Venus/Mercury/Iss-Atlantis Sun Transit - True distance Earth - Sun

And Mr. Sok, when you stop working in the lab there, do some serious research about how the original J. Maxwell e/m/ether equations were cut down to include just e/m, without the ether vortices...you might learn something...

They had to cut aether out because it was never found.

What? You said something about aether?

The scientific community now looks at the vacuum energy, another name for ether energy. The Ether name is one to be avoided in the physics industry, unless you wish to lose your job or grant money. Now it is called the vacuum energy, therefore they do not have to admit they made a mistake years ago when they wrote ether off as 'nonexistent.'

Quote

The scientific community found 'free' energy floating around in a vacuum, which they called vacuum energy. The concept is simple: in outer space there must be a medium for light to pass from the stars, because of the wave theory of light. To have waves, there must be a medium. If you throw a rock into a pond, it makes waves. If there is no water in the pond, mud does not make waves. Simply put: SPACE IS NOT EMPTY!

  That is wrong.  They thought light had to have a medium, thus aether.  But it was never found.  Water waves are no EM waves. 

Contrary to current views, the greatest scientists (physicists, philosophers) of history believed that Space must exist to necessarily connect matter and its interconnected motions.

Here are quotes, Mr. Sok, from the genius of your caliber, Einstein, about the ether:

Quote

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

We already know Einstein didn't like there not being an aether.  Nothing new.  He never found one either. 

Quote

The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
(A. Einstein, 1920) [note: So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory.]

With regard to the ether, Einstein states:

Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...

He put some "fudge" factors into some equations to cover there not being an aether.  He used those to explain his ideas without an aether. 

Quote

Nikola Tesla discoveries:

http://members.tripod.com/~lyne4lyne/tesla.htm

www.pritchardschool.com/novustesla.html (on google search)

http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xphysics.htm

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/radiant_energy.htm

As said before, Tesla had many ideas.  Some good, some no so much.  Mythbusters busted one of his myths. 

Quote

At the face of it, it sounds unbelievable, that vacuum which is considered by current scientific theories as a void or a state of nothingness can ever generate energy out of its own substratum. As per modern physics while 'absolute vacuum' or 'space' can no doubt transmit electromagnetic energy, in the absence of universal matter and its associated energy fields, there can be no energy-content that is ‘reality’ in space. The concept of ether filling all space and atoms as 'vortices of ether' introduced by Rene Descartes(1596-1650) and developed to a great extent by the close of 19th century found no favour in the early 20th century. Though the domain of reality was extended from matter to energy by Einstein's Relativity Theory, yet space devoid of universal matter ceased to have any substantiality.

It ended in the 20 century when one one found an aether.  EM wave can go through vacuums. 

Quote

The 'photon particle' theory fails as a carrier of E-M wave energy, under even casual scrutiny. It 'impacts then disappears'. It is made of no identified material, but supposedly has structural integrity, yet cannot be used in High-Energy Particle Accelerator/Colliders. Polarized sunglasses would not work if light were particles, but Polarized lenses are specifically designed for light as waves, including sunglasses and photographic lenses. Conventional Physics claims light to be a particle having 'momentum but no mass', in direct conflict with the simple mathematical formula that states momentum (Kinetic Energy, Ek) is mass at velocity; Ek = mv2 /2. The theory of light waves, propagating through the aether wave-medium, satisfies all of these observed phenomena.

Light has both particle and wave properties. Polarized glasses show this, along with things you can't even grasp.  Protons have been shown to have wave properties.  The equation for lights energy is on the front of my text book.  E^2=(pc)^2+(mc)^2.  As you can see, something without mass can still have p, which is momentum.  Go to your a store that sells windows or a shot that sells cool science stuff.  You can see a fan that turns by light.  The light gives its momentum to the fan to turn it.  Also those hippies in boulder use this idea to super cool a gas. They got a Nobel prize for it.

Quote

Regarding Gravity, the mechanism for generating gravity force has never been identified prior to this new theory first being publicized a number of years ago. The posited 'graviton particles' of conventional physics, have never been found. Newton avoided calling gravity force 'pull-together' or 'attractive' because he could not identify the mechanism. Therefore, the popular statement that gravity force emanates from mass (matter), to somehow reach out and pull things back, is a hypothetical possibility, but not proven. To do so, it would have to be a sort of single-poled attraction, reaching from a center, out in all directions. Such a mechanism has never been demonstrated, nor even theorized in Quantum Mechanics.

Gravity is not a force and it never was.  Newtonian gravity was disproven is Paris.  Gravitons have never been found and are not needed for gravitation being bent spacetime.

Quote

From Tesla's personal journal:

Part 1. You are wrong, Mr. Einstein – ether does exist!

