When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).
When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).
Neon produces red light.
When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).
Neon produces red light.
Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.
One thing that jumped out at me, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you think when he entered this area of blue he may have pierced the firmament and was in the waters above. But didn't you say he collected atmosphere from there? Was it water? Perhaps I am misreading what you wrote.
When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).
Neon produces red light.
Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.
Neon is the gas used for red you retart.
I thought you said Hydrogen is for red.
@ Bullwinkle Please give this topic the reverence it deserves. ;)
. . . . . evidence of the Tesla coil free-energy that our stars create?
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/97/5c/59/975c59692943cb30e51f293bf087a528.jpg)
Your second post, that would be post #2, you said the noble gas used for red in a neon light is hydrogen. First, hydrogen is not a noble gas. Second, neon is the noble gas used to produce red. If you made a mistake, own it, don't try to change the record after it's been written.I thought you said Hydrogen is for red.
No i said Argon makes blue and and you have been going off about red neon for just dreadfully long now. but fine you really want me to spell out irreverent things for you here goes. Colours have hues, so three things that are red can have different hues of red. Neon, Hydrogen, and Helium all produce different hues of red. Neon is like a ruby red. Helium is a mix between orange and red and looks kind of murky. Hydrogen red is like neon red but not as deep- kind of a chrismassy red
however making red with Nobel gases if so far from relevant to my original post, Bullwinkle, that this is just getting foolish
PS buddy, calling someone a retard and mis-spelling the word retard, is...well... pretty retarded.
I believe on day one God said let their be light; references both this free energy system being established, and the gases that make up our air being created. The atmosphere is made of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide, and Argon. Now the reason I believe that Argon and free energy is the light created on day one, is because Argon is a Nobel gas and so it conducts electricity.
There are no "Nobel" gasses! The "noble gasses" are:Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).Neon produces red light.
Noble gas
The noble gases (historically also the inert gases) make up a group of chemical elements with similar properties; under standard conditions, they are all odorless, colorless, monatomic gases with very low chemical reactivity. The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).
| (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg/640px-Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg) Other gases in discharge tubes; from left to right: hydrogen, deuterium, nitrogen, oxygen, mercury |
Ah, sorry for the misunderstandingOne thing that jumped out at me, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that you think when he entered this area of blue he may have pierced the firmament and was in the waters above. But didn't you say he collected atmosphere from there? Was it water? Perhaps I am misreading what you wrote.
Allow me to clarify. In reality Piccard never touched to firmament he only reached the outer atmosphere than descended. It was just a graphic designed re-enactment that Hennessy put out that shows him break the firmament. How ever the graphic designed re-enactment is only an advertisement, that added the firmament breakthrough to add excitement to the graphic. Nobody is actually claiming he broke through the firmament in his experiment.
here is the link for the add
I believe on day one God said let their be light; references both this free energy system being established, and the gases that make up our air being created. The atmosphere is made of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide, and Argon. Now the reason I believe that Argon and free energy is the light created on day one, is because Argon is a Nobel gas and so it conducts electricity.
How does one make the leap from "let there be electromagnetic radiation" to assuming that there must also have been matter created at the same time capable of absorbing energy and releasing it as more electromagnetic radiation?
Dude, there is just so much wrong with this piece you've written:
Third paragraph you wrote:
"Later breaking this record many times over in a total of 27 stratosphere-balloon flights and a final record of 23,000 miles(37km) in height."
23,000 miles is 36,800 km. The Hubble space telescope orbits at 353 miles. 23,000 miles is waaaay out there brother, well beyond the stratosphere.
Fifth paragraph you wrote:
"An article from the magazine Popular Science, Aug 1931 (published by Bonnier Corporation) explored the first record set of 10 miles(16km) high. Keep in mind, today's average airlines never see this height."
Average commercial airlines fly domestically between 36,000 (a little over 6 miles up) and 39,000 feet. Most large passenger aircraft are moving towards higher cruising altitudes to save fuel and increase range. The Boeing 777 cruises at 43,000 (7.4 miles). Military aircraft regularly fly above 50,000 (engine check rides go up to 95,000). Private aircraft like the Citation Mustang cruise at 50,000 feet as well. To say that average airlines never see that altitude is not 100% accurate. Some do and the number is increasing.
Eight paragraph you wrote:
"On a flat Earth, however, when you see the very same opposite-motions of the stars you come to the conclusion that the stars act as one big Tesla coil (energy taking the path of a geometric torus; to sustain and generate free energy)."
Except this isn't entirely true. Using the FE model, in the northern hemisphere the stars behave the same as they do in the RE model, but the same cannot be said in the southern hemisphere. If you envision the earth as being flat and covered by a dome or "firmament" with Antartica being a ring-shaped continent, then the location of nearly all the southern constellations stop making sense and become even more bizarre the further south you go. Obviously, this does not reconcile with what we can observe in reality meaning something is wrong with the FE model that requires further explanation (or abandonment).
You can conclude that the stars are one big Tesla coil but you would be a leaping to that conclusion.
Are you being reasonable with this explanation? Many gaps to fill, many indeed. There are numerous jumps in logic and some issues that you will have difficulty, if not find impossible to surmount given what is observable and proven.
There are no "Nobel" gasses! The "noble gasses" are:Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue (this is how Neon lights work).Neon produces red light.QuoteNoble gas
The noble gases (historically also the inert gases) make up a group of chemical elements with similar properties; under standard conditions, they are all odorless, colorless, monatomic gases with very low chemical reactivity. The six noble gases that occur naturally are helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).
The colour emitted when these gasses fluoresce are(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1941/2017/05/30162532/neon-20tubes.png)None are sky blue!
Other gasses fluoresce too:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg/640px-Gase-in-Entladungsroehren.jpg)
Other gases in discharge tubes; from left to right: hydrogen, deuterium, nitrogen, oxygen, mercury
There is no need to guess these things. It has been known for a lot time that
the blue colour of the sky is produced by the Rayleigh Scattering of sunlight. The molecules of the atmosphere scatter more of the blue end of the spectrum.
This gives us blue skies, red sunsets and a reddish colour on the eclipsed moon.
