sokarul, I think it is time that our discussion on this subject (photographic evidence/flat earth debate) came to an end.
Your involuntary thread bumping served a very good purpose: to let us all know that there is absolutely no curvature over the Lake Ontario (a distance of 53 km); the photographs clearly were made from a height of (well) under 50 meters (150 feet)...I think you are 1/10000th of this forum.
Your round earth wet dreams are very nice, but certainly you are no defender of the heliocentric system, nor a lawyer for Itzhak Newton.
I appreciate, though, your presence here, and wish you much success in all your endeavours...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michemus, a very good message from you...congratulations...with the exception of the photographs you posted which mean absolutely nothing and add nothing to our debate; they cannot be used for either flat earth or round earth theory discussions, there is no
subtle curvature there, as you say...; if you like photography, you have here at your disposal all the evidence you need to soundly prove the flat earth theory and to show that there is absolute no curvature at the Earth's surface over the strait of Gibraltar, English Channel, Lake Ontario and over the distance between S. Catalina/S. Cruz islands and California.
What is the point about the solar flares? Look closely at the first message posted here; the real size of the Sun and of the planets/Iss/Atlantis; research carefully the five solar paradoxes, one of them (solid sun surface paradox) will show you that the Sun is covered with a plasma layer...also the fact that between the Sun and the Earth we have the heavenly dome which actually protects us from all that radiation...also, I included some details which show what the real energy source of the Sun is, and that this source cannot be nuclear or electric at all, as evidenced by the sun neutrino paradox and the sun coronal heating paradox...
RE: sunspots...well, here you hit the jackpot because they prove that the Sun cannot have a spherical shape at all:
(from I. Velikovsky's Cosmos without Gravitation):
11. The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.
The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?
12. Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.
Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.
13.
If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary). Also:
The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.
Michemus, please read also
http://club.neogen.ro/religia/imposibilitatea-teoriei-big-bang-string-m-theory/186448/1 the impossibility of the big bang/string theory scenarios to see how from the start no stars/galaxies could have been formed in the first place, much information about the impossible scenario of a heliocentric planetary system...
And remember the five solar paradoxes...if I have the time I will describe them here...starting with the faint young sun paradox...
An extraordinary documentary for you: MYSTERIES OF THE SACRED UNIVERSE, it describes the theory of the flat earth as evidenced by Vedic Cosmology, it includes many wonderful diagrams/graphics which will be of help; the author, R. Thompson, however, superimposes his heliocentric views on the geocentric theory, but if we ignore this, we have at our disposal a very good source of information...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-538297875584368796&q=mysteries+of+the+sacred+universe&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0(
www.video.google.com, search mysteries of the sacred universe)
There are many other points and issues that we have not been addressing here...the fact the presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals (which, if you read the impossibility of the big bang article, you will see that they could not have been formed at all) from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have ben followeed immediately by cooling (I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, which I urge all of you to read right away, especially the chapters: In an immense Universe; The sun ages; The world ages; Origin of Comets; The quarters of the world displaced; The fifty-two year period; Poles uprooted; The Water clock; Disarranged months; Year of 360 days; Years of 10 months; more details in the next three paragraphs)...
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reason this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained.
The velocity of the axial rotation of the sun at the time the planetary system was built could not have been sufficient to enable bands of matter to break away; but even if they had broken away, they would not have balled into globes.
Also the origin of the salt in the oceans poses a very interesting problem for the heliocentric system, see:
http://www.varchive.org/itb/ecocean.htmAlso, if you have the time, read Earth in Upheaval by I. Velikovsky.
What Velikovsky does in his books is to totally destroy and demolish the Newtonian/Keplerian heliocentrical system, presenting thousand of references and many proofs which show that the Earth, in the heliocentric version, stopped from rotating around its own axis/orbiting the Sun, several times in the past several thousand years...
If we have the time, we will go into the unimaginable errors committed by Zecharia Sitchin (The 12th Planet), who interpreted in the wrongest possible manner the Enuma Elish, The Sumerian Creation Epic.
Two of the very best sites on past planetary catastrophism:
http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/othercat.htm http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmariThe very best proofs that the Earth could not possibly cause the lunar eclipse were offered by Rowbotham in
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm (just two mistakes there...the fact that he assumes it is the Moon which causes the solar eclipse and the fact that the Moon can and does reflect sunlight, which he denies apparently...).
What then are the two heavenly bodies which do cause the solar/lunar eclipse? To answer this question, for those interested, will take you into the most extraordinary search in the past, to reconstruct what happened 5.800 years ago (the first planetary catastrophy), 4.250 years ago (the Great Flood), 3.600 years ago (the Exodus), and thus be able to know exactly what is in store for us given that we are so near to the end of the Fifth Epoch (there is no global warming; the weather is changing because we are nearing the end of a world age).
Research the link between Tiamat/Nibiru, Rahu/Ketu, Fenrir/Hati/Skoll and the mysterious disappearance from the sky of two stars, 5.800 years ago, Sirius B and Sirius C (the records, including the Dogon tribe legends, explain clearly that the remains of the collision of Sirius B and Jupiter are what now orbit Sirius A; the star itself became one of our planets).