Should I stop here becasue you yourself claimed Einstein liked the aether?
They say much about the Einstein’s theory now. According to Einstein the ether does not exist and many people agree with him. But it is a mistake in my opinion. Ether’s opponents refer to the experiments of Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) who made attempts to detect the Earth’s movement relative to the fixed-bed ether. These experiments failed, however it didn’t mean the ether’s non-existence. I always based as fact the existence of mechanical ether in my works and therefore I could achieve positive success.

What is the ether and why is it so difficult to detect it? I reflected on this matter for a seriously long time and here are the outcomes I have been led to: I think that all the contradictions about whether the ether exists or not are the result of wrong interpretation of ether’s properties. The ether has always been presented as an aeroform environment. That was the essential mistake. The ether has a very strong density. It is known that of more dense a substance, the higher is the speed of wave propagation within it. When comparing acoustic speed in the air and the light speed I have drawn a conclusion that ether density is several thousand times higher than air density. It is not the ether that is aeroform but the material world is an aeroform to the ether! But as the ether is electrically neutral it very poorly interacts with the material world. Notwithstanding that poor interaction we still can feel the ether’s existence.

A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another. We wrongly call this phenomena gravitation. We can also feel ether’s reaction when sudden acceleration or braking. The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense. It can be compared with formation of blebs in boiling water although such a comparison is only rough. The ether tries to return itself to its initial state by compressing our world, but intrinsic electric charge within material the world substance obstructs this. It is similar to that when the water compresses blebs filled with hot water steam. Until the steam does get cold the water is unable to compress the bleb. With time, having lost the intrinsic electric charge, our world will be compressed with the ether and is going to turn into ether. Having come out of the ether once - so it will go back into the ether.

Density of substance of material world strongly differs from the density and physical properties of the ether. Therefore, the ether cannot remain in a fixed-bed state around material bodies and under certain circumstances there will be an ether whirlwind appearing around material bodies. Hence, we can explain the reason for failure of the Maykelson – Morli (ed: Michelson-Morley) experiment.

In order to understand it let’s carry the experiment over to a water environment. Try to imagine that our boat is twirled within a huge whirlpool. We will try to detect water motion relatively to the boat. We will not find any movement as the speed of the boat will be equal to the rate of water movement. In our imagination let’s replace the boat with the Earth, and the whirlpool – by ether whirlwind, which revolves around the Sun. The example shows clearly that when on the Earth one can not detect the Earth’s movement relatively to the ether as the rate of Earth’s movement will be equal to the rate of ether movement. In my researches I always adhere the principle that all nature's phenomena show themselves equally whichever physical environment they would happen in. The waves exist in the water, air, ... and radio–waves and the light is the waves in the ether.

Einstein’s assertion of non-existence of the ether is erroneous. It is difficult to imagine radio-wave and light transmission without ether. Einstein says that there is no ether and at the same time, practically he proves its existence. For example, let’s consider the speed of the passage of light. Einstein states that the velocity of light does not depend on the rate of movement of the light source. It’s correct. But this principle can exist only when the light source is in a certain physical environment (ether), which cuts down velocity of light due to its properties. Ether’s substance cuts down the velocity of light in the same way as air substance cuts down the acoustic speed. If the ether did not exist then velocity of light would strongly depend on the rate of movement of the light source.

I understand what is ball lightning and how to transfer energy long range without using wires. Einstein tries to explain light movement when no ether environment by Plank quantum hypothesis. Will Einstein be able to explain ball lightning phenomena when without the existence of ether? There is no possibility of explaining ball lightning phenomena without ether!

Science took a wrong turn in 1887

Science has taken a wrong turn in 1887 when Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley conducted a famous experiment, called the Michelson-Morley Experiment. This wrong turn formed an errant foundation our current physics and science rests upon, starting from Albert Einstein (Einstein's Postulates & special theory of relativity) to modern day electromagnetic theory. This wrong turn will rock science to its foundation when realized. It will shatter theories and rewrite a century of books. Among the most devastating will be a crumbling of modern astrophysical theory on formation of our universe (big bang, age of, redshift, and more).

I didnt read much of that but ball lightning is a phenomenon.  Its not understood.   

aether detection:

pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf

If he detected aether he would have a Nobel Prize. 

kirlian photography
http://www.crystalinks.com/kirlian.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kf.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfgalery/gal.html

http://www.geocities.com/lemagicien_2000/kfpage/kfjava/kfjava.html[/quote]
What does this have to do with anything?  The first and second links go against each other. 

Ball lightning Tesla research

http://home.dmv.com/~tbastian/ball.htm

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20031205011112/http://www.mysteries-megasite.com/main/bigsearch/ball-lighting.html

Ball lightning is crazy. 