(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1941/2017/05/30162532/neon-20tubes.png)
:D I'll have you dragged before the anti-discrimination commission for posting that! :D(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1941/2017/05/30162532/neon-20tubes.png)
Reported for off-color posting
Yes, these things things have been known for a long time, all long before NASA was even thought of, many for a long time before evolution was ever thought of
The colour emitted when these gasses fluoresce are(https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1941/2017/05/30162532/neon-20tubes.png)None are sky blue!
There is no need to guess these things. It has been known for a lot time that
the blue colour of the sky is produced by the Rayleigh Scattering of sunlight. The molecules of the atmosphere scatter more of the blue end of the spectrum.
This gives us blue skies, red sunsets and a reddish colour on the eclipsed moon.
You say, It has been known for a long time that the blue colour of the sky is produced by the Rayleigh Scattering of sunlight. Well buddy, it has been known for a long time the sun is 93 million miles away. It has been known for a long time that flat-stationary earth you fall off, but round spinning earth you would not fall off. It has been known for a long time that God does not exist and were are all just monkeys. Its been known for a long time that NASA is your friend and would never steal from you,
its been known for a long time, you should just go to work everyday, and let your government deal with these issues for you. It has been known for a long time, that Gravity holds the mass of all the world oceans down, but not the mass of the insects or birds.I can't be held responsible for your ignorance about gravity. The force exerted by gravity is directly proportional to the objects mass.
The only problem is all these things, that have been known for a long time, are utterly farcical. You can feel free enjoying all that has been known for a long time, me ima question it all.You might think they are farcical simply because you have proven that you do not understand them.
PS that Argon tube looks sky blue to me (especially in reality not just in a pic)Note that the ;) "sky blue . . Argon tube" ;) is Argon mixed with mercury vapour. There is no mercury vapour in our atmosphere, I hope!.
third paragraghMy point about aviation is that the average altitude for commercial and civilian flights are getting higher. I agree with your observation but felt it necessary to point out that many aircraft regularly hit the 10-mile mark. To reiterate, I agree that your statement is correct.
Gumwars thank you for correcting me here, I have gone back to the original references (found in an earlier comment of mine) and you are correct from 23 miles I mis-wrote this to 23,000 miles. The error was in fact on my part and so I have edited my original post to not have that typo.
fifth paragraph
I make note to the fact that today's average airlines never see's 10 miles high, I stand by what I said,
Average commercial airlines fly domestically between 36,000 (a little over 6 miles up) and 39,000 feet.......less than 10 miles
Most large passenger aircraft are moving towards higher cruising altitudes to save fuel and increase range.......less than 10 miles
The Boeing 777 cruises at 43,000 (7.4 miles).......less than 10 miles
Military aircraft regularly fly above 50,000 (engine check rides go up to 95,000).......not an average airline
Private aircraft like the Citation Mustang cruise at 50,000 feet as well.......not an average airline
However the height of average airlines was not really the point in any of this. And I don't doubt that airlines are capable of travailing to 10miles plus, I'm sure they are (I don't know) the reason I said this, was simply to put into perspective, that he got higher than today's average flights go, way back in the 1930's.
Eighth paragraph
I say the stars act as a Torus (a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle) just like the Tesla coil. Which is a wild conclusion to come to based of this article. I did not come to that conclusion, however, based of this article. The idea that the stars create energy in its motion, and comparing the stars motion to a Tesla coil is an ongoing explanation of what the stars are there for, that many real FErs have been looking into for years.
As per southern constellations, I've only ever lived and seen the northern hemisphere and so I don't know what in-discrepancies the south has with their constellations. You say, "The location of nearly all the southern constellations stop making sense and become even more bizarre the further south you go." I will need you to explain this further. Bizarre how? What does not make sense?
lastly you say, "impossible to surmount given what is observable and proven."
When I look up I observe blue air, when Piccard went up he found blue air. What exactly are you observing, that would make saying the atmosphere is blue impossible?
In an airplane, 6-7miles high, I see a flat plane. When Piccard went 10miles up he saw a flat plane with an upturned edge. What exactly are you observing that would make saying, the plane looks like a plane, impossible?
True repeatedly verifiable scientific proof on what causes " Day light "
True repeatedly verifiable scientific proof on what causes "Day light "What a waste of time! Here is proof that your video is quite incorrect:[youtube][/youtube]
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8u2y62sno871uie/Comparison%20of%20Sunlight%20and%20Moonlight%20Spectra.png?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fxwumrg2cpe3i3a/Spectrum%20of%20blue%20sky%20-%20Wikipedia.png?dl=1) A spectrum taken of blue sky clearly showing solar Fraunhofer lines. |
| Helium: slightly more complex than hydrogen, with one yellow line and a number in the blue. | (https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_F05/spectralab_fig2_He.jpg) | ||
| Neon: a very large number of lines in the red give neon signs their distinctive pink colors, but notice the two green lines. | (https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_F05/spectralab_fig2_Ne.jpg) | ||
| Argon: the pastel color of argon is due to a wide range of lines throughout the spectrum. | (https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_F05/spectralab_fig2_Ar.jpg) | ||
| All from: IFA Hawaii, Spectra in the Lab (https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_F05/spectralab.html) |
True repeatedly verifiable scientific proof on what causes " Day light "
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
True repeatedly verifiable scientific proof on what causes " Day light "What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, that certainly is a dopey video.[youtube][/youtube]
Hey fella. Im happy to see, that not everyone one on this site, are completely conditioned by their education system. Im finding it very annoying, trying to break this enslavement, only to find out how many people just have walls up....its like they wanna be slaves, its like they're happy slaves. Maybe slaves isn't the best term, but it truly is like people will choose to be ignorant, knowing they have abandoned critical thinking, in-order to pursue something else...idk like lust, maybe. who knows? Anywho thanks buddy, this is a dope video.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9gx2rtvrzytmrx7/07-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sun near setting at Weipa | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mda31bn2xh10x4w/13-Weipa%20Sunset.jpg?dl=1) Sunset at Weipa | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ye32gcoujn3hopi/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North.jpg?dl=1) Sun almost gone |
Yes, that certainly is a dopey video.[youtube][/youtube]
Hey fella. Im happy to see, that not everyone one on this site, are completely conditioned by their education system. Im finding it very annoying, trying to break this enslavement, only to find out how many people just have walls up....its like they wanna be slaves, its like they're happy slaves. Maybe slaves isn't the best term, but it truly is like people will choose to be ignorant, knowing they have abandoned critical thinking, in-order to pursue something else...idk like lust, maybe. who knows? Anywho thanks buddy, this is a dope video.
