maybe you should actually read the thread before offering an opinion.

BTW the Amateur Radio Measurements were not as accurate as measurements made by using lasers aimed at reflectors on the moon and the measurements have been increasingly precise.

Amatuer radio is out of the question, because they can't even verify or pretend to know where their signals come from. Could be the moon. Could be space. Could be the NSA's backyard. They don't know the difference and they don't have the equipment to do any real work.

I did, and you were, by inferring that they were incompetent rather than well versed but not career professionals.

You also started the last semantics tirade by stating that radio waves weren't microwaves, which is in at least some cases false.
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: markjo on September 10, 2013, 08:18:00 PM
So what?  How does the adjective definition 1 or 2 that you provided make amateur radio operators unreliable?

Cherrypicking? And why are we even discussing this? You obviously don't have any real counterpoints in my argument.

What argument might that be?
Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: Rushy on September 10, 2013, 08:32:06 PM
I did, and you were, by inferring that they were incompetent rather than well versed but not career professionals.

You also started the last semantics tirade by stating that radio waves weren't microwaves, which is in at least some cases false.

Wow, you really didn't read the thread, did you? Why are you even on these forums if you don't know how and/or won't read?

Title: Re: Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.
Post by: sokarul on September 10, 2013, 08:36:41 PM
I did, and you were, by inferring that they were incompetent rather than well versed but not career professionals.

You also started the last semantics tirade by stating that radio waves weren't microwaves, which is in at least some cases false.

Wow, you really didn't read the thread, did you? Why are you even on these forums if you don't know how and/or won't read?

A poor cop-out.

You skitter away from a debate like a roach from light.