Maxwell’s Equations
Using mathematical models, James Clerk Maxwell had earlier suggested that two different types of electrical disturbances could possibly exist in Nature. One type was a longitudinal electric wave which required alternating concentrations of densified and rarefied pulsations of electrostatic fields that moved along a single vector (today, we refer to these as standing waves or scalar waves). Maxwell ultimately rejected this idea because he was convinced that this type of wave propagation was impossible to achieve, but his assumption was erroneous and would later portend formidable consequences for Tesla and the world at large.

Maxwell’s second wave postulation was that of a transverse electromagnetic wave that exhibited a rapid alternation of electric fields along a fixed axis that radiated away from its point of origin at the speed of light and was detectable at great distances. Maxwell had more faith in the existence of this type of wave and encouraged experimenters to look in this direction. It was the discovery of this type of wave that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.

Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day.

Tesla’s introduction to the phenomena of Radiant Energy began with early observations by linesmen working for Thomas Edison, Tesla’s former employer

DC Anomalies
Before Tesla’s invention of the Polyphase AC generator became the industry standard and overtook Thomas Edison’s use of DC generators, the DC electrical system was the only system available to deliver electricity to America’s homes and factories. Due to the resistance offered by long transmission lines, Edison had to produce very high DC voltages from his generators in order to deliver enough voltage and current to its final destination. He also had to provide additional ‘pumping’ stations along the way to boost the sagging voltage which dwindled from line losses. A curious anomaly occurred in the very first instant of throwing the power switch at the generating station: Purple/blue colored spikes radiated in all directions along the axis of the power lines for just a moment. In addition, a stinging, ray-like shocking sensation was felt by those who stood near the transmission lines. In some cases, when very large DC voltages surged from the generators, the “stinging” sensation was so great that occasionally a blue spike jumped from the line and grounded itself through a workman, killing him in the process.

Tesla realized almost immediately that electrons were not responsible for such a phenomena because The blue spike phenomena ceased as soon as the current stated flowing in the lines. Something else was happening just before the electrons had a chance to move along the wire. At the time, no one seemed to be very interested in discovering why these dramatic elevations in static electrical potential were taking place, but rather, engineering design efforts were focused on eliminating and quenching this strange anomaly which was considered by everyone to be a nuisance-except Tesla. Tesla viewed it as a powerful, yet unknown form of energy which needed to be understood and harnessed if possible. The phenomena only exhibited itself in the first moment of switch closure, before the electrons could begin moving. There seemed to be a “bunching” or “choking” effect at play, but only briefly. Once the electrons began their movement within the wire, all would return to normal. What was this strange energy that was trying to liberate itself so forcefully at the moment of switch closure? .

When electricity jumps, the light you see is from exited electrons in the air. 

So, before you have the nerve to discuss here with me, do your homework (which currently is nonexistent) man...

I don't know why posting this stuff makes you think you proved anything.  I already siad its common knowledge Einstein made some mistakes.  But do you know why we still talk about him?  Because his stuff works. From E=gammamc^2 to gravitation not being a force. 

Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...

You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...

Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.

You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.

You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).

Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.

Ball lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.

Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.

Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.

Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.


Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.

The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.

Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...

Opposed to you lackign the books that go against you?

You have just disqualified yourself from any serious talk here...or discussions...if anybody else is available to talk to these guys, michemus and sok, they are welcome...there's nothing more that I can do...

Execpt keep Ignoring the facts.  You think atoms don't exist. 

Mr. Sok, all those links prove very well that you are just the kind of scientist which stands with the toilet paper roll in his hands, next to Einstein, ready to offer him another sheet, if he needs it.

You are trying to tell me the toilet paper I am holding is a cow.  Those links go against what is observed. 

You have no idea what you are studying, or what you are posting here, and truly, I am sorry to tell you all this, because I would like to respect each and every one of you.

I know what I haev seen.  And I have seen what your old literature is trying to claim as false. 

You have not been able to address even one of the issues dealt with in the links which totally destroy the Einstein myth you are so fond of (I think actually that you will have great success in the physics industry; you will be able to make a good living by just agreeing all the time with the official propaganda; but you will never gain any respect).

I have address far more of your attacks that you have address of mine. O wait, you don't attack my arguments.

Kirlian photography (electronography) proves to you that the biomagnetic field which surrounds our bodies, has nothing to do with gravity and is not composed of gravitons.

Your own link says Auras are fake.  Read them again.
B

all lightning is a very real phenomenon; evidenced clearly by Tesla, and used heavily by the same government which in public will worship Einstein, to fool people like you.

lol UFOS now?

Read carefully what each link has to say; do not stop at just declarations about antimatter, about which you actually know very little; antimatter are not the positrons and antiprotons, antimatter is the aura/ether/field that surrouds each and every living thing; research the difference between electrons/positrons and how this applies to our discussion, the work done by N. Kozarev regarding levogire/dextrogire aminoacids, and living matter and how it relates to positrons.

You don't even know what antimatter is and your definiton of a plasma is not even close. 