Anyone who thinks our daylight comes from fluorescing noble gasses is more dopey than(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/e/e9/16.PNG)So what about you explaining the little things that are so easy to see with your own eyes, like sunsets:If I'm indoctinated,
Sun near setting at Weipa
Sunset at Weipa
Sun almost goneyou explain those sunset on a flat earth with the sun supposedly always 3000 miles above the earth without referring to your source of indoctrination.I'm so simple minded that if I see the sun appearing to be hidden behind the horizon, I believe that the sun is really being hidden behind the horizon.
:D Beat that for simple Zetetic Science? :D
I have never seen any convincing flat earth explanation, only gobbledegook about atmoplanic lensing and massive upside down refraction, what a laugh!
And you have the temerity to claim that we are indoctrinated!
third paragraghMy point about aviation is that the average altitude for commercial and civilian flights are getting higher. I agree with your observation but felt it necessary to point out that many aircraft regularly hit the 10-mile mark. To reiterate, I agree that your statement is correct.
Gumwars thank you for correcting me here, I have gone back to the original references (found in an earlier comment of mine) and you are correct from 23 miles I mis-wrote this to 23,000 miles. The error was in fact on my part and so I have edited my original post to not have that typo.
fifth paragraph
I make note to the fact that today's average airlines never see's 10 miles high, I stand by what I said,
Average commercial airlines fly domestically between 36,000 (a little over 6 miles up) and 39,000 feet.......less than 10 miles
Most large passenger aircraft are moving towards higher cruising altitudes to save fuel and increase range.......less than 10 miles
The Boeing 777 cruises at 43,000 (7.4 miles).......less than 10 miles
Military aircraft regularly fly above 50,000 (engine check rides go up to 95,000).......not an average airline
Private aircraft like the Citation Mustang cruise at 50,000 feet as well.......not an average airline
However the height of average airlines was not really the point in any of this. And I don't doubt that airlines are capable of travailing to 10miles plus, I'm sure they are (I don't know) the reason I said this, was simply to put into perspective, that he got higher than today's average flights go, way back in the 1930's.
Eighth paragraph
I say the stars act as a Torus (a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle) just like the Tesla coil. Which is a wild conclusion to come to based of this article. I did not come to that conclusion, however, based of this article. The idea that the stars create energy in its motion, and comparing the stars motion to a Tesla coil is an ongoing explanation of what the stars are there for, that many real FErs have been looking into for years.
As per southern constellations, I've only ever lived and seen the northern hemisphere and so I don't know what in-discrepancies the south has with their constellations. You say, "The location of nearly all the southern constellations stop making sense and become even more bizarre the further south you go." I will need you to explain this further. Bizarre how? What does not make sense?
lastly you say, "impossible to surmount given what is observable and proven."
When I look up I observe blue air, when Piccard went up he found blue air. What exactly are you observing, that would make saying the atmosphere is blue impossible?
In an airplane, 6-7miles high, I see a flat plane. When Piccard went 10miles up he saw a flat plane with an upturned edge. What exactly are you observing that would make saying, the plane looks like a plane, impossible?
The problem with the southern constellations, Crux and the star Sigma Octanis in particular, is that their locations are indeterminate with a flat earth model. As Antarctica is a ring, and Sigma Octanis in the RE model is located a few degrees off of the geographic south pole, where is this star in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica? If you pick an arbitrary location you'll find that it won't reconcile with it's known location relative to other positions on the map. Additionally, Polaris would be visible anywhere on an FE map, but we know that to not be the case as it gets closer to the horizon as you approach the equator and eventually is obscured by the planet the further south you go.
Looking closer at this particular problem, it seems FE was conceived by people that live in the northern hemisphere as it completely ignores what happens to the observable sky once you go south of the equator.
For me, this is the deathstroke. I have yet to see a flat earth hypothesis that explains, without breaking other things, where Sigma Octanis is in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica or why Polaris isn't visible to everyone on the planet. The only explanation that fits, and fits without error, is that the world is a globe.
but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
You do "make up" a good story... . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .
So what about you explaining the little things that are so easy to see with your own eyes, like sunsets:If I'm indoctinated,
Sun near setting at Weipa
Sunset at Weipa
Sun almost goneyou explain those sunset on a flat earth with the sun supposedly always 3000 miles above the earth without referring to your source of indoctrination.I'm so simple minded that if I see the sun appearing to be hidden behind the horizon, I believe that the sun is really being hidden behind the horizon.
:D Beat that for simple Zetetic Science? :D
I have never seen any convincing flat earth explanation, only gobbledegook about atmoplanic lensing and massive upside down refraction, what a laugh!
And you have the temerity to claim that we are indoctrinated!
yea buddy, some people will never see that the left photo shows an elongated reflection of the of the sun, a reflection only possible from light bouncing off of a truly flat surface.
some people will never see how the dispersing of sun-rays would never appear from a sun 93 million miles away,Totally incorrect for reasons given below.
as shown in the middle photo, some people will see the left photo, A beautiful capture of our Horizontal horizon,Thanks for the "beautiful capture of our Horizontal horizon" because
and honestly think they are looking at a curve.Maybe some do, I wouldn't know, but from a low altitude, even from a few thousand metres, the horizon on the Globe should look flat.
those people will not be listening to anything that may possibly contradict their paradigm, those people are indoctrinated. indoctrinated into a system that does not care for them, that teaches them to not care for one-an-other. a system that references, 'you are too small' to explain a big question, and your spinning on a rock to explain reality. a system that needs to be re-examined. putting aside our ego's, and exploring ideas that dont currently follow mainstream belief, maybe even contradict them, is a great way to start on the path of re-examining our ideas, ourselves, and even the whole damn system. but while many people like me try and explore such ideas, we are faced with just so many people who are ready to hate and hurt each other. read every comment on this thread and you will see rude, angry, offensive statements.....in a conversation about colors.Stop the irrelevant rubbish about indoctrination and overblown egos. Appealing to excuses.like that seems to indicate that you've run out of real evidence.
PS. Do you see, how in the zoomed photo in the middle, you can see land; but in the un-zoomed photo, on either end, you cant see any land. Can a Zoom function on a camera bring land back into view, if that land is beyond the horizon? i think notNo I do not see any land, because there is no land! Remember that I took those photos from Weipa on Cape York, North Queensland.
