Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - corleone

Pages: [1]
1
Here you have the news:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/09/neutrinos-travel-faster-than-light.html

The paper explaining it all:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4897.pdf

And here, in an hour and a half (16:00 european time) CERN will webcast a conferency explaining the facts:

http://webcast.cern.ch/


What do you think, people?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / ┐How can this be possible...
« on: April 27, 2010, 04:11:25 PM »
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

...if gravitation does not exists?

3
Flat Earth General / Question about Bedford level experiment
« on: April 22, 2010, 11:43:37 AM »
I have read all about the experiment and still don't get the point of measuring temperature on both sides of the canal to take on account air refraction. I would measure refraction by taking different points of temperature vertically and horizontally trough the canal.  But, instead, Rowbotham only took two points of temperature and said "temperature is the same at both sides of the canal, therefore refraction does no happen" and that is entirely WRONG.

A temperature gradient of 0.11 celsius degree vertically can "bend" light and make it "follow" earth's curvature. And yes, this condition is pretty common over WATER BODIES. I can do the math if you don't belive me.

Following is my question: Did Rowbotham knew how refraction works? Did you, flat earthers, know this too?

From EnAG (2nd edition):

"There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air."

Also:

"Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water."

The first paragraph misunderstands refraction, and the second is entirely wrong (because it is contradictory with the first)

What do you say, flat earthers?

4
Flat Earth Debate / I'll test bendy light theory
« on: March 21, 2010, 10:02:00 AM »
Hi everyone. My goal with this experiment is to determinate if light bends or not, and if actually bends i'll provide some data about how it bends.

So, what's the big idea? Well, lasers, again. But i'm not testing the laser path, i'm testing its luminosity. I'll explain, in little words, how a laser works:

Usually they have two mirrors faced each other, one is perfectly reflexive, and the other lets some light going trough it. This is the "resonant cavity". The light is generated by the "amplificating medium" (i'm not sure this is the right expression in english) wich is between the mirrors. This medium, wisely chossen, is capable of "amplificate" light that "hits" it's atoms. The more light travels trough this medium the more is amplificated. That's why this medium lies between the mirrors, so the light can travel trough this medium lots of times. The semi-transparent mirror lets some of this light escape and that's what we can see coming out of the laser. This is a very simple explanation, if anyone want to know more about lasers wikipedia will do the job.

Now let's consider bendy light theory. Light inside the laser bounces millions of times in the mirrors, and if it's path is bended surely it will hit, sometime, the wall of the cavity. Say that it bounced six times before escaping the mirrors and hitting the wall. Say that withouth bendy light it would bounce 10 times before escaping the mirrors (wich are impossible to align perfectly) (also, when I say 6, i could say 600000000, it's an example). Every time the light hits the semi-transparent mirror some of its intensity escapes. Therefore the intensity of a laser it's not the same with bendy light or without it. We should detect more intensity without bendy light.

Now let's test this theory. How to make a laser "invisible" to bendy light? Easy: facing it vertically. The light will be bouncing up and down in the cavity between the mirrors. This is the direction that lights bends on, therefore light will not bend and will bounce 10 times (example) before hitting the wall of the cavity. If we hold the laser horizontally bendy light phenomena will be at it's maximum, and we'll see 6 bounces. Therefore I claim that:

If I measure the laser's luminosity in both cases I will obtain different values, being higher the vertical one. If I get the same values that means that light does not bend

Following there is my idea with paint (click on the image):

http://www.mypicx.com/03212010/bendy_light/

I can easily make the experiment with my lab's equipment (well, university one's) and provide photos, etc. All I need to know is if it will be accepted as a proof of the existence or not of bendy light. So FE and RE people are welcome to suggest what changes or improvements can be done to make this a real and valuable attack to the bendy light dilema.

As always, sorry about my english. I'm spanish. If something is not well explained, let me know.

Bye

5
Flat Earth Debate / REFUTATE THIS
« on: March 04, 2010, 04:17:19 AM »
Hi. I'm a physics student, and last summer I had the chance of working with CSIC, a spanish organization about science and particulary with IFIC, the "institute of corpuscular physics" for two months. It was a practice-like job. Well, one of my jobs was to analyze and process the data from ANTARES, a neutrino detector that lies at the bottom of the mediterranean sea. Neutrino are particles that travels without interacting with mater, almost. And are produced greatly by the sun. They don't reflect, they don't bend and usual matter is transparent to them.

Well, we detected, as we were hoping to find out, a massive source of neutrino from the sun. I saw the data. What is amazing about it is that, even at night, when te sun is "under the earth", we still detect neutrino from it, that came trough the entire earth to our detector. SO WE DETECTED THAT THE SUN WAS UNDER OURSELVES (f.e. over China), AND THATS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH RE THEORY. In your FE theory the sun is ALWAYS over our heads and that's INCOMPATIBLE with our experiment. So, what do you say?

Whoever wants to know more about neutrino, ANTARES, and stuff like that, there is plenty of information at wikipedia.

Also, how do you explain wind and cloud movement across the earth? It's all due to coriolis effect, a thing that only happens in a rotating sphere. That causes hurricans, sea flows, etc etc.

PD: sorry about my english, i'm spanish.

6
Flat Earth General / Just one question
« on: March 03, 2010, 03:59:37 AM »
Hi, I'm spanish, and I live in a city (Castellon) that lies at the bottom of a mountain, near the coast. Some days ago i went to the top of the mountain and i saw, at the horizon line, some islands, "las islas columbretes" indeed. They are over 50 km from the coast, and i surprised a lot when seeing them "what an awsome visibility". It was a really nice day.

Then i walked down the mountain keeping an eye at the islands and i noticed that, as I were lower I saw "less island". Those islands have a little elevation on them. There were a point in wich i only saw the top os the elevation. When I was at sea level again it was imposible to see the islands. This is only possible with spherical earth theory, right? if i'm wrong, pease illustrate me.

PD: sorry about my english, I hope I explained well.

Pages: [1]