Here you show your shortcomings again; Poincare was the greatest mathematician alive at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th (to be outdone only by S. Ramanujan, the Hindu genius); he knew very well that Einstein's work was completely false and a fraud.

Pioncare did not do this, but he did help with relativity.  Why do you ignore this? 

Sok, you have no business being here, discussing physics; your declarations of the kind "e/m travels through vacuum" disqualify you from any serious talk you might have with anybody on this subject. Tesla went all the way to Germany to show Hertz the mistakes he made in his experiments; to show him that e/m waves travelling in vacuum is a nonsensical concept; all waves travel through the ether; read Tesla's journal again and the books which prove the errors in Einstein's thinking.

You have no buisness here.  You follow old physics like its god.  I would say you worshp the Bohr atom but you don't believe in atoms. 

Michemus, study carefully the 5 sun paradoxes; read again and again the Impossibility of the Big Bang article; and you will be able to distinguish between true and false satellite photography concerning the sun's appearance. Study plasma physics (plasma being an intermediate state of matter between gas and aether); and you will be able to answer your questions yourself re: the radiation emitted by the sun. I just explained to you that there is no nuclear fusion going on inside the sun's core, H. Bethe was thrown out of Germany for incompetence, and was no scientist at all; how many hours have you studied the sun neutrino paradox or the coronal heating paradox? Study carefully the Hiroshima affair, and you will discover the survivors' accounts, which tell clearly that it was no "nuclear" explosion; the mushroom cloud was filmed in the New Mexico desert, while the cities themselves were bombed with liquid gas, just like in Dresden and Tokyo.

I have not studied said paradoxes but I have studied the "suna has to be gigantic to support fusion paradox" and the "tunneling" paradox.  Survivors of the bombs didn't even know what a nuclear bomb was, so how would they know what hit them?  Why did poeple die from radiation sickness?   

The photographs I posted prove to you, once and for all, that the Earth is completely flat over the strait of Gibraltar, between England and France, and between California and the S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands.

opposed to this one that shows Toronto behind the horizon?
  Your to new for this picture (unless you are 17 November, which is plausible)  It must suck to see it. 

Wey Sok, you lack hundreds of books and thousand of links to even understand what's going on in physics...I think that you are studying this subject, physics, against your true wish or calling...

Based on your criticisms on every single physics theory, I can only conclude that this claim is ironic.

And we all know your knowledge is directly proportional to the number of books and links you have.

Can't believe I missed this thread, tis a classic. Levee, you are totally bonkers, it's great 

Pwn3d!!11!

While I obviously disagree with Levee on many parts, I have to agree with Levee on some points.  I haven't finished reading this thread yet (heck who can blame me) but what stuck out is the stigma in the scientific community against Aether.

It most definitely is a word to be avoided.  Science again and again comes up with new names for aether just to avoid having to admit they were wrong.  Its a disagrace.

And its not just a matter of words.  They are trying as hard as they can to stay away from any notion that can be conceived as aether despite the facts staring at their faces.  Again, we see RE science being swayed by social issues and money.

My childhood home was in St. Catherines, with Lake Ontario and the CN tower in my backyard.  I never saw such an view.    Next time I make a visit to Canada (likely in the next few months) I will take a trip and document this.

That is not to say its not explained perfectly within FE theories.  I just honestly lived there half my life and never saw this.

Pwn3d!!11!

The Sinking ship effect has been accurately explained in FET for over 150 years now. In fact, there are experiments which indicate that the sinking ship effect is a proof for a Flat Earth.

My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat.  It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france"  and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".

My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat.  It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france"  and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".

That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the distance between the Cliffs of Dover and France, for example.

Since we know that a telescope can restore the hull of a half-sunken ship, and since there are many first hand accounts of this in the Flat Earth Literature, we know that the sinking ship effect is an illusion of perspective. If the earth were a globe a telescope could not restore a half-sunken ship.

Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2008, 09:46:47 AM

My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat.  It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france"  and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".

That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the cliffs of dover from France, for example.

Can we agree that Levee's White Cliffs argument was flawed in that respect?  From both of our points of view.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 13, 2008, 10:04:39 AM

Quote from: Jim on February 13, 2008, 09:46:47 AM

My point was levee used the apparent non-existence of the sinking ship effect to conclusively prove that the earth if flat.  It is ridiculous to say "The earth is flat because I can see the cliffs of dover from france"  and then when presented with the picture above to say "this proves nothing, it's a perspetive miracle".

That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs. The distance across Lake Ontario is longer than the cliffs of dover from France, for example.

Can we agree that Levee's White Cliffs argument was flawed in that respect?  From both of our points of view.

Agreed. He is selectively using evidence that supports his argument and discounting evidence that does not.

Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.

Username, I will provide here, the very best information on the Michelson-Morley disaster of 1887, so that all can see how the aether concept has been conveniently eliminated from the official physics.