I guess he thinks that the jagged horizon line on the middle photo is land.Quote from: BehemothPS. Do you see, how in the zoomed photo in the middle, you can see land; but in the un-zoomed photo, on either end, you cant see any land. Can a Zoom function on a camera bring land back into view, if that land is beyond the horizon? i think notNo I do not see any land, because there is no land! Remember that I took those photos from Weipa on Cape York, North Queensland.
There is no land that you could possibly see even on a flat earrh.
It seems to rectify the issue if you don't question why the "double reflection" he talks about only applies to the stars and not the Sun or the Moon, if you accept that the stars will spin around over your head without ever rising or setting (despite observations to the contrary), and if you didn't notice he was playing games with the orientation of his camera (right-side up, upside down, and sideways at different times).third paragraghMy point about aviation is that the average altitude for commercial and civilian flights are getting higher. I agree with your observation but felt it necessary to point out that many aircraft regularly hit the 10-mile mark. To reiterate, I agree that your statement is correct.
Gumwars thank you for correcting me here, I have gone back to the original references (found in an earlier comment of mine) and you are correct from 23 miles I mis-wrote this to 23,000 miles. The error was in fact on my part and so I have edited my original post to not have that typo.
fifth paragraph
I make note to the fact that today's average airlines never see's 10 miles high, I stand by what I said,
Average commercial airlines fly domestically between 36,000 (a little over 6 miles up) and 39,000 feet.......less than 10 miles
Most large passenger aircraft are moving towards higher cruising altitudes to save fuel and increase range.......less than 10 miles
The Boeing 777 cruises at 43,000 (7.4 miles).......less than 10 miles
Military aircraft regularly fly above 50,000 (engine check rides go up to 95,000).......not an average airline
Private aircraft like the Citation Mustang cruise at 50,000 feet as well.......not an average airline
However the height of average airlines was not really the point in any of this. And I don't doubt that airlines are capable of travailing to 10miles plus, I'm sure they are (I don't know) the reason I said this, was simply to put into perspective, that he got higher than today's average flights go, way back in the 1930's.
Eighth paragraph
I say the stars act as a Torus (a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle) just like the Tesla coil. Which is a wild conclusion to come to based of this article. I did not come to that conclusion, however, based of this article. The idea that the stars create energy in its motion, and comparing the stars motion to a Tesla coil is an ongoing explanation of what the stars are there for, that many real FErs have been looking into for years.
As per southern constellations, I've only ever lived and seen the northern hemisphere and so I don't know what in-discrepancies the south has with their constellations. You say, "The location of nearly all the southern constellations stop making sense and become even more bizarre the further south you go." I will need you to explain this further. Bizarre how? What does not make sense?
lastly you say, "impossible to surmount given what is observable and proven."
When I look up I observe blue air, when Piccard went up he found blue air. What exactly are you observing, that would make saying the atmosphere is blue impossible?
In an airplane, 6-7miles high, I see a flat plane. When Piccard went 10miles up he saw a flat plane with an upturned edge. What exactly are you observing that would make saying, the plane looks like a plane, impossible?
The problem with the southern constellations, Crux and the star Sigma Octanis in particular, is that their locations are indeterminate with a flat earth model. As Antarctica is a ring, and Sigma Octanis in the RE model is located a few degrees off of the geographic south pole, where is this star in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica? If you pick an arbitrary location you'll find that it won't reconcile with it's known location relative to other positions on the map. Additionally, Polaris would be visible anywhere on an FE map, but we know that to not be the case as it gets closer to the horizon as you approach the equator and eventually is obscured by the planet the further south you go.
Looking closer at this particular problem, it seems FE was conceived by people that live in the northern hemisphere as it completely ignores what happens to the observable sky once you go south of the equator.
For me, this is the deathstroke. I have yet to see a flat earth hypothesis that explains, without breaking other things, where Sigma Octanis is in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica or why Polaris isn't visible to everyone on the planet. The only explanation that fits, and fits without error, is that the world is a globe.
Hey there Gumwar, I found this video that weather it is true or not, i think, is a pretty cool project this guy put together. It seems to rectify the southern hemisphere issue but i dunno, what do you think?
At the 2:25 mark you run into the first of two significant problems with this model; the first is that Polaris is well above the apparent horizon while standing at the equator. In reality, it looks like this:third paragraghMy point about aviation is that the average altitude for commercial and civilian flights are getting higher. I agree with your observation but felt it necessary to point out that many aircraft regularly hit the 10-mile mark. To reiterate, I agree that your statement is correct.
Gumwars thank you for correcting me here, I have gone back to the original references (found in an earlier comment of mine) and you are correct from 23 miles I mis-wrote this to 23,000 miles. The error was in fact on my part and so I have edited my original post to not have that typo.
fifth paragraph
I make note to the fact that today's average airlines never see's 10 miles high, I stand by what I said,
Average commercial airlines fly domestically between 36,000 (a little over 6 miles up) and 39,000 feet.......less than 10 miles
Most large passenger aircraft are moving towards higher cruising altitudes to save fuel and increase range.......less than 10 miles
The Boeing 777 cruises at 43,000 (7.4 miles).......less than 10 miles
Military aircraft regularly fly above 50,000 (engine check rides go up to 95,000).......not an average airline
Private aircraft like the Citation Mustang cruise at 50,000 feet as well.......not an average airline
However the height of average airlines was not really the point in any of this. And I don't doubt that airlines are capable of travailing to 10miles plus, I'm sure they are (I don't know) the reason I said this, was simply to put into perspective, that he got higher than today's average flights go, way back in the 1930's.
Eighth paragraph
I say the stars act as a Torus (a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three-dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle) just like the Tesla coil. Which is a wild conclusion to come to based of this article. I did not come to that conclusion, however, based of this article. The idea that the stars create energy in its motion, and comparing the stars motion to a Tesla coil is an ongoing explanation of what the stars are there for, that many real FErs have been looking into for years.
As per southern constellations, I've only ever lived and seen the northern hemisphere and so I don't know what in-discrepancies the south has with their constellations. You say, "The location of nearly all the southern constellations stop making sense and become even more bizarre the further south you go." I will need you to explain this further. Bizarre how? What does not make sense?
lastly you say, "impossible to surmount given what is observable and proven."