Sok, I think that you saw that you need to study much more than you have done up until now; your level of understanding of physics is an eclectic shambles openly inviting anyone in the vicinity to rip it into shreds. You need to study the motivation which drove A. Michelson and E. Morley to perform the experiment of 1887, and what caused J. Maxwell to eliminate the vortex ether terms in his equations.

Here is a site which will help everybody to understand aether further (the classic material is of course, Tesla's quote which I posted earlier):

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html

The atom is an aetheric vortex, and not at all composed of particles. Plenty of sources, exceptionally documented to show you this fact.

Here's how the original Maxwell equations were modified, material you won't find in official physics course taught in universities:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773

http://www.indopedia.org/Talk:Maxwell's_equations.html

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm

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

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html

Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
( www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)

On the michelson-morley experiment:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.

And again, the extraordinary books which demonstrate the errors/fallacies present in Einstein's work:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm includes exceptional accounts of the errors committed by Galileo, Newton and Einstein

For those interested in the cosmogony-aether connection I can recommend three superb books:

http://www.amazon.ca/Kabbalah-Adolph-Franck/dp/0766146200

O.M. Aivanhov: Looking into the Invisible
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-into-Invisible-Intuition-Clairvoyance/dp/1895978181 and

http://www.transitionsbookplace.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=str&Product_Code=1895978076&Category_Code=AVNH&Product_Count=0



Now, let's get to the photograph posted by you...it is important, always, to include the original source of the photograph, just like I have done here, in order not to invite other kinds of comments...

Here's why:

This is an original photograph:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/c/d/0000r6ws_cdy7zd3s.jpg

And this one, modified:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/onthepage/various/pamant2.jpg

So, we would have to know the original source for the photo, but we will pretend that sok was correct and that he posted the right stuff.

Let us take a slight detour and investigate what is going in Holland, Michigan:

http://www.countrytours.com/Tours_US/ALM/images/map.gif (map of lake michigan)

And now the story, from a distance of 128 km (80 miles) the people of Holland can see clearly the buildings of the city of Milwaukee:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml

Observe the nonsensical comments made by the NWS, regarding atmospheric reffraction...this is a phenomenon to be observed, under special conditions, in the Arctic and the Antarctica, ice reflected by clouds, and you'd immediately realize what is going on...

Contrary to the official propaganda, atmospheric reffraction does not play a role in the flat earth/round earth debate...

Here are some extraordinary photographs showing mountains (distance of 150 km) from a city (sea level), no atmospheric reffraction at all:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg

Jim, we have all read your comments on these threads; my photographs shows clearly that there is no curvature, not even one micron, between White Cliffs Dover and Cap Gris Nez; you can whine all you want, and uncleverly try various play-of-words with us, but it does not work...





Sok, please specify the distance involved, the curvature, and who made this photograph, and where exactly it was taken, from where; we need more details, in order to analyze what you are saying here, see what Tom just said: That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs...

Shadowstrife, same comment to you; when you will have something interesting to say, please let us know; until then, study hard to see how a spherically shaped earth could not have possibly existed in the first place...I offer evidence that is well known to everybody, the White Cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, not to mention a binocular/telescope, and the photographs are included here with a source...so far nobody has presented any evidence re: the round earth that even would require more than two seconds of attention...

So, sok, we all waiting for your sources, distances, curvature, the whole thing...just like I have done here...

You can't possibly claim to make observations to that degree of accuracy from the pictures you posted.  You claim that the earth can't be round because you don't observe curvature over that (relatively short) distance, yet when faced with a picture that goes against your argument you blame it on refraction. 

Jim, I hope that you are all there...I never mentioned atmospheric reffraction as a possible motive for anything, on the contrary, I said that it cannot be taken into account.

The pictures show very clearly that there is no curvature, none whatsoever, between England and France; your theory says that there should be a curvature of 22.5 meters there; if there is not, as you can clearly see, then the Earth is flat between White Cliffs, Dover and Cap Gris Nez. Again, you can do your own experiment to find out for yourself how things really are when it comes to this debate...you will find that the Earth is flat.

Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.

Username, I will provide here, the very best information on the Michelson-Morley disaster of 1887, so that all can see how the aether concept has been conveniently eliminated from the official physics.

Sok, I think that you saw that you need to study much more than you have done up until now; your level of understanding of physics is an eclectic shambles openly inviting anyone in the vicinity to rip it into shreds. You need to study the motivation which drove A. Michelson and E. Morley to perform the experiment of 1887, and what caused J. Maxwell to eliminate the vortex ether terms in his equations.

If you studied more than me you wouldn't make such claims like: "Plasma is bewtween aether and a gas" and "Antimatter is not an positron and an antipositron."  An "antipositron" would be an electron.  Apparently you never heard of this.   

Here is a site which will help everybody to understand aether further (the classic material is of course, Tesla's quote which I posted earlier):

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html

The atom is an aetheric vortex, and not at all composed of particles. Plenty of sources, exceptionally documented to show you this fact.

And what about the millions of experiments that show that an atom is made of parts?  Your computer is using atoms right now.  WHY ARE YOU IN CAPABLE OF ATTACKING EVERY PART OF MY ARGUMENT? 

Here's how the original Maxwell equations were modified, material you won't find in official physics course taught in universities:

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1773

http://www.indopedia.org/Talk:Maxwell's_equations.html

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1835

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/050402.htm

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

http://www.angelfire.com/oz/cv/scalarweapons.html

And?  His equations work without an aether modifier.  Go figure.  Also, you know nayone and their mother can make an Angelfire site right?.

Abstract.
Maxwell's 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' abandons the theory of molecular vortices that was a central feature of his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force'. Even after writing part I of his 1861 paper, Maxwell realized that a purely hydrodynamical approach to electromagnetic theory is insufficient, and so he introduced electrical particles and gradually shifted over to a more dynamical approach. This article investigates whether or not any physics was lost as a result of Maxwell abandoning his theory of molecular vortices. The focus of attention is centred on equation (5) of his 1861 paper, as this equation contains components that can be demonstrated to simultaneously represent both the Coriolis force and the Lorentz force, therefore implying that the Lorentz force is a kind of Coriolis force. Since a rotating frame of reference is needed for a Coriolis force, it follows that the Lorentz force must depend entirely on the rotating aethereal substance within Maxwell's vortex cells. The conclusion is that Maxwell made a serious error when he abandoned his theory of molecular vortices, and that the physical explanation for the Lorentz force was lost as a result.
The Coriolis Force in Maxwell's Equations
(A comparative study of Maxwell’s 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field' and his 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force')
( www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf googlesearch in format html)

Its 2008 not 1864.  Physics has advanced since then. 

On the michelson-morley experiment:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040607062702/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/21.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611112531/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040612033435/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/23.htm

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html (chapters 5-10)
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://www.aquestionoftime.com/michmore.htm


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

They never found the aether. 

These papers by Michelson and also by Kennedy-Thorndike have conveniently been forgotten by modern physics, or misinterpreted as being totally negative in result, even though all were undertaken with far more precision, with a more tangible positive result, than the celebrated Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. Michelson went to his grave convinced that light speed was inconstant in different directions, and also convinced of the existence of the ether. The modern versions of science history have rarely discussed these facts.

And again, the extraordinary books which demonstrate the errors/fallacies present in Einstein's work:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm includes exceptional accounts of the errors committed by Galileo, Newton and Einstein

For those interested in the cosmogony-aether connection I can recommend three superb books:

http://www.amazon.ca/Kabbalah-Adolph-Franck/dp/0766146200

Repeat links and I already told you the errors are known to everyone but you. 

O.M. Aivanhov: Looking into the Invisible
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-into-Invisible-Intuition-Clairvoyance/dp/1895978181 and

http://www.transitionsbookplace.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=str&Product_Code=1895978076&Category_Code=AVNH&Product_Count=0

These have nothing to do with anything.

Now, let's get to the photograph posted by you...it is important, always, to include the original source of the photograph, just like I have done here, in order not to invite other kinds of comments...

  I don't have the information.

Here's why:

This is an original photograph:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/c/d/0000r6ws_cdy7zd3s.jpg

And this one, modified:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/onthepage/various/pamant2.jpg

Thats a screen shot of a flight simulator game.  Its not a photograph. 
So, we would have to know the original source for the photo, but we will pretend that sok was correct and that he posted the right stuff.

Let us take a slight detour and investigate what is going in Holland, Michigan:

http://www.countrytours.com/Tours_US/ALM/images/map.gif (map of lake michigan)

And now the story, from a distance of 128 km (80 miles) the people of Holland can see clearly the buildings of the city of Milwaukee:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/052803/loc_052803001.shtml

Did you even read your links?

Enjoying Memorial Day with some friends at his home on Lakeshore Drive near Riley Street, he looked out from his deck overlooking the lake and saw something he had never seen before -- Wisconsin.

As you gain altitude you can see further.  Its common knowledge. 

Observe the nonsensical comments made by the NWS, regarding atmospheric reffraction...this is a phenomenon to be observed, under special conditions, in the Arctic and the Antarctica, ice reflected by clouds, and you'd immediately realize what is going on...

Contrary to the official propaganda, atmospheric reffraction does not play a role in the flat earth/round earth debate...

Here are some extraordinary photographs showing mountains (distance of 150 km) from a city (sea level), no atmospheric reffraction at all:

Actually it does. 