When I look up I observe blue air, when Piccard went up he found blue air. What exactly are you observing, that would make saying the atmosphere is blue impossible?
In an airplane, 6-7miles high, I see a flat plane. When Piccard went 10miles up he saw a flat plane with an upturned edge. What exactly are you observing that would make saying, the plane looks like a plane, impossible?
The problem with the southern constellations, Crux and the star Sigma Octanis in particular, is that their locations are indeterminate with a flat earth model. As Antarctica is a ring, and Sigma Octanis in the RE model is located a few degrees off of the geographic south pole, where is this star in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica? If you pick an arbitrary location you'll find that it won't reconcile with it's known location relative to other positions on the map. Additionally, Polaris would be visible anywhere on an FE map, but we know that to not be the case as it gets closer to the horizon as you approach the equator and eventually is obscured by the planet the further south you go.
Looking closer at this particular problem, it seems FE was conceived by people that live in the northern hemisphere as it completely ignores what happens to the observable sky once you go south of the equator.
For me, this is the deathstroke. I have yet to see a flat earth hypothesis that explains, without breaking other things, where Sigma Octanis is in relation to a ring-shaped Antarctica or why Polaris isn't visible to everyone on the planet. The only explanation that fits, and fits without error, is that the world is a globe.
Hey there Gumwar, I found this video that weather it is true or not, i think, is a pretty cool project this guy put together. It seems to rectify the southern hemisphere issue but i dunno, what do you think?
but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
Another way I have explored this, I figured if the moon is reflecting the suns light; both should be the same 'type' of light because they come from the same source, thus should have same or similar properties. I took two of the same sized, glasses of water and put one simple dollar store thermometer in each. By placing one glass under a patch of shadow, the other in light. I did temperature readings. The sun obviously heats the water and the shaded glass is the cooler of the two. Having not moved the glasses, and timing this when the moon was approximately in the same area of the sky, as the sun was, I did temperature readings again. My results (repeated by many others and verified). The moons light cools the water and the shaded becomes the warmer of the two.Do you know what is spectrum of light? If you want to know if light comes from same source then you build DIY spectrometer and look at the light spectrum. Like here http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/html/spectrometer.html
Anyways, I most kindly can explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, it appears to curve up to it, than directly into the ground. This can be figured out on the flat earth, by looking at the path of the sun. The sun makes a Circle. A circle can be broken into four motions; left-up, up-right, right-down, down-left. If you draw a circle, your pen will go from a downward left curve into an upward right curve. This is what is happening in the photo. That moment in which the sun set directly goes downward, is the moment in which the sun would appear to get further and change direction from our viewpoint, we don't see it change direction because at that point it has gone so far, it is past our field of vision.
Why are you under the impression the Sun doesn't account for all the light we get? What evidence do you have for this impression? At night time we have sufficient light? Sufficient for what? What quantity of light would be insufficient? On what basis do you support the idea that the Moon couldn't reflect "sufficient" light?but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
For many years now, I've been under the impression that the sun does not account for all the light we get. At night time we have sufficient light. It does not seem like a rock, said to be 240,000 miles away, said to be a quarter the size of the planet being shined upon, could reflect sufficient light.
What was the temperature of the water when you began? How many times did you record the temperatures? How frequently? Were the glasses inside or outside? What was the air temperature around the glasses? How frequently did you check the ambient air temperature? What did you do to control all of the other possible variables that could potentially be responsible for your result? How many times did you repeat this experiment?but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
Another way I have explored this, I figured if the moon is reflecting the suns light; both should be the same 'type' of light because they come from the same source, thus should have same or similar properties. I took two of the same sized, glasses of water and put one simple dollar store thermometer in each. By placing one glass under a patch of shadow, the other in light. I did temperature readings. The sun obviously heats the water and the shaded glass is the cooler of the two. Having not moved the glasses, and timing this when the moon was approximately in the same area of the sky, as the sun was, I did temperature readings again. My results (repeated by many others and verified). The moons light cools the water and the shaded becomes the warmer of the two.
Did you record any of these apparent discrepancies in any way? How much bigger did the flames get in moonlight? How much duller in sunlight? How much more quickly did the fire burn out in sunlight? Did you use a consistent amount of wood in each fire? How many times did you repeat this experiment? Have you speculated on why cold light would make a fire burn longer and larger than warm light?If you like burning wood, you will notice that the moons light engulfs the flames, and makes them bigger; the sunlight seems to do the opposite, makes your fires duller and flames not as long.but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
The Bible, or any other holy text for that matter, is far superior to any other writing for matters involving spirituality and faith. There are no "scientific alternatives" however, because there is no science.I took another angle with exploring these ideas by re-reading the Bible. I constantly find scientific alternatives that much more rationally explain things that science has gotten wrong. The fossils of the earth, the seashells found on mountain tops, the layers in which rocks are separated, all that science tells you millions of years are evident. Could be all rationally explained by the story of the biblical flood.but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
Given that Polaris is the pole star and has almost no apparent movement from the perspective of an observer on a spinning Earth, why do you claim this isn't "globally possible". Also, how long is the pole? How big is the aperture? How is it mounted? Can it be moved by wind, or accidental contact?You see I like to test my opinions, I mounted a poll to my wall outside that, when looking through it, you will always see Polaris. Whether it is March 21st, or if it's December 21st (not globally possible).but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
Your string and weight method from across Lake Ontario is not clear. How does a string and weight on your side of lake have anything whatsoever to do with a "true lateral line" stretching all the way to Toronto?Personally, I have stood across Lake Ontario and seen the Toronto skyline. It makes no difference if you can see the bottoms of the buildings or not, because the way I tested whether the Earth was curving away from me at such a great distance, is by using a string and a weight. I used this as a level to see a true lateral line. What i saw was the Toronto skyline, had the exact same ups and downs as my level was indicating i had. Anybody who thinks this would be impossible to tell from my distance must take into consideration, that the CN Tower (designed like a circular disk, set upon a pillar) would be a very strange and odd thing to see leaning away from you.but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
I hope this picture is a joke, because with a horizon distance of nearly 5 km, this plane would have to be at least a couple km in length. Are you aware of any aircraft that are that big? Again, I hope you were just kidding with this, but I am unfortunately afraid that you weren't...(https://pics.me.me/dont-worry-its-just-flying-over-the-curvature-via-communists-for-flat-26423615.png)but while many people like me try and explore such ideasHow exactly you are exploring these ideas? Twiddling with your thumbs, looking at the ceiling and fantasizing? Can you kindly explore the fact that when the sun touches the horizon, a little lower than on first photo, then sunlight moves parallel with the ground. And then go figure out how can this happen on flat earth.
It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.Unless the stars are far more distant than you are assuming so the parallax is minimal. And they are.
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at the alleged north pole .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at theallegednorth pole .
As already noted (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72054.msg1961305#msg1961305), the only difference between rotating stars and a stationary earth, and a rotating earth and stationary stars would be parallax due to the 8,000-mile baseline of earth's diameter, and that's waaaaay too small to be observed. Parallax due to the 180 million mile baseline of earth's orbit amounts to less than 10 thousandths of an arc second (0.000002°), and you're talking about a factor more than twenty thousand times smaller than that.As I understand it, parallax measurements need to be done at 6 month intervals when the earth is at opposite sides of its orbit around the sun. Even then the angles are so small that measurements are only accurate for stars less than 100 parsecs away.
It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at theallegednorth pole .
Polaris is not stationary when viewed from the equator, the north pole, or anywhere between. Since it's (currently) 39.65 arc minutes (about 0.66°) from the celestial pole, it traces a circle in the sky about 1.3° in diameter each day; this can be seen in long-exposure photos taken from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.
Like this one:
(http://astropixels.com/startrails/arches87/images/AST87-208w.jpg)
Polaris is the small bright arc framed within the Delicate Arch in this interesting composition from Arches National Park in Utah.
As already noted (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72054.msg1961305#msg1961305), the only difference between rotating stars and a stationary earth, and a rotating earth and stationary stars would be parallax due to the 8,000-mile baseline of earth's diameter, and that's waaaaay too small to be observed. Parallax due to the 180 million mile baseline of earth's orbit amounts to less than 10 thousandths of an arc second (0.000002°), and you're talking about a factor more than twenty thousand times smaller than that.
Your image and his can't be compared there. The one you posted is a significantly shorter exposure time, look at the difference in star trail lengths. No wonder you can't see Polaris moving in yours, it's not even enough for 15 degrees of rotation.It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at theallegednorth pole .
Polaris is not stationary when viewed from the equator, the north pole, or anywhere between. Since it's (currently) 39.65 arc minutes (about 0.66°) from the celestial pole, it traces a circle in the sky about 1.3° in diameter each day; this can be seen in long-exposure photos taken from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.
Like this one:
(http://astropixels.com/startrails/arches87/images/AST87-208w.jpg)
Polaris is the small bright arc framed within the Delicate Arch in this interesting composition from Arches National Park in Utah.
As already noted (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72054.msg1961305#msg1961305), the only difference between rotating stars and a stationary earth, and a rotating earth and stationary stars would be parallax due to the 8,000-mile baseline of earth's diameter, and that's waaaaay too small to be observed. Parallax due to the 180 million mile baseline of earth's orbit amounts to less than 10 thousandths of an arc second (0.000002°), and you're talking about a factor more than twenty thousand times smaller than that.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
The image you provided contradicts this image taken from the equator :
(http://darkerview.com/darkview/uploads/MKTimeStack20070421.jpg)
As we can all see from the image provided polaris is stationary from the equator.
This is only possible on a flat and stationary Earth.
Your image and his can't be compared there. The one you posted is a significantly shorter exposure time, look at the difference in star trail lengths. No wonder you can't see Polaris moving in yours, it's not even enough for 15 degrees of rotation.It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at theallegednorth pole .
Polaris is not stationary when viewed from the equator, the north pole, or anywhere between. Since it's (currently) 39.65 arc minutes (about 0.66°) from the celestial pole, it traces a circle in the sky about 1.3° in diameter each day; this can be seen in long-exposure photos taken from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.
Like this one:
(http://astropixels.com/startrails/arches87/images/AST87-208w.jpg)
Polaris is the small bright arc framed within the Delicate Arch in this interesting composition from Arches National Park in Utah.
As already noted (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72054.msg1961305#msg1961305), the only difference between rotating stars and a stationary earth, and a rotating earth and stationary stars would be parallax due to the 8,000-mile baseline of earth's diameter, and that's waaaaay too small to be observed. Parallax due to the 180 million mile baseline of earth's orbit amounts to less than 10 thousandths of an arc second (0.000002°), and you're talking about a factor more than twenty thousand times smaller than that.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
The image you provided contradicts this image taken from the equator :
(http://darkerview.com/darkview/uploads/MKTimeStack20070421.jpg)
As we can all see from the image provided polaris is stationary from the equator.
This is only possible on a flat and stationary Earth.
Whether the images can be compared or not is irrelevant.Except when YOU are comparing them, and then how well they compare is very relevant. Use your head!
The image I provided shows polaris to be stationary ; this is only possible on a flat and stationary Earth.Your premise is false. Outside of a small wobble, Polaris would appear stationary if it were directly above the axis of rotation for a spinning, spherical Earth. It's not, so there is a small amount of movement seen over time, as the first photo clearly shows. Besides, your photo doesn't show Polaris as stationary, it has just moved less because of the shorter exposure time.
It wouldn't be globally possible to observe polaris from the equator with time laspe photography and for it to appear stationary.Partly true as Polaris is not quite on the North Celestial Pole. Its Declination is +89° 15′ 51″, not quite the +90° needed.
| Northern view. The Northern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon. (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-North-1200x800-cp8.jpg) | Western view. On the Equator line, the stars set vertically to the West (and rise vertically to the East) (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-West-1200x800-cp8.jpg) | Southern view, Southern pole is the center of the circles made by the stars due to the Earth rotation and is located on the horizon. A bright meteor left its "footprint" on the picture near the Southern pole. (http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/SGU-From-pole-to-pole-South-1200x800-cp8.jpg) |
This observation is only possible if the stars rotate around the earth it would not be possible if the earth was rotating.Totally incorrect! You are mixing up your Silly Pizza Planet with the the true Heliocentric Globe.
If the earth was rotating the only place polaris would be stationary would be at the alleged north pole.
Polaris is not stationary when viewed from the equator, the north pole, or anywhere between. Since it's (currently) 39.65 arc minutes (about 0.66°) from the celestial pole, it traces a circle in the sky about 1.3° in diameter each day; this can be seen in long-exposure photos taken from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.