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/p/f/000e97gt_pfo1rzkd.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/q/s/000e97gt_qsakwxgq.jpg
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/8/000e97gt_58sdair0.jpg

I see this every day.  Those pictures are around 20 miles.  Nothing in them proves a flat earth. 

Jim, we have all read your comments on these threads; my photographs shows clearly that there is no curvature, not even one micron, between White Cliffs Dover and Cap Gris Nez; you can whine all you want, and uncleverly try various play-of-words with us, but it does not work...

Notice how the pics are not from the beach.  What height were they taken from?  I already know you do not have an answer. 

Sok, please specify the distance involved, the curvature, and who made this photograph, and where exactly it was taken, from where; we need more details, in order to analyze what you are saying here, see what Tom just said: That would depend at what distance the sinking effect occurs...

Shadowstrife, same comment to you; when you will have something interesting to say, please let us know; until then, study hard to see how a spherically shaped earth could not have possibly existed in the first place...I offer evidence that is well known to everybody, the White Cliffs can be seen from France even with the naked eye, not to mention a binocular/telescope, and the photographs are included here with a source...so far nobody has presented any evidence re: the round earth that even would require more than two seconds of attention...

So, sok, we all waiting for your sources, distances, curvature, the whole thing...just like I have done here...

And I'm waiting for you to disprove one thing I have said. 

The only other person to ever claim atoms don't exist is 17 November.   He was owned in that argument. And since you might be him....

Also, your calculations assume the earth is a perfect sphere.

Sok, again, you seem very confused...and your photograph suddenly is starting to melt down...

What do you mean "I don't have the information."?

I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...

I am beginning to suspect that the photograph you have posted here without any supporting information (you say you don't have the curvature, distance, etc.), has been modified lightly and here is why:

If you type Seattle horizon skyline on google search images you will find pictures which do not confirm what you have posted here without any documentation:

http://www.numine.com/albums/alki_beach/skyline1.jpg (first page, Seattle horizon skyline)
http://peteandcarol.com/0303-Seattle.jpg (from http://peteandcarol.com/Slides.asp )

You see now, sok, unless you provide us with the information required, we cannot say much about your photograph...and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you did not provide us with a modified photograph...

Your comments about any physics subject become more and more nonrelevant...because you simply have not studied enough to know what is going on...I liked "the computer is using atoms right now", keep it up!!!...you do not know what you are saying in relation to the links I posted, especially the story from Holland...are you using English as a third language? I already provided all the information required (places, heights, photos, curvature, distance)...you have not so far...



Jim, even if you take into consideration a radius of 6300 km, or even 6400 km, it doesn't matter...modifications are very small...

I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...

The picture was taken from 50km, I believe that's a curvature of around 49m

What you believe is very nice...but does not apply here, Jim...let Sok provide the right information, and original sources...

You have no idea what distance is involved there, and what the curvature is...you are trying to get out of this situation now...did you really think that something like this would work with me here?

The picture came from Flickr, the photographer posted that infomation.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/4007941/

Tom, it is a pleasure to know that you are posting here, I thank you very much for your insights and comments.

Well of course, you are Tom.

Sok, again, you seem very confused...and your photograph suddenly is starting to melt down...

no

What do you mean "I don't have the information."?

I didn't take the picture.  Why can't you answer the heights at which your photos were taken? 

I asked that you provide the distance, curvature, and place this photograph was taken, and now you say you cannot provide this; therefore, we cannot comment on your photograph, which, for all purposes, could have been doctored with from the beginning (I am not saying that is was, but if you just post here from a link like: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/19953/2003794719891267896_rs.jpg nothing whatsoever can be said about your photograph until you provide what I asked for, curvature, distance, places, you understand?)...

I am beginning to suspect that the photograph you have posted here without any supporting information (you say you don't have the curvature, distance, etc.), has been modified lightly and here is why:

If you type Seattle horizon skyline on google search images you will find pictures which do not confirm what you have posted here without any documentation:

http://www.numine.com/albums/alki_beach/skyline1.jpg (first page, Seattle horizon skyline)
http://peteandcarol.com/0303-Seattle.jpg (from http://peteandcarol.com/Slides.asp )

They are not the same type of picture. The pic I posted is from water level with a telescopic lens.  None of the pictures you post are from the water level. 

You see now, sok, unless you provide us with the information required, we cannot say much about your photograph...and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you did not provide us with a modified photograph...

I'm still waiting for your information. 

Your comments about any physics subject become more and more nonrelevant...because you simply have not studied enough to know what is going on...I liked "the computer is using atoms right now", keep it up!!!...you do not know what you are saying in relation to the links I posted, especially the story from Holland...are you using English as a third language? I already provided all the information required (places, heights, photos, curvature, distance)...you have not so far...

ok 17 november.  Glad to see you cannot touch any of my arguments.  You cannot quote every line of what I post like I can do to your post.  You know nothing, thats why you try and let links to other websites talk for you.  But you fail at this as you find random links that fit what you want to believe and ignore the ones that don't.   

Sokarul, the time for scientific discussions between us (or that matter, between you and anybody else here) has ended. You have shown everyone that you simply have no idea why you are here, why you post messages...at the level you are now, you only know about 5% of what is needed to fully understand the heliocentric system, not to mention the rest of the theories out there...all your quotes and messages point out the fact that physics is not one of your strong points...the heights of the cliffs (when included) in my photos have been mentioned many times...even for hapless scientists like yourself...

Jim, we do not know exactly when that photograph was posted there, sokarul mentioned Seattle seen behind the horizon, those were his words, now you tell us it's Toronto...but it has been modified to give the appearance of a curvature...I'll show why...

Let me show you real-time photographs which expose the fraud in that image you posted...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg

HERE IS NOW THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH SHOWS THAT THE GUY ON FLICKR MODIFIED AND FALSIFIED HIS PHOTOGRAPH TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS ABOUT A ROUND EARTH, HE ALSO LIES ABOUT THE 50 KM DISTANCE...THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN REAL-TIME SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, IT WAS TAKEN FROM 53 KM DISTANCE FROM TORONTO:





http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

(Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom)

Sokarul and Jim, I suggest that you both take up Underwater Finger Painting; you have no credibility whatsoever left here...you have just given me the chance to show all of you, that the Earth is completely flat over the Lake Ontario, the above photographs show absolutely no curvature from a distance of 53 km (about 50 meters curvature, in case of a round earth scenario, which does not exist in reality)...have a nice day, both of you!

Sokarul, the time for scientific discussions between us (or that matter, between you and anybody else here) has ended. You have shown everyone that you simply have no idea why you are here, why you post messages...at the level you are now, you only know about 5% of what is needed to fully understand the heliocentric system, not to mention the rest of the theories out there...all your quotes and messages point out the fact that physics is not one of your strong points...the heights of the cliffs (when included) in my photos have been mentioned many times...even for hapless scientists like yourself...

Jim, we do not know exactly when that photograph was posted there, sokarul mentioned Seattle seen behind the horizon, those were his words, now you tell us it's Toronto...but it has been modified to give the appearance of a curvature...I'll show why...

Let me show you real-time photographs which expose the fraud in that image you posted...

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/77/69/23446977.jpg

HERE IS NOW THE PHOTOGRAPH WHICH SHOWS THAT THE GUY ON FLICKR MODIFIED AND FALSIFIED HIS PHOTOGRAPH TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS ABOUT A ROUND EARTH, HE ALSO LIES ABOUT THE 50 KM DISTANCE...THIS PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN REAL-TIME SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT, IT WAS TAKEN FROM 53 KM DISTANCE FROM TORONTO:





http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html

(Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom)

Sokarul and Jim, I suggest that you both take up Underwater Finger Painting; you have no credibility whatsoever left here...you have just given me the chance to show all of you, that the Earth is completely flat over the Lake Ontario, the above photographs show absolutely no curvature from a distance of 53 km (about 50 meters curvature, in case of a round earth scenario, which does not exist in reality)...have a nice day, both of you!

Are you really that stupid?  None of the pictures you posted are from WATER LEVEL.  Try again.   

You are losing your marbles chum or get a tutor. The photographs are self-explanatory.

You are the dumbass asking for explanations already provided in this thread that you can't understand anyways. You haven't proved me wrong at least once.

But I am here to help along the way...it does not matter from what height they were taken, given a curvature of 50 meters, unless you are in a hot air baloon when you make them; the photographs show clearly no curvature whatsoever over the Lake Ontario all the way to Toronto. If there was a curvature, it would be clearly visible, no mistake about that, you couldn't see the shoreline. Given a midpoint visual obstacle of 50 meters, if there was one, even if the photograph was shot from 75 meters in height, you'd see it (the curvature), you couldn't miss it; but, as you can see clearly, the height from which it was made is well under 50 meters, and then, you would have seen that curvature all over the screen, if there was one, drone-head.

Your photograph shows that it was modified crudely to include a curvature absolutely inexistent in reality. Get out of that comatose and muddled thinking of yours and see what the photographs I posted tell you: no curvature observable there, there is no ascending slope, no maximum midpoint curvature of 50 meters, and no descending slope to the opposite shoreline. Your photograph has been modified, I have to tell you again, by that guy on flickr, you have to be a real idiot to believe in that photograph, to give me the chance to prove you wrong yet again, or to base your opinions on shit like that, but in your case, it's no surprise...

Can you actually view the picture and/or think? See the picture again, re-read what he said, and try again.

fartshy94 ('94 means this guy is 14 years old...just reached puberty), you have no business being here...I explained already what is going on so that even you can understand...so silence from you, amigo...