Like this one:
(http://astropixels.com/startrails/arches87/images/AST87-208w.jpg)
Polaris is the small bright arc framed within the Delicate Arch in this interesting composition from Arches National Park in Utah.
The image you provided contradicts this image taken from the equator :
(http://darkerview.com/darkview/uploads/MKTimeStack20070421.jpg)
Your image and his can't be compared there. The one you posted is a significantly shorter exposure time, look at the difference in star trail lengths. No wonder you can't see Polaris moving in yours, it's not even enough for 15 degrees of rotation.Whether the images can be compared or not is irrelevant.
The image I provided shows polaris to be stationary
The distances involved in your heliocentric model have been proven to be false using parallax.
The parallax observed and verified is an undeniable fact.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.I could not care less what you might "not find. . . . acceptable"
The image you provided contradicts this image taken from the equator :Sure does "contradicts this image"! Your photo is NOT taken from the equator, just as the one taken in Utah is not taken from the equator.
(http://darkerview.com/darkview/uploads/MKTimeStack20070421.jpg)
As we can all see from the image provided polaris is stationary from the equator.Of course it's stationary it is a still photo. In case you had not heard still photos are always stationary.
This is only possible on a flat and stationary Earth.Totally incorrect, as has been explained before!
One interesting point I have to mention is that the distance to polaris can be detrmined by using the parallax.You have only just learned that. What on earth do think you are doing discussion astronomy if you are not familiar with parallax?
For example polaris is at 90 degrees from the north pole and my guesstimation from the image provided is that polaris appears to be about 15 degrees above the horizon at the equator.Sorry to disappoint you, but the stellar parallax of Polaris is far too small to measure over a distance of only 6000 miles.
Obviously the problem arises that I do not know the true distance from the alleged north pole to the alleged equator.
So one can only use the distances provided by your heliocentric brethren that have been provided for your imaginary Globe.
Stellar ParallaxAnd for your information, the stellar parallax of Polaris is too small to measure with any accuracy on any earth based telescope.
A nearby star's apparent movement against the background of more distant stars as the Earth revolves around the Sun is referred to as stellar parallax.
Read all about it in: HyperPhysics, Stellar Parallax (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/para.html)
That said the distance I used for simplicity was 6000 miles.Totally untrue! The elevation of Polaris from the equation is near enough to 0° so try again!
So one can draw a line on a piece of paper at 60 mm and then draw another line at 90 degrees at the edge of the 60mm line and then draw another line at the other end of the 60mm line at 15 degrees .
Where the two lines intersect above the 60mm line will determine the distance of the said object.Total utter rubbish! I think you drank too many bottles or your "favourate(sic) porteguese(sicker) red" before you put pen to paaer.
That said it is impossible for polaris to be 2511000000000000 miles away from earth with the angles observed and verified. ( I apologise if my maths is out I'm currently enjoying my secon bottle of my favourate porteguese red )
I discovered this method from observing that the great Samuel Rowbotham's debating name was parallax.So that's you trouble! Samuel Birley Rowbotham was certainly no astronomer and is confused about many things!
He left this as his legacy to us modern flat earthers for he knew what was to come.
I will go into much greater detail on this in another one of my threads.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.I could not care less what you might "not find. . . . acceptable"Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe image you provided contradicts this image taken from the equator :Sure does "contradicts this image"! Your photo is NOT taken from the equator, just as the one taken in Utah is not taken from the equator.
(http://darkerview.com/darkview/uploads/MKTimeStack20070421.jpg)Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileAs we can all see from the image provided polaris is stationary from the equator.Of course it's stationary it is a still photo. In case you had not heard still photos are always stationary.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThis is only possible on a flat and stationary Earth.Totally incorrect, as has been explained before!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileOne interesting point I have to mention is that the distance to polaris can be detrmined by using the parallax.You have only just learned that. What on earth do think you are doing discussion astronomy if you are not familiar with parallax?Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileFor example polaris is at 90 degrees from the north pole and my guesstimation from the image provided is that polaris appears to be about 15 degrees above the horizon at the equator.Sorry to disappoint you, but the stellar parallax of Polaris is far too small to measure over a distance of only 6000 miles.
Obviously the problem arises that I do not know the true distance from the alleged north pole to the alleged equator.
So one can only use the distances provided by your heliocentric brethren that have been provided for your imaginary Globe.
Please learn a bit more about what Stellar Parallax is before you make a bigger fool of yourself!QuoteStellar ParallaxAnd for your information, the stellar parallax of Polaris is too small to measure with any accuracy on any earth based telescope.
A nearby star's apparent movement against the background of more distant stars as the Earth revolves around the Sun is referred to as stellar parallax.
Read all about it in: HyperPhysics, Stellar Parallax (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/para.html)
So all the rest of your "wonderful post" is a total heap of useless rubbish!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThat said the distance I used for simplicity was 6000 miles.Totally untrue! The elevation of Polaris from the equation is near enough to 0° so try again!
So one can draw a line on a piece of paper at 60 mm and then draw another line at 90 degrees at the edge of the 60mm line and then draw another line at the other end of the 60mm line at 15 degrees .Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileWhere the two lines intersect above the 60mm line will determine the distance of the said object.Total utter rubbish! I think you drank too many bottles or your "favourate(sic) porteguese(sicker) red" before you put pen to paaer.
That said it is impossible for polaris to be 2511000000000000 miles away from earth with the angles observed and verified. ( I apologise if my maths is out I'm currently enjoying my secon bottle of my favourate porteguese red )
Besides, once again you are tying to deceive everybody by using flat earth arguments to disprove the Heliocentric Globe.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileI discovered this method from observing that the great Samuel Rowbotham's debating name was parallax.So that's you trouble! Samuel Birley Rowbotham was certainly no astronomer and is confused about many things!
He left this as his legacy to us modern flat earthers for he knew what was to come.
If that and YouTube is where your information comes from, it's no wonder yoou are totally ignorant on the Heliocentric Globe and Astronomy.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileI will go into much greater detail on this in another one of my threads.
Are you really capable of making a bigger fool of yourself that you have already, wonders will never cease.
But Mr Resistance.is.Futile if you are going to argue against the Heliocentric Globe model, you MUST use the correct Heliocentric Globe model.Anything less than that, as you have been doing, is deceptive and nothing more than a totally useless and meaningless straw-man argument.But, you know all about that, it's all you ever do.
Bye, for now, Mr Deception.is.Futile.
PS In case you need to know the stellar parallax of Polaris is 7.54 ± 0.11 mas
from which anyone could work out the distance as about 4.1015 km or about 433 light years - near enough!
This image that you, yourself (almost) posted proves that the earth is not "earth is flat and stationary":
The earth is flat and stationary so parallax can be used to determine the distance of polaris.
The earth is flat and stationary so parallax can be used to determine the distance of polaris.
In my new thread I will entertain your ridiculous Heliocentric model by using the parallax of the Sun to determine the distance of the said object.
Quote from: Behemoth the Dinosaur link=topic=72054.msg1955935#msg1955935 date=1505693223When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue ([bthis is how Neon lights work[/b]).
Neon produces red light
Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.
Hydrogen is not a noble gas. The noble gases are: helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and the radioactive radon (Rn).Quote from: Behemoth the Dinosaur link=topic=72054.msg1955935#msg1955935 date=1505693223When electricity is put through Argon gas it creates a blue photon that is unmistakably sky-blue ([bthis is how Neon lights work[/b]).
Neon produces red light
Hydrogen is the Nobel gas used for Red Neon light. Argon for blue.
I came here on a theory I have that the upper atmosphere is made up of Nobal gasses. The top layer being hydrogen as it being the lightest.
Hydrogen glows from red to purple and blue, I think there is one more colour there. It's colour is dependent on the wave length of radiation that passes through it, which I am assuming has to do with the intensity of the sun passing through it.Very low pressure hydrogen glows when ionized by an electric current passing through it. Not simply by sunlight shining through it.
All the colours that it changes are seen in the sky from sunrise to sunset. That being said it makes sence to me that the most upper atmosphere is hydrogen, it has been stated scientifically that it is mai ly hydrogen, but they have little info on the upper atmosphere. Hydrogen is made by electrolysis of water, which I think is a natural action. Of the earth having a North and south Pole and ocean. The subsequent layers of atmosphere are made up of gasses by their weight.Below about 100 km the atmospheric composition is fairly uniform - it is fairly well mixed by air currents and diffusion.
Earth's atmosphere (https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/e/Earth%2527s_atmosphere.htm)Lots more details in there.
Below the turbopause at an altitude of about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere has a more-or-less uniform composition (apart from water vapor) as described above; this constitutes the homosphere. However, above about 100 km, the Earth's atmosphere begins to have a composition which varies with altitude.
Hydrogen is the main component to water, removed from its oxygen particle, I'm thinking that waters above may have something to do with this.I doubt it but there's only the slightest trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/9oz9rcberrc7yuf/Full%20Moon%20Photo%20-%20WA2-0624-083F.jpg?dl=1) Karijini National Park: Exposure: 2.0 sec at f/2.8 |
https://images.app.goo.gl/akx4NzpTJSrewAaKAWhere did you get the idea from that "there is actually very little information on what is actually in the upper atmosphere"?
It's based on wave lengths of radiation!
Also there is actually very little information on what is actually in the upper atmosphere, as it is too high for them to send research teams. What they do know is that it is made up of hydrogen, but they say it is in small quantities. So based on there lack or research, I figure there is still heaps of room for understanding.
Hydrogen glows from red to purple and blue, I think there is one more colour there. It's colour is dependent on the wave length of radiation that passes through it, which I am assuming has to do with the intensity of the sun passing through it. All the colours that it changes are seen in the sky from sunrise to sunset.Here you seemed to be claiming that the colours of the sky from blue overhead during the day to the reds and oranges of sunsets are unexplained.
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~etrnsfer/water.htmBut we've been discussing "why the sky is blue" not the colour of water.
We are not the first to call attention to the vibrational origin of water's blue color. However, Nassau, in his generally excellent book (8), The Physics and Chemistry of Color, credits hydrogen bonding in water with strengthening the bonding and thus raising the frequency of high overtone and combination bands. Such frequency increases would shift H2O monomer (gas phase) transitions from the near IR into the visible thus increasing the visible absorption of water. However, as we see from Table 1, hydrogen bonding causes the stretching frequencies of H2O to shift to lower, not higher frequencies. Atkins too invokes hydrogen bonding as crucial to the visible color of water and ice (9). Instead, it appears to us that the hypothetical liquid without any hydrogen bonds would still be colored, perhaps even more intensely than is actual water. Dera too invokes vibrational overtones as the origin of the red absorption by water; his work is notable for its thorough compilation of visible spectra of water. (10) Happily, the absorption coefficients that he tabulates for water sampled from around the globe show that the absorption seen in Figure 1 is characteristic of most oceans -- pollution has not altered the color of the earth's great seas. (10)
We were discussing hydrogen in the upper atmosphere. If hydrogen is partly responsible for the colour of water, could not it also lend colour to the sky?Have you read the cause of the "Sky being blue"? There is only a trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere, Hydrogen + oxygen makes an explosive mixture so there couldn't be much.
We were discussing hydrogen in the upper atmosphere. If hydrogen is partly responsible for the colour of water, could not it also lend colour to the sky?Have you read the cause of the "Sky being blue"? There is only a trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere, Hydrogen + oxygen makes an explosive mixture so there couldn't be much.
We were discussing hydrogen in the upper atmosphere. If hydrogen is partly responsible for the colour of water, could not it also lend colour to the sky?Have you read the cause of the "Sky being blue"? There is only a trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere, Hydrogen + oxygen makes an explosive mixture so there couldn't be much.
What's water made of rab? :o
We were discussing hydrogen in the upper atmosphere. If hydrogen is partly responsible for the colour of water, could not it also lend colour to the sky?Have you read the cause of the "Sky being blue"? There is only a trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere, Hydrogen + oxygen makes an explosive mixture so there couldn't be much.
What's water made of rab? :o
What is the real reason for the blue sky? :)
We were discussing hydrogen in the upper atmosphere. If hydrogen is partly responsible for the colour of water, could not it also lend colour to the sky?Have you read the cause of the "Sky being blue"? There is only a trace of hydrogen in the atmosphere, Hydrogen + oxygen makes an explosive mixture so there couldn't be much.
What's water made of rab? :o
What is the real reason for the blue sky? :)
Bendy light ;)